Jump to content
Urch Forums

Last Minute Profile Assessment – Managing Expectations and Costs


banzailizard

Recommended Posts

I will start with a disclaimer that I know my profile is mediocre at best. I am looking mostly for honesty, and guidance on what I should be doing and where I should be looking. My application is in general last minute and rushed. I did not appreciate the timetable on this sort of thing, but I am worried my skills might atrophy to irrelevance if I wait much longer.

 

PROFILE:

Type of Undergrad: Top15 State school, not sure where it is in overall rankings.

Graduated in 2013 Double Major, Economics and History

Undergrad GPA: 3.594

GRE: 162Q, 169V, AW: (still outstanding I previously had a 4.5)

Math Courses: Statistics, Business Statistics (same thing but with SAS and STATA), Econometrics, Calc 1.

Taken subsequently online: Calc 1 (again), Calc 2, Discrete math. Plan to take online: Calc 3, Linear Algebra, Real Analysis, but unfortunately after applications are submitted. (Taking these regardless of graduate school prospects, mostly for my sanity of having an intellectual challenge as work is too banal)

Econ Courses: Intro courses, Intermediate Micro, Intermediate Macro, Development Economics, Labor Economics, Finance Money and Banking, History of Economic Thought, Transition Economics (From Communism to Market Economies), Federal Reserve Challenge.

Letters of Recommendation: Three professors from my undergraduate institution all do conduct research but none are particularly well renowned. Good relations with all of them, did well in all the classes I took with them, two actively encouraged me to look into academia.

Research Experience: Limited to undergraduate senior thesis. I did create my own data set from historical souses if that counts for anything.

Interests: Historical Economics, Development Economics, Behavior Economics, Labor Economics.

 

My background: Basically I left undergrad about 70% sure I wanted to return to academia. Since I was not 100% sure, I have been working in the private sector at a law firm to pay off student loan debt. I have reached the conclusion that I do want to return, but I have found very little advice on my sort of situation. Most advice is geared towards current undergraduates.

 

I do not believe I am bound for a top 10 program or a high level research position which is fine. I would like suggestions on the best way to go back to get the skills to try and get into that sort of program for someone contemplating a return to academia. I enjoy math, just never had the time to take it. Either way, I mostly just want the intellectual freedom, skills, and access to information that an academic position would allow for. So my questions are as follows:

 

 

  1. Does anything in my profile suggest I will be able to get into a good enough programs to subsequently receive any form of academic position?
  2. If yes I am interested in managing costs. How wide a net should I be casting for my applications? Currently I am aiming at applying to 15-20 programs.
  3. I can find plenty of information on general rankings, and especially on top ranked programs, but there is substantially less on mid ranked programs, or rankings broken out by specialty. Are there any vibrant programs in the areas I am interested in, in schools where I have a shot at getting in?

 

I am not as of yet willing/able to just straight up leave my current job. That does make it difficult to acquire the kinds of math background I need outside of internet based courses. My hours are too long and variable to allow me to take even night courses.

 

Backup plan is currently to still apply to some schools (mostly because my professors have already agreed to complete LOR and my pulling out now might burn bridges I need), but otherwise look at RA positions to get more practical background that I need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, feel free to ignore my thoughts and apply anyways but this profile is unlikely to get an admit in a top 30 program. You only really have calc 1 as a math class. To be competitive for a top 30 program, you should at least have good grades up to calc 3 and linear algebra.

 

Where are you taking those classes online? At the same school? The rank of the school matters when taking post-bacc classes.

 

I recommend looking for RA positions and then to remedy your math background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, feel free to ignore my thoughts and apply anyways but this profile is unlikely to get an admit in a top 30 program. You only really have calc 1 as a math class. To be competitive for a top 30 program, you should at least have good grades up to calc 3 and linear algebra.

 

Where are you taking those classes online? At the same school? The rank of the school matters when taking post-bacc classes.

 

I recommend looking for RA positions and then to remedy your math background.

 

No I am not taking the courses at the same place I took my undergraduate courses. My school, despite being a state school, was small (~7,000 students). It does not have much offered online, and what it does have are mixed online and in person courses. That is not feasible on my current schedule since most courses were offered mid day.

 

There is a highly limited selection of comprehensive online only programs in mathematics out there (far more professional MBA's). I have been taking them from Southern New Hampshire University, which is ok at best in rankings (low-mid).

