Masters in Stats vs. Masters in Math vs. Masters in Econ

[YoungEconomist]

If someone was trying to put themselves in the best possible position to get into a top 20 Econ PhD program, which would they choose? Assume that their undergrad profile decent, but just not good enough to get into the top 20, for example, they could definitely get a top 40 admit without the masters.

I imagine that most will say the Masters in Econ is a waste, so it'll probably just be between the Masters in Stats and Math. One thing I've noticed is that Stats tend to have less prereq's than Math, but am interested on everyone else's take on this. How much can a masters in one of these fields help?

[charlesbronson]

Hi YE,

I can't answer your question, but I can give you some insight.

I actually intend to earn a Masters in Econ and a Masters in Applied Math or Stats (most likely stats). I no longer anticipate the PhD in Economics, although if I were to do so I anticipate I would go directly and forego the masters programs (I will attending in fall 2009 after completing my MBA).

Any legitimate Math program I have seen expect a "standard undergraduate preparation in line with a major in mathematics". I expect this means Calculus 1-3, Linear Alebra, an introductory course in higher mathematics, and probably a few upper level courses (real and complex analysis, probability, diff equations, abstract algebra, etc). I don't see the benefit of a masters in math as many have said here since you need a good background already to apply. That being said, I anticipate being in the 30-70 range if I apply, so perhaps having a masters in mathematics is a good way to differentiate your application to top 20 programs.

Everything I've seen in statistics requires Calculus 1-3, Linear Algebra, a stats course, and usually a programming course. All that being said, I don't see where it helps in the application process, but it certainly could help with the course work or the job market afterwards.

From what I've read here (and you've read it all the same as I have), the masters in math is the best "signaling" mechanism for the adcoms that you have the mathematical rigor to be successful in the program. But I still think that if you have the necessary coursework to be admitted to such a program, you could apply straight to a PhD program.

Perhaps a better idea would be to pick the masters degree that would give you the job you most wanted if you ended up not going for the PhD. Life has a way of changing things on you... I should know, I've wanted to go for my PhD since I completed my undergrad in 2003. It's also why I'm completing the MBA now, as a safety net in case I don't end up going back.

[Olm]

This has been discussed to death already, so I will be as brief as I can.

A person who graduated/will graduate from an American institution does not need to get a Master's degree if their undergrad record is already fine and they have all the required courses. If they want to "spruce up" their application, they can do the first semester of the PhD sequence in a term (PhD micro, PhD macro, PhD econometrics), and it will give the adcoms all the information they need about their quality. The only case where I really see excellent students getting a Master's degree is to give them a "second shot" at the top 10s if they fail to get admitted the first time around.

For people who are internationals, unless their undergrad record is exceptional, a Master's degree is more or less required as a signal of their competence. This is where the debate of "MA in math, stats, or econ?" most often comes up.

As the above poster said, the requirements to enter a Master's degree in mathematics exceed those to satisfy and impress the adcoms for the top schools in economics. In your case, you have more than enough time to get everything you need in order to tell the adcoms what they need to know.

And most importantly: going for a Master's degree can hurt you. Undergraduate courses are easier, and if you think you can get a Master's in math, stats or economics to "make up" for a less than outstanding GPA at the undergrad level, you can very well do worse because the courses are far more difficult.

For those who have poor undergraduate records because they just wanted to get the degree and get out before realizing they wanted to become scholars (like myself ), outstanding performance in a Master's degree program is required to even have a chance. But it appears so far that even that may not be enough, and that a poor undergraduate record can mean permanent exclusion from the top 20 or so schools (see my case).

Okay, well that wasn't brief. I guess I need to store this post somewhere in case for when it appears every odd month or so

[buckykatt]

It just so happens that right now I am (impatiently!) waiting to hear about admission to three master's programs: one each in math, stats, and econ.

IMHO, which route is best will depend on why you're applying to a master's program in the first place. In my case, I'm looking at all these programs as a way to address particular needs: proving that I can excel in graduate coursework a decade after dropping out of a Ph.D. program, while continuing to add coursework in stats/metrics/math at a level my current undergrad program doesn't offer. I read the degree requirements for each program carefully, and if accepted to more than one I'll meet with someone at each to come up with a specific plan of study before making a decision.

Another potential consideration is diversification. For example, I plan to apply to Caltech next time around, so taking a macro course as part of an econ master's would give me something I won't get there. (I can dream, right?) OTOH, a master's in stats might be a nice credential to have if I wind up attending a Ph.D. program that isn't strong in metrics. (It's also a nice fallback position if I decide not to continue to the Ph.D.)

So, I'd start by figuring out what you want to accomplish with a master's, and then look at specific programs to see whether you can come up with a plan of study that meets your needs.

[871007]

On a similar note, I have been accepted into the MA program in Economics at NYU. Although initially I was planning on doing a PhD and did apply to a few (and also got in), my plans have changes. In this respect, does anyone have any idea about the private sector prospects of an MA in Econ from NYU?

Any advice/suggestion will be greatly welcome.

[Olm]

You'll have plenty of very opportunities after graduation. Econ consulting, government, etc. You could also teach econ at a community college for a little bit of money and no research responsibilities. Duke is a great school, and if the private sector is your thing, a lot of doors will be open.

[871007]

I have also received offers for a PhD at UC Davis and UC Irvine. What I am concerned about is my math background? I have covered Linear Algebra, Multivariable Calculus,Mathematical Proofs, Advanced Calculus and Probablility Theory in my undergraduat coursework. Will I survive the first year at any one these places?

[octavio]

I have also received offers for a PhD at UC Davis and UC Irvine. What I am concerned about is my math background? I have covered Linear Algebra, Multivariable Calculus,Mathematical Proofs, Advanced Calculus and Probablility Theory in my undergraduat coursework. Will I survive the first year at any one these places?

If you don't survive, it won't be because of your math background. You will have more math than many of the students there.

[macroeconomicus]

For econ, it depends on where you get the Masters degree. If it's one of the top places to get Masters in Europe or Canada, then yes, getting a masters degree would help to get into top 20 schools. If it's a Masters degree from a place like UIUC, USC, or such in USA, it usually won't help much. I know that people with US Masters degrees end up at places ranked below 20 on regular basis.

Regarding Masters in Math, a similar story applies. If you decide to go for a Masters degree in math from a reputable department (say a well known research university, but not necessarily with a top 20 econ or math department), that's going to be a relatively tough route. The coursework will be rigorous and hard, and you might have to take the GRE math subject test to apply. I just don't see how someone whose math is deficient or average by the standards of top 20 econ PhD programs would have the motivation or preparation to get in and succeed at such a masters degree program. If you're talking about attending Masters degree-only granting institutions, like say a Cal State campus, then a masters from such place does not mean much because the level of their instruction is usually no better than at undergraduate level at a research university with a good math department. So, again I don't see how that could necessarily propel one into a top 20 department.

Finally, I don't know much about stats, except that the same advice as in case with math degrees probably applies here. Well, stats at the masters level, even at good stats departments, might have softer math prerequisites for admissions, so someone who could definitely get into a non-top 20 econ department, would probably be able to do fine in such a program and have a shot at a better econ department later on. Stats department have very flexible requirements, and usually encourage students to take courses in related subjects, so taking a graduate econ course, and possibly getting a letter of recommendation from an economist is not out of question. So basically, if you have a shot at getting a Masters in stats degree from some place of say University of Washington or Wisconsin caliber, that might be worth considering, but don't count on getting a Masters in Math or Stats from Northeast Dakota Tech to help you much here..

[trainwreck]

Varian has an MA in Math.