fallback options for well-qualified applicant

[Elly]

I am trying to figure out what my fallback plan will be if I do not get admitted to a top PhD program this year. Although there are many threads about the relative merits of masters programs in math, stat or econ, many people on this forum seem to perceive of these as most useful for rectifying a deficiency: eg a lack of math or poor grades. My question is: for someone who already meets all of the recommended conditions for acceptance into a top program, how much can I expect completing a masters to improve my application in a subsequent year? As a math major and someone interested in theory, I'm sure I would enjoy and benefit from a math masters program, however not enough to make the time commitment worthwhile if there was no expected admissions payoff.

[MWG]

As a well qualified math major applicant (hopefully have had taken stochastics), you know the answer better than anyone.
If you always seek a "buoy" everytime you swim, you wont swim fast
enough.

[reactor]

I think that there will always be a positive marginal contribution on the admissions' payoff. It might not show even the 2nd year if the student does not get admitted but still, s/he will have been rejected with smaller probability than the previous year. All these assuming that you do sufficiently well in the masters. "Sufficiently" means better than in your previous studies or, if you were top, again top. Having said that, the higher your previous performance was, the harder it will be to surpass it and then greater is the probability to mess your profile.

I had a friend with near excellent undergrad who did not do well (for various reasons) in U of T MA Economics and thought that almost ruined his whole profile. Nevertheless he managed to do some "damage control" and landed in a decent PhD program.

I think that taking a year off may not have negative effect on your application, it may "refresh" you, give you time to focus on the application procedure (collect LORs etc), perhaps make a better decision etc.
I find that a good summer (if not a year off) before serious grad school study has helped people. (there have been cases, however, of a couple of my friends taking a year off and deciding not to pursue further study; they were not top however.)

one of the buttons next to my post will give me "reputation" points and make me happy

[kkitkat]

Originally Posted by reactor

I had a friend with near excellent undergrad who did not do well (for various reasons) in U of T MA Economics and thought that almost ruined his whole profile. Nevertheless he managed to do some "damage control" and landed in a decent PhD program.

What kind of damage control? How can you recover from an unfortunate MA program experience? I ask because I had an unfortunate MA experience myself

[reactor]

Originally Posted by kkitkat

What kind of damage control? How can you recover from an unfortunate MA program experience? I ask because I had an unfortunate MA experience myself

This is somewhat off-topic but, with the implicit permission of Elly, I will reply .

1. Apply to lower ranked schools. No more "only top-10" schools. School in top 30-50 should be the target
2. Get the best letters you can get from your undergrad. No news here but I mean to emphasize "best" since now you have completed your undergrad and perhaps your undergrad professors can "endorse" you more enthousiastically.
3. Polish your statement of purpose and mention specific profs that you'd like to work with and pieces of their work as the reason.
4. Re-take the GRE in hope to improve at least the Quantitative part
5. Write a seperate sheet with a paragraph or two (to-the-point) explaining why your grades are low (perhaps a transition from undergrad problem-solving to grad proof-theorem approach, personal issues (?), changing major e.g. political science or business BSc/BA and then Econ MA.

These and luck worked for my friend. Yet, it is our silent understanding that he will never go a high as he could but, on the other hand, who knows what he "could have done" ?

now the reputation button please.

[asquare]

Originally Posted by Elly

My question is: for someone who already meets all of the recommended conditions for acceptance into a top program, how much can I expect completing a masters to improve my application in a subsequent year?

Remember that there is no such thing as a profile that guarantees admission to a top-5 or top-10 program. There are simply more highly qualified applicants than spots in the very top programs, and it's very hard to predict from among the pool of reasonable candidates who will and will not be admitted. If you don't get in to a top program the first time you apply, you have to make a decision: you can either attend a lower ranked school or reapply the following year. And you have to weigh the expected value of reapplying -- which includes the probability that you won't be admitted again as well as the direct and opportunity costs of your outside option, against the expected value of attending the lower ranked school. In the end, that's a pretty subjective decision.

I will say this: it is harder to improve a strong profile than one that has obvious but rectifiable holes. The expected outcome for the weaker profile might still be lower, but the payoff to investments in masters degrees, RA work, etc. will be higher (heterogenous treatment effects!).

Further, I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "top" programs, but remember that the top 10 schools are NOT the only places to get a good graduate education in economics that will put you on the path to a successful and satisfying career. The top 10 schools are the highest ranked for a reason, that is true. But they are not the only good options, and the obsession with getting into them on these boards is sometimes taken too far. IF you find yourself in the situation where you don't get into your top choices (and I hope that you don't face this at all!) I hope that you consider all of your options, not just building the profile and reapplying in hopes of a better outcome in the future.

[werther]

Originally Posted by kkitkat

What kind of damage control? How can you recover from an unfortunate MA program experience? I ask because I had an unfortunate MA experience myself

It seems several others share your sentiment from the same school and I am a bit anxious now (I was randomly emailing people). Also, I noticed they hired a new young instructor for micro theory (MA) and they no longer offer monetary economics I & II which I was really keen on taking.

I hope I don't have to dig this thread up a year from now- ah well.

[ekonomiks]

Originally Posted by asquare

Remember that there is no such thing as a profile that guarantees admission to a top-5 or top-10 program. There are simply more highly qualified applicants than spots in the very top programs, and it's very hard to predict from among the pool of reasonable candidates who will and will not be admitted. If you don't get in to a top program the first time you apply, you have to make a decision: you can either attend a lower ranked school or reapply the following year. And you have to weigh the expected value of reapplying -- which includes the probability that you won't be admitted again as well as the direct and opportunity costs of your outside option, against the expected value of attending the lower ranked school. In the end, that's a pretty subjective decision.

I will say this: it is harder to improve a strong profile than one that has obvious but rectifiable holes. The expected outcome for the weaker profile might still be lower, but the payoff to investments in masters degrees, RA work, etc. will be higher (heterogenous treatment effects!).

Further, I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "top" programs, but remember that the top 10 schools are NOT the only places to get a good graduate education in economics that will put you on the path to a successful and satisfying career. The top 10 schools are the highest ranked for a reason, that is true. But they are not the only good options, and the obsession with getting into them on these boards is sometimes taken too far. IF you find yourself in the situation where you don't get into your top choices (and I hope that you don't face this at all!) I hope that you consider all of your options, not just building the profile and reapplying in hopes of a better outcome in the future.

This post is great.

There's an article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, in which the authors find that a top student at Michigan fares better than an average student at Harvard on the job market (although there were readjustments in the opposite direction later on in their careers).

[Elly]

Originally Posted by asquare

Remember that there is no such thing as a profile that guarantees admission to a top-5 or top-10 program. There are simply more highly qualified applicants than spots in the very top programs, and it's very hard to predict from among the pool of reasonable candidates who will and will not be admitted.

Indeed, I am aware of this, thus the motivation of my post. :] As I said above, I believe I will find real benefits from pursuing a masters in math, however I was interested in knowing if it would also help me improve my chances for subsequent econ admission.

While I agree with the assertation that there are excellent programs outside of the top 10 (or in my esteem, the top 15), the truth of the matter is if it is possible for one to attend such a school, it makes a big differences in lifetime career opportunities. While I don't believe in doing things with no other benefit than profile padding, an extra year of schooling that will improve my capacity to do meaningful theoretical work seems worth it, even if the ultimate result is attending a lower ranked school I would have been accepted to anyway. Nonetheless, I'd be surprised if adcoms give absolutely no weight to masters work, but they are known to work in mysterious ways. :]

[Elly]

I also want to apologize for the pompous tone of the title: I wanted a properly descriptive title but now it makes me cringe. Sorry!