Evaluation of Profile - Advice Appreciated

[WorkingHard]

Hi all:

 

Recently introduced to this site and I think it does an exceptional job conveying key components to the application process and beyond; people have already been very helpful and there is great information in the FAQS, etc.

 

I thought it would also be useful for me to post my profile and have people comment about it - small or large feedback is always appreciated. I also have a few small questions at the end. I will begin with posting the typical profile that is requested, though it is incomplete in some areas since I have three remaining semesters:

 

Type of Undergrad: Large top 20 university with a fairly good economics department

Undergrad GPA: 4.15/4.0

GRE: N/A - I plan to do very well on this when I take it during the summer

Math (and related) Courses: Calculus I-III (A+s); Math for business (A+). Classes I will be taking in the next three semesters: advanced calculus, linear algebra, proofs, probability theory, and probably one more relevant class like stochastic processes.

Econ Courses: Principles of Micro (A); Principles of Macro (A+); Intermediate micro (A+); Healthcare economics (A); Behavioral economics (A). To be taking next semester or in upcoming: econometrics, economic development, environmental economics, intermediate macro, international trade theory, international monetary economics, and advanced macroeconomics

Other Courses: A handful of interdisciplinary philosophy/humanities/writing classes (A's/A+'s), financial accounting (A+), managerial accounting (A), corporate finance (A), investments (A), financial markets and institutions (A+).

Letters of Recommendation: They will be quite good

Research Experience: Hoping to RA for a professor that I have next semester. Currently RA for an environmental public policy professor who has knowledge of economics (in the public affairs component of my school)

Teaching Experience: Math and Economics Tutor

Research Interests: environmental economics, macroeconomic growth, public policy

SOP: Will be very strong

Other: great scholarships; involved in a global finance competition

 

Now: although I will apply to a lot of schools, I think my top choices would be: Oxford, Harvard, London School of Economics, and University College of London. Although I am not set against taking 4-5 years to finish the PhD, I am determined to do everything I can to finish it in 2-3 years (family friends and research indicates that this is possible under conducive circumstances). Another aspect worth mentioning: I intend on completing a masters in public affairs with a concentration in economics (top 3 university) prior to applying for a PhD. Since such a program would be two years, how should I stage letters of recommendation? Would I only want to ask my key undergraduate teachers (both of whom would are very well known) after I finish my MPA (assuming I am accepted)? Of course, I will cultivate strong relationships with professors at the school I earn an MPA at.

 

Lastly, does one apply to get an NSF honorable mention? I have read a little bit about it but am unsure how it works.

 

Thank you in advance for assistance!

[whatdoido]

Unless you are a genius, there is absolutely no chance for you to finish your PhD in 2-3 years. I'm sure someone in graduate school will comment on this, but it also extremely unlikely that you will finish in 4 years. The average, as far as I've heard is 5 years. Also, I don't understand that point of getting an MPA if your going to get a PhD in Economics after, so if you can clear that up that will be great.

[petecheese]

Unless you are a genius, there is absolutely no chance for you to finish your PhD in 2-3 years. I'm sure someone in graduate school will comment on this, but it also extremely unlikely that you will finish in 4 years. The average, as far as I've heard is 5 years. Also, I don't understand that point of getting an MPA if your going to get a PhD in Economics after, so if you can clear that up that will be great.

 

Harvard PHd in 2-3 years. I would love to see that happen. Are you going to be writing up your dissertation while taking first year classes? Unless you can bend time and add hours to the day. This is extremely unfeasible.

Also if your grades are good enough in undergrad. The MPA doesn't make sense. A masters in general wouldnt make sense for you.

[WorkingHard]

Thank you.

 

The MPA would be more for developing my professional skills, while the PhD is for quantitative expertise.

 

As for the short duration, I appreciate hearing your perspective on it not being feasible, but that will be something that I will be able to have more control of by doing extra course work, etc.

[thewhiterabbit]

On finishing more quickly than average, see the useful discussion here:

 

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/126826-accelerated-phd-how-do-people-do.html

 

Although I have known people in other fields (one in poli sci) that have finished a PhD in 3 years, I have not known anyone who has done so in Economics.