 

Should I assume from your response that I would need to get into a top 30 program to achieve my goals?

 

What would be the best way to remedy my math background short of going back to school full time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a Master's would be best if that's a possible option. If not, you can also work as a full time RA, as some positions provide tuition assistance and allow you to take classes while working for them.

 

A masters might be an option. I do have a few concerns from research I have done:

 

1. They are focused on business not preparation for PhD's.

2. Cost.

3. Time - I would like to start an actual career at some point.

 

Are there programs which focus specifically on preparation for PhD's to provide the math background I need? I am not sure how well I can turn around the application process I have already started to aim at a masters on short notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are masters programs that are geared towards preparing students that are applying for PhD programs in economics. I'm sure other posters in this forum are aware of more programs than I am, but the ones I know are LSE (the econometrics and mathm. econ. program, as well as the MSc econ program), Masters at Duke, Columbia, and UT Austin.

 

But yes, cost and time would be an issue. However, with regards to time, wouldn't you say that 1~2 years is worth an investment in order to have a higher chance at better PhD programs, which would also impact your career? It would obviously depend on personal preferences, where you would have to compare the cost of time (1~2 yrs) with the benefit of having an increased probability of acceptance into better programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no short fix of your profile to be competitive at a top 30. It will be very difficult to do it in a year.

 

Again, feel free to ignore my response but I doubt you could get into a top 50 with this profile. You effectively have one math class. Taking those classes online will not do you much good (besides learning the material) when you apply.

 

If a PhD is really something you want to do (at a top 30), you have to do serious investments in taking classes at credible places. You could also try to land an RAship somewhere and impress senior faculty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't there be significant improvements after completing a two-years Master's program? I mean, there are undergrads in the U.S. who build their profiles for three years before applying to PhD programs their senior year. Obviously it would be difficult to reach the same level, but I'm sure two years worth of full-time coursework (at a credible institution, taking rigorous courses) will still bring significant changes to anyone's transcript. Even for someone who has not had a chance to make preparations in their BA institutions, I personally think that a two-year Masters + a full-time RAship (ideally 2 yrs) would bring very significant improvements to anyone's application. Of course, one would have to be willing to make considerable time investments in order to do so, but this makes perfect sense considering that time not spent on PhD preparations during the BA degree must be made up at some point before applying for PhD programs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no short fix of your profile to be competitive at a top 30. It will be very difficult to do it in a year.

 

Again, feel free to ignore my response but I doubt you could get into a top 50 with this profile. You effectively have one math class. Taking those classes online will not do you much good (besides learning the material) when you apply.

 

If a PhD is really something you want to do (at a top 30), you have to do serious investments in taking classes at credible places. You could also try to land an RAship somewhere and impress senior faculty.

 

I do appreciate the candor of your advice. I have 7 application all only awaiting my statement of purpose so I will likely finish those. This is mostly because it would be rude to have asked my professors for LOR then not followed through on my end. I will immediately start looking into RA ship though. What are generally good souses for those? Should I just be looking around at universities in my area? I do not have the funds to relocate at present, but am at least in the greater NYC area which has a number of good research universities and the Federal Reserve both in Philly and NYC.

 

There are masters programs that are geared towards preparing students that are applying for PhD programs in economics. I'm sure other posters in this forum are aware of more programs than I am, but the ones I know are LSE (the econometrics and mathm. econ. program, as well as the MSc econ program), Masters at Duke, Columbia, and UT Austin.

 

But yes, cost and time would be an issue. However, with regards to time, wouldn't you say that 1~2 years is worth an investment in order to have a higher chance at better PhD programs, which would also impact your career? It would obviously depend on personal preferences, where you would have to compare the cost of time (1~2 yrs) with the benefit of having an increased probability of acceptance into better programs.

 

I looked at the masters programs. The going rate seems to be between 25k and 30 k per semester, or 100k to 120k in total, added to which is room and board. The time I am willing to expend, it will be spent doing something interesting at least. However, financially that is quite an expense. It would necessitate more student loans just as I paid off my current set and am looking to become independent. I will also need to leave my current job which sucks up 50-60 hours a week but is a souse of income to pay said loans. (I was looking to have the next step lined up and quite without burning any bridges there, but that seems difficult now). While I know it is an investment which could increase my earning potential it is still a difficult decision to make.

