degree of importance among admission criteria

[averageaverage]

Ok, I am not talking about those guys around at Ivy schools with 4.0 GPA in Math and Econ double major + a couple of peer reviewed journals...

I am talking about those ambitious undergrads at a mediocre state university struggling to get through next year's admissions into Econ PhD.

We got a lot of things to do but it sometimes us true that doing everything is not realistic. So I am asking you guys what is more important and what is less...

I believe that the major criteria are;

1) Differential Equations
2) Real Analysis
3) Econometrics
4) Probability Theory
5) Grad-level Microeconomics
6) Grad-level Macroeconomics
7) Grad-level Econometrics
8) Well-written statement of purpose
9) Recommendation Letters from well-known professors
10) Good GRE Verbal (75 percentile +)
11) Good GRE Quantitative (780 +)
12) Research Experience
13) Teaching Experience
14) Undergrad Econ Field classes
15) Math GPA 3.9+
16) Math GPA 3.7+
17) Econ GPA 3.9+
18) Econ GPA 3.7+
19) Undergrad Institution's Ranking on Econphd.net
20) Anything else (please add if you come up with any)

I assume all serious people have good grades on Calc, Intermediate Micro and Macro.

Ok, does anyone please order them from the most important to the least important?

--- Those in the U.S., have a fun tomorrow!

[averageaverage]

It's just my belief, but i'd say...

The following criteria are now the MUST not to go into the auto reject pile in top 20.
Good GRE Quantitative
Math GPA 3.7+
Econ GPA 3.7+
Real Analysis

The magic which puts you on "Admit" with sufficient grades and math background.
Recommendation Letters from well-known professors

The next importance comes here:
Undergrad Institution's Ranking on Econphd.net

Adcom wants to see those classes too!
Differential Equations
Econometrics
Probability Theory

Helps somehow if you have...
Math GPA 3.9+
Econ GPA 3.9+

Grad level courses show if you could be successful in quals/prelims
Grad-level Microeconomics
Grad-level Macroeconomics
Grad-level Econometrics

Always good to have some
Research Experience

Adcoms probably don't care too much...
Well-written statement of purpose
Teaching Experience
Good GRE Verbal (75 percentile +)


Ok... do you guys have any opinion??

[Bayern]

I just don't think you can evaluate which criteria is more important than the other. Basically, the adcoms will looks at your whole profile, and try to judge whether you will be successful in graduate school. Some may believe that some grad courses may show that ability, some other Profs might think it is the prior research done ... while some others might just base it on the LORs... We do not know and we cannot really tell. Main thing is, try to do best in every part of your academics... and just remember while applying that the adcoms will look at all the good and bad parts in your academic life. No point trying to think how they will try and judge us... personally, I think, the process varies quite a bit, so we may not reach a conclusion any way.

[Bayern]

Originally Posted by averageaverage

Adcoms probably don't care too much...
Well-written statement of purpose
Teaching Experience

I think the Cornell website says specifically about teaching experience. So some schools may count on teaching experience quite a bit more than we would expect normally.

[unitroot]

Originally Posted by Bayern

I think the Cornell website says specifically about teaching experience. So some schools may count on teaching experience quite a bit more than we would expect normally.

Of course, there are some one-offs that might not follow averageaverage's post, but I do think his assessment is close to reality. I think teaching experience might be helpful when applying to departments that need lots and lots of teaching assistants (and Cornell is probably one of them). I would be surprised though if teaching experience is given more weight or consideration than the academic credentials even at Cornell.

[TruDog]

Not having real analysis won't put you on the 'auto reject' pile at many top-20 schools if the rest of your profile is strong. There are several of us in my class at Wisconsin (myself included) who did not have real analysis as an undergraduate, although doing well in the class sure sends a strong signal.

I really don't think that differential equations is that helpful for the admission process or the first year.

Additionally, the reputation of an undergraduate econ program may be useful for students from PhD-granting institutions, but it means nothing for the students who come from smaller schools or LACs. (And there are quite a few of us; in that case, adcoms consider the school's overall reputation or the record of past PhD students.

[asquare]

Originally Posted by TruDog

Not having real analysis won't put you on the 'auto reject' pile at many top-20 schools if the rest of your profile is strong. There are several of us in my class at Wisconsin (myself included) who did not have real analysis as an undergraduate, although doing well in the class sure sends a strong signal.

Agreed! Moreover, having less than a 3.7 in econ or math classes does not lead to an auto-reject either. Consider me an existence proof...

[Canuckonomist]

A few counter-examples to add to the wisdom of many before me:

The following criteria are now the MUST not to go into the auto reject pile in top 20.
Good GRE Quantitative (Can't think of anything against this.)
Math GPA 3.7+ (Not true. and if it was, I'd be pretty screwed. Courses like Mathecon, or other strong things can circumvent this. James MacKinnon told me that while it may be a slightly stricter requirement for top 5s, he expects most students, atleast from places with tough math programs, to be B/B+ math students and so won't hold that against them if they show strength in micro/metrics at the MA level.)
Econ GPA 3.7+ (Probably. Unless circumvented by other things)
Real Analysis (Definitely not. Princeton admit, Full-funding, from queen's MA on nothing more than Calc I & II)

The magic which puts you on "Admit" with sufficient grades and math background.
Recommendation Letters from well-known professors (Not always. A published paper in a sweet journal might be a magic key, but there is little data for that. Strong LORs I think would go in the above category as necessary, but not sufficient.)

The next importance comes here:
Undergrad Institution's Ranking on Econphd.net (no comments here.)

Adcom wants to see those classes too!
Differential Equations (Maybe? perhaps only on the "more math is better" side)
Econometrics (This goes in the necessary pile. you NEED metrics)
Probability Theory (This is nice for many things.)

Helps somehow if you have...
Math GPA 3.9+ (Somehow? I think it's obvious that this would help)
Econ GPA 3.9+ (ditto. unless all you took were second year field electives)

Grad level courses show if you could be successful in quals/prelims
(Indeed they do.)
Grad-level Microeconomics
Grad-level Macroeconomics
Grad-level Econometrics

Always good to have some
Research Experience (indeed.)

Adcoms probably don't care too much...
Well-written statement of purpose (Can win some coin flips at the end when they have 100 perfect people for 45 admission offers)
Teaching Experience (Cornell explicitly asks reference letter writers to speak about this.)
Good GRE Verbal (75 percentile +)

Cheers,

Canuck

[GymShorts]

Originally Posted by averageaverage

I assume all serious people have good grades on Calc, Intermediate Micro and Macro.

I'm not 100% convinced of this for one reason: Most students take Calc I-III, intermediate macro and intermediate micro in the first 4, sometimes even 3 semesters of college, which leaves a few semesters to do better and play the whole improvement card. For example, several successful applicants got B's in calculus I and II and got into top programs, normally because they made up for it by doing well in real analysis and other advanced math classes. Likewise for economics, if you got a B in intermediate macro, I think you could easily recover from it by taking advanced macro and doing well.

[GymShorts]

To generalize my comment above, you can do poorly in some areas (many people do and still get into a good schools), but you have to make up for it in other areas.