 

As for MPAs - I won't speak to whether this is a good idea or not (though I'm happy to weigh in if you're looking for input). I can tell you that the most econ-ish MPA, the Kennedy School MPA/ID, has coursework that is very similar, but somewhat less tough, than the first/second year PhD Economics courses. But even the handful of graduates that go on from the MPA/ID to the PhD in economics are required to repeat the PhD Economics core and thus take 7 years in their graduate education.

[thewhiterabbit]

Also I'd be curious to hear your logic on why you are targeting Oxford, Harvard, London School of Economics, and University College of London. Some of us have some experience with the British system (I have a year's worth) and can possibly provide perspective on that choice of schools if you give your logic.

[AREStudentHopeful]

I'm unsure what you mean by "I will be able to have more control...by doing extra coursework." Coursework is not particularly what bogs you down. You have 2 years of coursework that is on a set schedule, generally (1st year core, 2nd year field classes). Once you take more upper level math (analysis, probability theory and the like), you'll have a better idea of the rigor required for PhD classes, and therefore the infeasibility of "rushing" the classwork stage of your PhD. The next 3 years are for your dissertation. There is no real excuse for trying to rush your dissertation; the quality of your dissertation (and therefore your job market paper) is what gets you a job, so rushing this stage would not benefit you in the long run. Out of curiosity, what is your ultimate goal after getting your econ PhD? Do you want to go into academics, government, NGO?

[thewhiterabbit]

ARE is spot on - this is my impression on the matter as well. Even if you *can* rush, it's probably not a good idea, because this is your chance to get the best training possible.

 

It is also almost always the case that undergraduate and graduate level courses in economics are very different, to the point of the subject seeming almost unrecognizable in graduate form to those who've only seen it at undergrad. I wouldn't assume that you can handle PhD level econ at an accelerated pace if you've only taken undergrad econ thus far.

[whatdoido]

Also I'd be curious to hear your logic on why you are targeting Oxford, Harvard, London School of Economics, and University College of London. Some of us have some experience with the British system (I have a year's worth) and can possibly provide perspective on that choice of schools if you give your logic.

 

This is what I was curious about. It seems a little odd that you are targeting schools these schools.

 

Also, you should speak to your professors about your ideas on whether or not you can finish a PhD in 2 years. I can almost certainly guarantee you that your professors will say that it is impossible for you to do that.

 

The best thing you can do right now is to search around the forum and get an idea of what kind of person a PhD is really for. You can also look around to see exactly what a Harvard acceptance profile looks like.

 

PS: How do you have a 4.15/4?

Edited December 12, 2010 by whatdoido
Didn't see you had 3 remaining semesters

[econm]

depending on your gre score and potential NSF, and that your undergrad is as good as you claim, this might be the best profile i've ever seen

[Elliephant]

depending on your gre score and potential NSF, and that your undergrad is as good as you claim, this might be the best profile i've ever seen

 

Really?

 

The OP has the potential to develop a strong profile if (s)he continues to perform at this level through upper-division maths and grad-level econ theory courses. Otherwise, a perfect GPA (especially only in junior year) is really not a rarity among applicants to top schools. dreck had a 4.0 last year, if I recall correctly, but this didn't make Harvard come running.

 

WorkingHard, if the only reason you want an economics PhD is for "quantitative expertise", I'd encourage you to think twice about it. There are shorter paths to getting a solid quant background; an MSc in statistics comes to mind. I won't comment on your thoughts regarding accelerated completion since you seem to have sources you already trust in spite of the (not unwarranted) common wisdom, but I will caution you that economics does not necessarily lend itself to fast-tracking as easily as some other disciplines do. You might also consider getting a PhD in public policy instead of cobbling together an MPA and a more quantitative degree.

 

To answer some of your specific questions: To get an NSF honourable mention, you need to go through the complete application process for the NSF (which you do in your senior year of undergrad). It is far from a trivial process and requires a lot of work and background knowledge. Reference letters for a PhD application need to be the ones that will most credibly explain why you are suited for graduate study in a particular programme. That means if your MPA profs are not economists, you might be better off sticking to undergrad recommenders. Otherwise, go with whoever is best known in the field and can write you the most detailed, enthusiastic letter.

[dreck]

depending on your gre score and potential NSF, and that your undergrad is as good as you claim, this might be the best profile i've ever seen

 

I agree with elliephant; it's a strong profile, but there's room for improvment. OP also didn't provide much information wrt letters of recommendation. Take a look at slightlyconfused1 or someone like that if you want to see the difference. Or any of the other people on the past results who have swept the top 10.