 

I will probably attempt to become an RA at a quality institution first and see if I can take classes on the side from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point that your math background is currently insufficient to be accepted into an econ PhD has been adequately made, so I won't focus on that. However, it's also important to note that math preparation isn't just used as a signaling tool for ad coms, it's absolutely required to make it through the first year sequence.

 

But I digress; what I wanted to mention is that there do exist funded masters programs in economics. I had no undergraduate econ background (pure math major), so I did an MA in Econ at an unprestigious state school. I was fully funded (full tuition remission and ~$20k stipend) as as an RA so this allowed me to both get research experience and take the required economics courses. Typically, universities which have masters, but no PhD program in econ will be the ones at which you might receive funding as an RA or TA.

 

Despite the lack of prestige of both my undergraduate and masters institutions I did get offers from schools ranked around 30 when I applied last year. The MA programs others have mentioned (Duke, UT Austin, etc) are certainly the premier MAs when it comes to PhD prep, but an MA from a less prestigious university can still help you achieve your goals provided you aren't shooting for top PhDs. Like you, there was no way I could self fund a masters, so this was the best solution in my case. The conventional wisdom on this site is that an MA degree from the US which is not from one of the select universities mentioned is useless in PhD admission; I did not find this to be the case. In my first year PhD cohort, there is another student with an MA from UT Austin, and we both ended up at the same PhD program in the end!

 

In my MA, I was required to take only 5 core economics courses and was allowed to take my electives in the economics, math and statistics departments; I used them to fill in my stats background which was also lacking. So, this could be a way to fill in your missing math classes. A caveat is that your tuition remission may not cover classes like Calc 2 and Linear Algebra (which are likely 200 level undergraduate classes), so that is something you'd have to look in to.

 

Anyway, something to think about if you are still interested in possibly pursuing a masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point that your math background is currently insufficient to be accepted into an econ PhD has been adequately made, so I won't focus on that. However, it's also important to note that math preparation isn't just used as a signaling tool for ad coms, it's absolutely required to make it through the first year sequence.

 

But I digress; what I wanted to mention is that there do exist funded masters programs in economics. I had no undergraduate econ background (pure math major), so I did an MA in Econ at an unprestigious state school. I was fully funded (full tuition remission and ~$20k stipend) as as an RA so this allowed me to both get research experience and take the required economics courses. Typically, universities which have masters, but no PhD program in econ will be the ones at which you might receive funding as an RA or TA.

 

Despite the lack of prestige of both my undergraduate and masters institutions I did get offers from schools ranked around 30 when I applied last year. The MA programs others have mentioned (Duke, UT Austin, etc) are certainly the premier MAs when it comes to PhD prep, but an MA from a less prestigious university can still help you achieve your goals provided you aren't shooting for top PhDs. Like you, there was no way I could self fund a masters, so this was the best solution in my case. The conventional wisdom on this site is that an MA degree from the US which is not from one of the select universities mentioned is useless in PhD admission; I did not find this to be the case. In my first year PhD cohort, there is another student with an MA from UT Austin, and we both ended up at the same PhD program in the end!

 

In my MA, I was required to take only 5 core economics courses and was allowed to take my electives in the economics, math and statistics departments; I used them to fill in my stats background which was also lacking. So, this could be a way to fill in your missing math classes. A caveat is that your tuition remission may not cover classes like Calc 2 and Linear Algebra (which are likely 200 level undergraduate classes), so that is something you'd have to look in to.

 

Anyway, something to think about if you are still interested in possibly pursuing a masters.

 

I am interested in taking these courses in their own right. I will likely continue to take courses online; they are relatively cheep and worst case I learn the math so I will get A's when I take the courses in a more standard place. I will look into the potential of a funded masters though! That is excellent news to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous advice in this thread strike me as too narrow. Many of you are probably limited or biased by your own (strong) interests in economics. IMO, expecting OP to invest 3-4 years for a shaky prospect of getting into a second-tier PhD econ program is not the best option available to him or her.

