associate

From what I have heard from professors at multiple schools, they really mean it when they say they have more applicants they'd love to have than they can offer admissions to. Unless there is something else that concerns you about the program/dept you are considering, I think you should seize the opportunity before you as if you weren't ever on the wait list and do the most you can with it. Spend your time thinking about how to best spend your time once you're in the dept (what courses to take, what to study for quals, what kind of research interests you...) rather than wasting it on a miniscule thing like whether you got in off the wait list or at the beginning. Once you're in, it doesn't matter anymore. What matters is how you move forward.

I think most grad students have few deductions other than tuition/fees that are required by schools. If you are paying any of those, you should definitely save receipts (the schools are actually required to mail you in an official IRS form reporting the sum of the money you pay them that qualifies in January, so that's all you really need to keep.) I think medical expenses qualify only if they are something like over 7% of your income. And for most other misc deductions (except mortgage, see below) they have to add up to 2% of your income before they count. Maybe other people have ideas for other deductions. If you want to get a better idea of how it all works, my strong recommendation is to try to actually "do" your taxes for 2006 for pretend using turbotax.com or some other online software. It's free to use the software, which guides you through all the questions/deductions and has links to the IRS webpages explaining the detailed rules. You only pay at the very, very end (like in April 2007) if you want to use their software to submit your returns. But just walking through it with pretend (or real) numbers and having it calculate your estimated (or real) taxes will give you a real tax education for free. This will probably only apply to a fraction of students, but if you and/or your parents can afford it, you might also consider buying a house/condo to share rather than renting. I've known a few students who did this and rented rooms, making up for their own share, plus they got major tax deductions for mortgage interest. Depending on your finances (how much you make vs. how much your mortgage is), you might even be able to (legally) avoid paying taxes altogether this way. It might be more affordable than you think. If you currently have a full-time job and/or your parents have jobs and are willing to put their credit on the line, it's worth looking into (first step is to talk to a lender) as I'd say there is a very good chance you could make the finances work.

Really? I will buy that very little, if not nothing, will beat a famous (and well-respected) person making strong arguments on your behalf, but just knowing someone famous isn't the same thing. For instance, adcoms repeatedly say that having a nobel laureate write a very basic letter on one's behalf is not worth much, and this is consistent with my own colleagues' experiences. Or, even if a student happens to be liked by someone famous, it doesn't mean the famous person will have the time to do what it takes to get them into a great program. I'd say it requires the famous person to really like you, be well-respected in the field, have the time to pull the right strings and/or make a thoughtful argument on your behalf, for it to really matter... all of which goes to significantly reduce the number of students who fit into this category, such that, at least I hope/think, the difference these students make in the admissions process is not so significant. I guess I should add that celebrity endorsements seem to matter a lot less in econ/academia than they do in, say, Hollywood or Major League Baseball, because the incentives are different. The only factors that I can imagine mattering are research ability, the ability to bring in $, teach, and communicate well enough not to scare people away. If a well-respected person can make an argument why you fit these criteria, then that helps establish you as a strong, low-risk, and therefore desirable candidate. But it's much less likely (than in other industries) that absent such an argument, a famous person could make it seem like the school will get more glory and $ just by association. And no grad school has an interest in admitting a student that might fail out of their program (which would be much worse than not getting admitted), even more so if that encourages the wrath of a well-respected person. So you really have to be pretty good on your own, although I will agree that having a well-respected person in your field make this argument on your behalf will certainly help a great deal. But this is just my understanding of the process.

I'm considering it. Unfortunately, the school I will likely be attending requires that I take both Micro and Macro quals at the same time, and if I fail one, then I lose one of my two chances to take it again. I think the best strategy is to study up, then only take the tests if I feel ready, but especially if I feel ready for one test and not the other, the question of first-year coursework still remains.

There seems to be a serious dearth of serious math/econ courses during summers. In my area, the school that surprisingly offers the most such courses is George Mason, not Georgetown or George Washington or any of the other better known and higher-ranked schools. Anyways, I think once we graduate, some of us should get together, start offering summer real analysis and micro/macro theory courses, and get super-rich off of all the people trying to beef up their profiles for econ grad ;-). ... on a more serious note, I too had a hard time trying to find a summer real analysis class last summer. You can always try MIT opencourseware, and sometimes you might be surprised that lesser known or broader institutions that serve larger populations (eg. George Mason out here) might offer the class. Oh, and beware that real analysis is called different things at some schools: Some places offer a less-rigorous-than-average version and call it "Advanced Calculus." Sometimes it's covered to some extent in Topology courses. Measure and Integration theory, a class that I am currently taking, is also part of Real Analysis. So you might also be more successful searching by topics in course descriptions and departmental course catalogs and/or textbooks than by course names.