 

OP: At your stage, I would recommend graduate coursework in economics and/or math. That and doing really well as an RA will be most worthwhile for breaking into the very top schools. A masters degree, which I see you are aiming for, may also help. But it may not help you get through the PhD much faster. If you can get great grades in grad courses and get someone reputable on your side as a letter-writer then you might be able to break into the top 10 without doing a Masters first. There are maybe one or two people a year who make it through in fewer than 4 years (Glen Weyl is the most recent example I know of, and he finished in 2008). And Oxford/LSE/UCL are not as good in the PhD as you might think. None are top 10 in the world, I think. While Harvard is decidedly first or second (MIT being the other). Though if you want to go to London/Oxford for locational reasons, go for it! Oxford's the bomb!

That was kind of disorganized, sorry.

 

Also, elliephant, thanks for pointing out that I didn't get into Harvard :P Personally, I was hurt, I think, by a lack of institutional/recommender reputation and less research experience. But I'm fortunate to be at a top 15 school now that's good at exactly the things I like, so I'm over it :)

[whatdoido]

I agree with elliephant; it's a strong profile, but there's room for improvment. OP also didn't provide much information wrt letters of recommendation. Take a look at slightlyconfused1 or someone like that if you want to see the difference. Or any of the other people on the past results who have swept the top 10.

 

OP: At your stage, I would recommend graduate coursework in economics and/or math. That and doing really well as an RA will be most worthwhile for breaking into the very top schools. A masters degree, which I see you are aiming for, may also help. But it may not help you get through the PhD much faster. If you can get great grades in grad courses and get someone reputable on your side as a letter-writer then you might be able to break into the top 10 without doing a Masters first. There are maybe one or two people a year who make it through in fewer than 4 years (Glen Weyl is the most recent example I know of, and he finished in 2008). And Oxford/LSE/UCL are not as good in the PhD as you might think. None are top 10 in the world, I think. While Harvard is decidedly first or second (MIT being the other). Though if you want to go to London/Oxford for locational reasons, go for it! Oxford's the bomb!

That was kind of disorganized, sorry.

 

Also, elliephant, thanks for pointing out that I didn't get into Harvard :P Personally, I was hurt, I think, by a lack of institutional/recommender reputation and less research experience. But I'm fortunate to be at a top 15 school now that's good at exactly the things I like, so I'm over it :)

 

The OP has so little math at this point that I really doubt he would be able to pass any graduate coursework at his well ranked graduate program.

 

Anyway, the OP has a decent profile but its definitely not top 10 at this point. Although he says that he plans to take all of those math courses in the next three semesters, its not as if he already has As in them. We can't really speculate on his admissions chances since he doesn't have grades in his most important courses.

[Guest buzios]

Yeah my 2 cents:

 

OP: If you want to be competitive at the top schools (and if you want to , as you say, complete your PHD in a short amount of time) graduate coursework would be a significant help.

I'd recommend getting the requisite math in first (linear algebra, probability, real analysis), along with the core econ courses (metrics and intermediate). Those will give you at least a basic idea of the rigor of grad level courses, and will serve as a decent prep for taking graduate coursework towards the end of your undergrad.

 

I'd say the OP's profile has great potential (most people, myself included, start off rough and then pick it up along their academic career. But you seem to have a flawless profile thus far). As of now, l agree with whatdoido in that it's impossible to say.

[Guest buzios]

Also, elliephant, thanks for pointing out that I didn't get into Harvard :P Personally, I was hurt, I think, by a lack of institutional/recommender reputation and less research experience. But I'm fortunate to be at a top 15 school now that's good at exactly the things I like, so I'm over it :)

 

Yeah I was going to point that out. Although, your profile was otherwise pretty slick :)

[dreck]

The OP has so little math at this point that I really doubt he would be able to pass any graduate coursework at his well ranked graduate program.

 

Anyway, the OP has a decent profile but its definitely not top 10 at this point. Although he says that he plans to take all of those math courses in the next three semesters, its not as if he already has As in them. We can't really speculate on his admissions chances since he doesn't have grades in his most important courses.

 

Ah, good point. I didn't read closely enough, I thought the courses were already taken. Then I'd amend to saying that focusing on those upper-division math classes is ganna be the thing that helps you most.