 

I haven't really posted for a while, but I'd like to post some thoughts on your case, and for future applicants in the same situation:

 

 

(1) You're not competitive in PhD economics admissions, but you might be a first-tier applicant for other disciplines. You should look into PhDs in (a) history; (b) public policy; © political science, probably in that order. All of these disciplines don't require half as much the time and effort as preparing for an economics PhD, which has one of the highest entry barriers in all of academia. In my opinion, you should be able to get into a high-ranked program in history in the next admissions cycle, and perhaps even this year.

 

(2) You don't sound like a typical candidate with academic economics interests. At this stage, because of your lack of {{mathematics, advanced economics, academic research experience}}, I'll try to infer two frank statements about your "demographics": (i) You don't necessarily know what contemporary economics research involves, simply because current papers have a high technical barrier, and research topics/methodology have shifted considerably over the last 15 years; (ii) Because you are at some unknown spot on the "interest" distribution, you are in fact quite unlikely to retrospectively consider economics as your optimal discipline once you actually become familiar with contemporary research, and that might take >2 years of irreversible investment in a master's degree.

 

From my experience, a majority of undergrad economics majors, particularly those who double major in another social science, have academic interests that are closer to one of {{history, public policy, political science}} as a discipline, not academic economics.

 

(3) The investment into PhD econ admissions may never pay off for you. First, there's a considerable amount of students that waste 2 years preparing for an economics PhD, only to realize they can't pass the barriers for aptitude in pure mathematics or in statistical research implementation, both of which are individual-specific talents that don't correlate with hard work. The experiences of these people are not heard in the admissions forum because they simply give up mid-way; I only have a rough idea that they exist in significant numbers because I personally knew several of them (I came from a low-ranked undergrad), and because I've been around on this forum for a long time.

 

It's hard to figure out if you're a fit for academic economics. Even if your previous math experience is decent, it's common wisdom that many students who are great at high-school math simply can't work with proof-based pure mathematics (and sometimes, the contrary). This risk needs to be considered for your ambitious plan to learn real analysis and then do a master's degree in econ.

 

Second, you seem primarily interested in being an academic, not specifically an economist; I'd give this advice to most people in your situation, but especially for people who have a broad interest in academics.

 

Do remember that even after you get into a PhD program, your eventual chance to get an academic job is uncertain. Across all tiers of PhD econ programs, there's a majority of entering candidates who either drop out, or spend 5-7 years then graduate without an academic job. This situation is obviously worse for #50-#100 PhD programs, where the typical placement is to end up as teaching faculty with no research responsibilities, which frankly isn't the same thing as an academic professor. I genuinely admire faculty who are dedicated to teaching, but this is not what many students expected when they decided to do a PhD.

 

You have a much better chance of getting an academic job in other disciplines. It's generally recognized that the history, p. policy, and poli-sci job markets are limited in terms of its academic supply/demand. But conditional on having a college-level background in both categories, a student would be much better positioned for success in the history, public policy, and poli-sci admissions. (This is partly due to a drastic differential in the amount of international students applications; in PhD economics, around 60-70% of students are international students, like me. Applying to economics is unfairly tough to Americans for this reason.) To give a rough metric for competitiveness, my best guess is that a #50-75 econ PhD admit, if he had an undergraduate major in another social science, has a better-than-even chance of receiving at least one offer from a top 10 program in the other social science.

 

(4) You can still do the math. Doing a grad degree in another discipline isn't inconsistent with what you're currently learning in quantitative reasoning; in fact, it would be beneficial to do more. All of those disciplines would benefit from a strong command of: (a) calculus and probability theory, (b) calculus-based statistics, and © modern econometric methods. In political science, a rigorous calculus + linear algebra sequence would be expected for standard (non-theory) admits at the top 15 programs. History admission committees also increasingly value a strong quantitative background, and the top Public Policy phd programs almost exclusively admit economics/statistics undergrads (The common wisdom is that you can gain expertise in a focus topic over your entire career as an academic, but it's hard to pick up calculus and stats later in life)

 

Furthermore, once you get into the game, the same quantitative tools can be consistently applied in the research of the three disciplines, including topics that closely involve your interests in labor economics, development, and behavioral economics. From my impression of knowing several PhD history candidates, the combination of quantitative analysis, behavioral (i.e. economic) reasoning, and historiography is a highly fertile area of historical research that has benefited from increases in available, digitized data sources (and hence academic funding, positions, and journals). In my experience, historians who are skilled in all three aspects are still a rarity in the discipline. You'd be jumping into it at just the right time.

 

(5) Don't waste your applications. If I were in your situation, I would actually immediately switch all the incomplete economics applications into history applications in the same universities, because I suspect you have no chance of in the (undisclosed) economics programs in your initial range anyway.

 

Change your sunk costs into a realistic option. You can then wait to make the final decision on whether to prepare for another year, or whether academic history is actually what you want to do, in March/April.

Edited by chateauheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

chateauheart is totally correct.

 

It's important to keep in mind that everything I've mentioned was under the assumption that you were totally set on pursuing a PhD in economics. It was mainly for individuals who are certain of their decision to pursue an economics PhD but do not have adequate preparations yet. If this is not the case and you're still trying to decide whether to apply to econ PhD programs at all, then my advice becomes much less relevant. I definitely do agree that the first and foremost step should be to seriously consider why an economics PhD is the right choice for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally I was not going to bump up this post. The subscription notification took a while to reach me (3 days) and I figured it was best not to bump up a thread where I was getting consistent advice. However, since starting the graduate school process, and more specifically poking around on this forum, I have begun to feel a sense of existential angst. This is not so much in my eventual goals but in my prospect of achieving them. This post might be more appropriate in a general sub forum.

 

As such I am looking to ask a new question related to this thread. I would like to work as a tenure track faculty eventually after completing a PhD. Right now my options seem to be:

 

 

  1. Pursue a masters in econ/math to make up for deficiencies;
  2. Try to secure a research assistant position (not mutually executive with 1);
  3. Switch fields to a (supposedly) less competitive one, but with the prospect of entering a more prestigious institution. (History, Public Policy, and Political Science were recommended.); and
  4. Give up and pick a different career path (no one in particular implied it; it is just a default option).

 

While I have some understanding of the costs involved in each option, I have little reliable (quantitative) data to help make a decision here. Generally speaking yes my interests are more broadly academic and multi disciplined than straight economics. That being said there is a reason Econ was my first choice. Some topics I am interested in for example would be developmental economics in the early modern period of history (possibly latter but not much more so than the early 20th century), impact of historical technological change, the Social Structure of Accumulation theory and indeed comparative economic systems, the history of economic thought, intertemporal choice in human capital investment decisions, intertemporal choice just in general especially over long time horizons with significant uncertainty, etc. I am aware that these interests might change over time as I pursue a degree; they merely represent a starting point.

 

From my research so far there are two points I continue to run across:

 

 

  1. All else being equal prestige of an intuition has a strong correlation with eventual placement. This is across all disciplines. The top universities in all disciplines fill most of the best openings and the effect cascades down, with lower ranked universities filling progressively lower spots. This is not the only factor of course but given that the committees that make these decisions have little information to go on, they give significant weight to pedigree.
  2. Particularly in the humanities, there is both a contraction in the supply of positions available, and an expansion in the number of graduates. This has been significantly aggravated by funding reductions post financial crisis.

 

The first suggests attempting an field that is easier to enter and can result in a higher ranking school might be better, the second implies the opposite, or at least that it is not as viable of a path.

 

However, most of this data is from a mixture of journalism on the subject (possibly biased towards sensationalism), anecdotal evidence (clearly not enough), and reports from a handful of institutions such as the American History Association, American Social Sciences Association, and American Economic Association (these organizations are probably the best set of sources on this list, but based mostly on very broad measures of job openings year over year without much context or analysis. Unsurprisingly the AEA has the best set of studies and information).

 

I am looking for some kind of more specific and systemic studies, articles, data sets, anything, to begin to critically evaluate my options. I am trying of determine:

 

 

  1. What are my prospects of landing a stable academic job for each field?
  2. What are attrition rates like in each field?
  3. What is the present funding situation in each field? (easier funding is better as it allows for less time writing grant requests and more time working)
  4. Which has the best return on investment? (Least risk, lowest cost, strongest alternative options if an academic job is not possible) how large is the gap in returns between different fields?
  5. Assuming I went for a master in econ would that significantly improve or only marginally improve my prospects of getting into a highly ranked program? Most of the other PhD fields require a masters anyways so the relative cost in terms of time is less of a concern.
  6. What other job opportunities are there which allow for me to engage in individual and self directed research? (preferably without much regard to practical application) Do any of these require lower costs which might make them an attractive alternative?