[Elliephant]

Also, elliephant, thanks for pointing out that I didn't get into Harvard :P Personally, I was hurt, I think, by a lack of institutional/recommender reputation and less research experience. But I'm fortunate to be at a top 15 school now that's good at exactly the things I like, so I'm over it :)

 

Sorry, you're right: that was uncalled for. My point was that even people with coruscating profiles aren't shoo-ins at top places, and I wanted to give a concrete example. Personally, I'd love to have your profile. I'm applying to Michigan and we'll see if I can break into it with less than your 4.0 and coming from a totally godforsaken school.

 

WorkingHard, dreck's point that the British schools you've names are nowhere near Harvard in terms of calibre of research graduate training is a good one. That you put them all in the same line suggests you either love England or haven't finished doing your research. If it's the former, fair enough.

[Elliephant]

I'd say the OP's profile has great potential (most people, myself included, start off rough and then pick it up along their academic career. But you seem to have a flawless profile thus far). As of now, l agree with whatdoido in that it's impossible to say.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I had a perfect GPA and mostly the same math classes, plus more econ courses including advanced micro, in my first term of junior year (though I am at a way-less-than-stellar school), and no one seemed to think that would help me very much in the long run. I tend to think doing well in your early years of college is more of a neutral signal than a positive one. The biggest benefit seems to be the study skills you develop by working hard and having your head screwed on academically right from the get-go.

[WorkingHard]

To provide a little more clarification:

 

- British schools because a) close family had a great experience at Oxford, and b) reputation/curriculum/research interests. I personally ascribe more credibility to the schools than maybe some others would, but perhaps it is a little biased because of my affection for the program :P

 

- Dont want to work for the government per se, NGOs, or academia (no, I'm not ruling everything out haha!). I am more along the lines of economic energy consulting and/or an international organization like the world bank, etc. Therefore, I will ascribe very little value to what other schools think of me for teaching - because that isn't my goal. Developing a network base with people at the university, for example, if it is Harvard, I would be trying to get a lot of face time with their MBA group.

 

- As for grades: yes I study extensively and try to pursue every strategic opportunity. I do agree the tougher math classes will pose a bigger challenge, but they do not worry me - more of an excitement. I do always aim for an A+ in classes, which provides me the above 4.0 boost (for example, A+'s in 4 credit hour calculus/science classes help quite a bit). I do want to accentuate the fact that I acknowledge not having completed those tough math classes, but I feel that my experience grows with the classes I take and therefore I'd be equipped to do well in them.

 

Thank you for that link about an accelerated PhD -- it looks really helpful. Also, I have been looking into the PhD in public policy; this is still an option for me, but I think there is unprecedented value in the quantitative mechanics that a PhD in economics provides, not to mention the added credibility and knowledge.

 

This is a lot of information -- will definitely bookmark this! One more piece of information I forgot to add, and would appreciate input on, is about publishing. There is an undergraduate economics journal that I will have articles in, plus a science-policy undergraduate journal, and am hoping to coauthor an article with two professors next semester. That, and two theses -- do you think these would be highlights of an application?

 

All in all, I think it will be a big decision whether I go directly for a PhD or do an MPA first. I see a lot of value in the professional skill development of an MPA, but feel that it might pale in comparison to the depth of a PhD.

 

Thanks a lot everybody!

[Elliephant]

This is a lot of information -- will definitely bookmark this! One more piece of information I forgot to add, and would appreciate input on, is about publishing. There is an undergraduate economics journal that I will have articles in, plus a science-policy undergraduate journal, and am hoping to coauthor an article with two professors next semester. That, and two theses -- do you think these would be highlights of an application?

 

Use the search function.

[Canuckonomist]

My dear friend. It's so hard to describe exactly how infeasible and unrecommended finishing a Ph.D in 3 years is. I'm not even going to pay heed to the notion that you'd finish it in two years without a Master's in Economics first (and this is only possible for the U.K schools, however unlikely.)

 

I will say that if you have this notion that doing Ph.D courses prior to your Ph.D will allow you to fast-track, this is not easily done. I've aced every Ph.D field course I took in both my undergrad and my Master's career, often beating out the current Ph.D students grades-wise, and no school of comparable stature was willing to let me transfer the credits, so you have to take the field courses anyway.