 

If I did pick an alternative it would likely be history. I am not inclined towards political science. Public policy could be interesting but seems like it might be tied up actual politics, of which I have no interest. My concerns therein are the aforementioned job market contraction, and the fact that history offers less of a plan B should academia not be feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

note: I'm an undergraduate who is still learning this process like you are.

 

It sounds like you might be interested in getting an econ phd with a focus on economic history? My understanding is that many econ departments try to have phd candidates from every one of their main fields. Most econ phd hopefuls are not interested in economic history as a focus of their phd (though we all recognize its importance). This could better your chances, I think, if you find an institution with good economic history faculty. For instance Duke seems to have a History of Political Economy concentration (Fields | Duke Economics Department), but I know nothing about it.

 

The problem of your math, however, does not go away. Even economic history-focused econ phds have to take the first year qualifying exams and micro/macro/econometric theory classes. This will require strong math skills, if what I've read is accurate. 162Q and only calc1/2 (and discrete math, but with only calc1/2 I don't know exactly what this entails) says to me that you don't have strong math skills.

 

The Math subject test for GRE (which in some cases could signal that you know more than your courses state) is way too advanced for you (though it is too advanced for almost every poster I've seen on this forum). If you want, I can send you a pdf of baby Rudin (the intro to real analysis textbook that all top math depts use). This will give you a feel for what proof-based courses are like, and you will find out how much mathematics intuition you currently have.

 

I have no other advice, as I'm an undergrad too, but I have taken a lot of math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


 

While I have some understanding of the costs involved in each option, I have little reliable (quantitative) data to help make a decision here. Generally speaking yes my interests are more broadly academic and multi disciplined than straight economics. That being said there is a reason Econ was my first choice. Some topics I am interested in for example would be developmental economics in the early modern period of history (possibly latter but not much more so than the early 20th century), impact of historical technological change, the Social Structure of Accumulation theory and indeed comparative economic systems, the history of economic thought, intertemporal choice in human capital investment decisions, intertemporal choice just in general especially over long time horizons with significant uncertainty, etc. I am aware that these interests might change over time as I pursue a degree; they merely represent a starting point.

This actually sounds somewhat like a strategy specialization in a business school. I think that it's worth it for you to check those out and see if anything piques your interest. I wouldn't expect you to be able to get applications ready this year, but maybe.

 

More math classes would help out with this path anyway. Also, business PhDs at all levels place very well into academia and I can't imagine that a PhD in strategy doesn't have outside options.

 

Note: I am doing a PhD in accounting, so I am in the Business School, but I don't know the strategy field all that well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he won't be an ideal candidate for an economics PhD with an economic history field, even if we disregard the technical barriers he faces with admissions and 1st year econ. His interests simply aren't a fit for economics journals.

 

OP's interest, as described, is the exact fit for a history PhD candidate, with early modern economic history as a primary focus field.

 

I'd be happy to refer you to some specific students in history PhDs and their background. I know a few excellent grad students that are currently working on similar issues. They tend to be in history departments, and a few are in top programs in sociology or political science. None of them are in PhD economcs. As I've strongly hinted at already, many of you undergrads/applicants are substantially misjudging the scope of PhD economics as a discipline, and you will likely feel strongly disappointed if you go into a PhD economics program with the plan to take a multi-disciplinary approach in your research. This does not exist in economics departments. I don't think a typical economic history candidate today from an economics department can even define "early modern" as a period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

note: I'm an undergraduate who is still learning this process like you are.

 

It sounds like you might be interested in getting an econ phd with a focus on economic history? My understanding is that many econ departments try to have phd candidates from every one of their main fields. Most econ phd hopefuls are not interested in economic history as a focus of their phd (though we all recognize its importance). This could better your chances, I think, if you find an institution with good economic history faculty. For instance Duke seems to have a History of Political Economy concentration (Fields | Duke Economics Department), but I know nothing about it.

 

The problem of your math, however, does not go away. Even economic history-focused econ phds have to take the first year qualifying exams and micro/macro/econometric theory classes. This will require strong math skills, if what I've read is accurate. 162Q and only calc1/2 (and discrete math, but with only calc1/2 I don't know exactly what this entails) says to me that you don't have strong math skills.