 

A Ph.D is 5 years of training. Unless you're a genius, and this is well-recognized, I've found that students that finish too early usually end up having to do a post-doc first, which I see as essentially shoring up on the training that they missed by leaving grad-school so early.

 

Anyhow, more on this later. I have to head out to grab groceries before the store closes.

 

EDIT: It is obvious to me that I've posted this after a number of others have already treated the topic well. Take from it what you need.

[whatdoido]

To provide a little more clarification:

 

- British schools because a) close family had a great experience at Oxford, and b) reputation/curriculum/research interests. I personally ascribe more credibility to the schools than maybe some others would, but perhaps it is a little biased because of my affection for the program :P

 

- Dont want to work for the government per se, NGOs, or academia (no, I'm not ruling everything out haha!). I am more along the lines of economic energy consulting and/or an international organization like the world bank, etc. Therefore, I will ascribe very little value to what other schools think of me for teaching - because that isn't my goal. Developing a network base with people at the university, for example, if it is Harvard, I would be trying to get a lot of face time with their MBA group.

 

- As for grades: yes I study extensively and try to pursue every strategic opportunity. I do agree the tougher math classes will pose a bigger challenge, but they do not worry me - more of an excitement. I do always aim for an A+ in classes, which provides me the above 4.0 boost (for example, A+'s in 4 credit hour calculus/science classes help quite a bit). I do want to accentuate the fact that I acknowledge not having completed those tough math classes, but I feel that my experience grows with the classes I take and therefore I'd be equipped to do well in them.

 

Thank you for that link about an accelerated PhD -- it looks really helpful. Also, I have been looking into the PhD in public policy; this is still an option for me, but I think there is unprecedented value in the quantitative mechanics that a PhD in economics provides, not to mention the added credibility and knowledge.

 

This is a lot of information -- will definitely bookmark this! One more piece of information I forgot to add, and would appreciate input on, is about publishing. There is an undergraduate economics journal that I will have articles in, plus a science-policy undergraduate journal, and am hoping to coauthor an article with two professors next semester. That, and two theses -- do you think these would be highlights of an application?

 

All in all, I think it will be a big decision whether I go directly for a PhD or do an MPA first. I see a lot of value in the professional skill development of an MPA, but feel that it might pale in comparison to the depth of a PhD.

 

Thanks a lot everybody!

 

Just to put it out there, as you move into harder math courses, the level of the average student increases. Pretty much everyone applying for a PhD in economics was a star in their basic calculus courses in undergrad. However, once you get into the courses that physics majors and pure math majors are in, especially at a school of your rank, you may find that you aren't at the top of those classes. This doesn't mean that you can't get an A, it just means that you should expect to encounter pure math guys who are just way better than you are.

[Guest buzios]

I'm not so sure about that. I had a perfect GPA and mostly the same math classes, plus more econ courses including advanced micro, in my first term of junior year (though I am at a way-less-than-stellar school), and no one seemed to think that would help me very much in the long run. I tend to think doing well in your early years of college is more of a neutral signal than a positive one. The biggest benefit seems to be the study skills you develop by working hard and having your head screwed on academically right from the get-go.

 

Yeah that's more of what I was getting at. Also, he does seem to have made a good impact with faculty, seeing as he's already an RA. And will be for another professor.

Based on his last post, he's been working on research too. So I was more getting at him having a good start, only falling behind slightly in terms of coursework.

As a result, assuming he get's that down, he should end up with a really good profile.

[Guest buzios]

Just to put it out there, as you move into harder math courses, the level of the average student increases. Pretty much everyone applying for a PhD in economics was a star in their basic calculus courses in undergrad. However, once you get into the courses that physics majors and pure math majors are in, especially at a school of your rank, you may find that you aren't at the top of those classes. This doesn't mean that you can't get an A, it just means that you should expect to encounter pure math guys who are just way better than you are.

 

Yeah I'd want to stress this too. The students you encounter in upper level math courses are people who want to go on to graduate school in math (or other similar fields). As a result, it gets extremely competitive; and standing out becomes a whole lot harder than doing so in lower level econ or math stuff.

[thewhiterabbit]

Not to pile on, but the chasm between calc and say, real analysis, is about as wide as the chasm between undergrad and grad micro.

 

It's somewhat hard to know how you'll take to it - I wouldn't go in to higher level maths too glibly. Personally, I like Analysis a lot more, but it's still *really* hard.