 

The Math subject test for GRE (which in some cases could signal that you know more than your courses state) is way too advanced for you (though it is too advanced for almost every poster I've seen on this forum). If you want, I can send you a pdf of baby Rudin (the intro to real analysis textbook that all top math depts use). This will give you a feel for what proof-based courses are like, and you will find out how much mathematics intuition you currently have.

 

I have no other advice, as I'm an undergrad too, but I have taken a lot of math.

 

I sent you a PM, but I would appreciate the PDF. It would be good to get an idea of what is involved.

 

This actually sounds somewhat like a strategy specialization in a business school. I think that it's worth it for you to check those out and see if anything piques your interest. I wouldn't expect you to be able to get applications ready this year, but maybe.

 

More math classes would help out with this path anyway. Also, business PhDs at all levels place very well into academia and I can't imagine that a PhD in strategy doesn't have outside options.

 

Note: I am doing a PhD in accounting, so I am in the Business School, but I don't know the strategy field all that well.

 

I will have to look into this further. Business schools are not an option I had considered. I dismissed them as slightly too practical (that is to say that any reserch I do would have to have a marketable value rather than being for its own sake). Still as a back up strategic planning might be interesting.

 

No, he won't be an ideal candidate for an economics PhD with an economic history field, even if we disregard the technical barriers he faces with admissions and 1st year econ. His interests simply aren't a fit for economics journals.

 

OP's interest, as described, is the exact fit for a history PhD candidate, with early modern economic history as a primary focus field.

 

I'd be happy to refer you to some specific students in history PhDs and their background. I know a few excellent grad students that are currently working on similar issues. They tend to be in history departments, and a few are in top programs in sociology or political science. None of them are in PhD economcs. As I've strongly hinted at already, many of you undergrads/applicants are substantially misjudging the scope of PhD economics as a discipline, and you will likely feel strongly disappointed if you go into a PhD economics program with the plan to take a multi-disciplinary approach in your research. This does not exist in economics departments. I don't think a typical economic history candidate today from an economics department can even define "early modern" as a period.

 

I am not sure what you mean by referring them? Is that an offer at an introduction or a link to papers they have written? Mostly just curious, I am here for any and all help I can get. For that reason the former might also be more helpful. I only really developed a continuing relationship with economics faculty and so am a bit lost on the history application process. I am fairly certain that a masters is required but I would like to know if that is the case for sure.

 

What is modern economics focused on then that is so mathematically based? In order to fully rule it out I would also like some indication of what I am passing on. As you indicated previously, I am ignorant of what is being published. I wish to firmly rule it out and not be left wondering if I made a correct decision for a career path that could take as much ad 7-9 years to finish. As I said my lack of mathematics background is mostly due to not knowing what I wanted to do, or that this was even needed. In short because I missed the window of opportunity, rather than due to inclination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is modern economics focused on then that is so mathematically based? In order to fully rule it out I would also like some indication of what I am passing on. As you indicated previously, I am ignorant of what is being published. I wish to firmly rule it out and not be left wondering if I made a correct decision for a career path that could take as much ad 7-9 years to finish. As I said my lack of mathematics background is mostly due to not knowing what I wanted to do, or that this was even needed. In short because I missed the window of opportunity, rather than due to inclination.

 

You know, you're making plans that may determine how you spend the next 40 years. Perhaps you should step back and do more investigation of what areas turn you on before worrying about where you can get in. Open some economics journals, say the American Economic Review, to get an idea of how math is used. With regard to business schools, research ranges from "practical" to research indistinguishable from that done in an economics department. You might similarly want to do some skimming of the kind of academic work done by people in other areas that have been suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, you're making plans that may determine how you spend the next 40 years. Perhaps you should step back and do more investigation of what areas turn you on before worrying about where you can get in. Open some economics journals, say the American Economic Review, to get an idea of how math is used. With regard to business schools, research ranges from "practical" to research indistinguishable from that done in an economics department. You might similarly want to do some skimming of the kind of academic work done by people in other areas that have been suggested.

 

This seems like a practical suggestion and I will try. However as I am no longer a student so I do not have access to journals for free. I will need to drive to the nearest university that might have access (its a state school so I'd imagine they need to provide some level of public use). Not an odyssey by any means, it is an hour to an hour and a half drive away, but I should plan to make a day of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a practical suggestion and I will try. However as I am no longer a student so I do not have access to journals for free. I will need to drive to the nearest university that might have access (its a state school so I'd imagine they need to provide some level of public use). Not an odyssey by any means, it is an hour to an hour and a half drive away, but I should plan to make a day of it.

Hey, I don't think this would necessarily be a good idea, but most universities have archives of the big journals that you can actually check out like a book. I think that just from looking at them you'll get a feel for the math involved, but thats food for thought.

 

I also sent you an email with baby Rudin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can browse through a journal, then try to get free access to recent versions of the same papers by simply googling for the authors' personal webpage.

 

You should also do the same for political science as a gauge of what a more "interdisciplinary" approach would appear like. Good journals are JOP and AJPS. There should be a few papers in every issue that approximately correspond to your field interests in economics or history.

 

Note that political science would be in the middle between economics and history. If you find the political science focus to be different from what you want, then most likely you should be moving to history, not to economics.

 

The "inclination vs experience" debate in math has been explained to you. Virtually nobody considering an academic career in a rigorous social science is actually bad at math at a high school level (as in =167 or at least five points greater than your V score, and if you don't already have a major in mathematics with better GPA than your overall GPA, I suggest applying primarily to the other social science.

Edited by chateauheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can browse through a journal, then try to get free access to recent versions of the same papers by simply googling for the authors' personal webpage.

 

You should also do the same for political science as a gauge of what a more "interdisciplinary" approach would appear like. Good journals are JOP and AJPS. There should be a few papers in every issue that approximately correspond to your field interests in economics or history.

 

Note that political science would be in the middle between economics and history. If you find the political science focus to be different from what you want, then most likely you should be moving to history, not to economics.

 

The "inclination vs experience" debate in math has been explained to you. Virtually nobody considering an academic career in a rigorous social science is actually bad at math at a high school level (as in =167 or at least five points greater than your V score, and if you don't already have a major in mathematics with better GPA than your overall GPA, I suggest applying primarily to the other social science.

 

Looking into the journals will have to wait until this weekend when I am not burned out from work. I might as well take the drive to be somewhere free of distractions while I skim. JOP = Journal of Politics and AJPS = American Journal of Political Science correct? What should happen if I find I am equally interested in all topics though? A related matter perhaps someone can answer is how specialized does one need to be in a given PhD field, I generally prefer fields that have less narrow specialization, hence my undergraduate choices of majors. That is not to say I want to be broad and shallow but that I do not want to have a single topic that defines my career.

 

I am not sure I entirely understand what your point is regarding the "inclination vs experience" debate. The reference to scores on the GRE actually are making it less clear to me. An absolute score of 167 or higher indicating aptitude I follow, but why the reference to the relative comparison to the verbal score (it suggest that these two skill sets are inversely related at least at the extremes). This is not critically important, just a point of confusion I would like clarity on.

 

At any rate from what I have read of what you and others have posted though, it is effectively that just because I have an inclination towards the sort of math I have been exposed to I should not assume I have an inclination towards the sort of mathematics used in contemporary economics. In being unfocused in my undergraduate goals, I dug myself into a hole where I am not likely to be considered for any serious programs. Furthermore any fixes to my lack of formal mathematics background are both monetarily and temporally expensive to pursue (that is to say a masters). Finally because of the aforementioned ignorance I may value that expense differently if I were to have full knowledge and might not have then pursued the degree.

 

While I understand the first point, I am not seeing a solution to testing my aptitude to learning the mathematics of contemporary economics expect by direct exposure. That would suggest I should continue on my present course of attempting to teach myself this math, and perhaps taking cheep supplementary courses either online or at a community college to gauge aptitude. The cost of a masters degree is less significant when I would be required to acquire one to be competitive for most other PhD's anyways.

 

Unless I misunderstand you and you are suggesting that I have effectively lost my window of opportunity entirely?

 

I apologize if I am coming off as defensive or ungrateful for the advice offered, as that is not my intent. I am just extremely wary of closing an option until I have data to inform that decision, and until I have a solid option to replace it with (I can be very risk adverse, so a mediocre option is preferable to an unknown). I will need to put significant research into these other areas of social science to see if any of them seem relevant to my interest (as well as relevant job prospects). I wish I had started this process on graduation or during college rather than now, as I worry that all of my skills are atrophying and that my window of opportunity for a career is closing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...