Here's a different type of question for Tatonnement and others: After spending some time looking over course syllabi, speaking with professors about course content, etc., I am getting the sense that I've already covered most of the first year economics curriculum during my undergrad. I know this is unusual, and that many undergrad courses cover some of the same topics but actually in much less depth; however, I'm getting the sense that's not the case here. Below is a description of some of the econ/math courses I've taken. I just want to make sure that I am getting the most out of grad school and not bored in my first year, and would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions. For instance, the micro theory course I took in college involves some measure theory and lots of optimization, Walrasian equilibria, saddle pts, etc. The two-term course was so theoretical and math-based that at one point the prof said "so now if you sort of tilt your head and stare at the drawings on the whiteboard, you'll be able to see a four dimensional hyperplane protruding outwards." I'm not kidding. There was no textbook (just instructor's notes) but they seem more theoretical than, say, Varian is. It was basically the same micro theory course that was required of first-year grad students. I've also taken a dynamic programming course using Sargent's textbook, and Econometrics class using Greene, and two terms of proof-based statistics theory. I took topology last fall and am now finishing a grad measure and integration theory class. So my question is: Do you think I would still learn something from taking a first-year grad econ sequence in econometrics and micro theory? (If so, what?) Will profs think I'm crazy if I show them my undergrad syllabi and ask to sit on on second year courses (along with first year ones) to start? And, does anybody have any other suggestions for making the most of my first year? Thanks!

I work at a place where they have encouraged me to get a PhD even if it means I leave. (They really like me though, I swear they do ;-).) It helps it's a research inst and we don't have "managers" though. But on the other hand, a "manager," especially one who is the type of person not to be excited about your leaving to grad school is probably a bad choice for writing an LOR. Anyways, to answer your question, I had an undergrad prof, undergrad dean, and two current research supervisors at work write me rec letters. If you take any extra classes this year, you can ask those profs for letters. And same thing if you can find a local prof to "mentor" you, i.e. to talk to regularly about research and your future.

Because of its relationship with the government, GMU has a much more applied program in econ than other schools. I think it would help in getting a job at a global strategy firm (I used to work for one), but an MBA wouldn't be bad either. Some smaller strategy firms would much rather you come in with a blank slate so that they can shape you (as their CEOs have commented to me); they think that the standard MBA curriculum is a waste of time; other places might really value it. There is something to be said in the hiring process both for the most-travelled route (MBA) and the lesser travelled (PhD- which some strategy firms see as a fresh perspective, as long as you are still practically-minded and show that you know what you are getting into). It usually depends on the personal experiences and background of whomever is hiring, so I don't think you can go wrong either way as long as you keep your studies relevant to global strategy, so it doesn't seem like a sudden shift of interest when you apply. Perhaps to answer your question more simply, I do know a few econ PhDs (young and old) hired by strategy firms, although this is probably not the path for everybody.

True, it's hard to find work that is as econ-intensive as academic rsch because very few other insts have the luxury to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake. I'd first encourage you, if you live near any schools with depts in your field, to approach professors, even if you are not a grad student. This is pretty much how I found my first research "job" (I was volunteering) when I was in high school, and several positions since. If you are willing to spend a little time reading some papers to see what the profs' rsch is about ahead of time, show interest and enthusiasm, and are willing to take such a risk (talking to a stranger can be scary, but approaching someone like this is also a good skill -- also, it helps if you're flexible and willing to volunteer some of your time) the payoff could be a lot higher than you might expect. You can tell the prof that you want to get involved with some research, that you understand a little bit of what it's about, and ask if they know anyone who needs any help. Try to include a little bit about your background (when did you go to school, in what major, and where?) and your skills (math classes taken, programming ability -- which can matter for both cs and econ, and other computer software you can use --eg. SAS and SPSS will make you valuable help in econ and are easy to pick up, Access, C/C++, Visual Basic). I wouldn't suggest spending a big chunk of the next year learning to be an expert using such software, but spending a week or so obtaining a copy (many schools have site licenses, or download a demo version, buy a student version, borrow from a grad student, even pirated versions are available online -- not that I am encouraging that) and familiarizing yourself with the basics can make you invaluable to some researchers who can get you involved in more meaningful rsch in return. I know very few, if any people will actually take this advice to go out and approach professors cold (by email or in person), but it is how I and several people I know have found some particularly interesting work. You'd be surprised how much profs appreciate free labor; you can probably do it on the side while working full-time if you need to; and if you approach enough profs, I think the payoff of this route (eg. academic rsch, LORs) will be the greatest if your goal is academic (eg. grad school). But if you don't live near a school or for some reason can't find any profs with your research interests, and/or if you just want a day job to support yourself (a totally understandable thing), there are organizations who conduct much more "academic" econ research. Same goes for CS. In econ, you might consider RAND, IIE, Brookings maybe, the Federal Reserve, Dept of Treasury and similar orgs. Try to find think tanks that do econ. I am less familiar with opportunities in CS, but there are a lot of small companies that work for the govt/NSA-type places that hire bright young people. There are also places like the Center for Technology in Govt at U Albany (www.ctg.albany.edu) and http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/ at Carnegie Mellon that do real CS research and publish (but do a lot of neat applied and sufficiently interdisciplinary work to get $). For both econ and cs, try to look for centers that are affilliated with a univ, as their research will be more acadmically serious, but they will be more likely to have lots of work to do and to hire non-grad students because they are funded sort of like a company. You might glance through the websites of some of these organizations, then follow links, read papers, see if you can find some other similar organizations. Most econ depts I've applied to are associated with several such academic "centers" which you can find through their websites. Or check NSF's database of grants to see whose been awarded $ for projects with keywords of interest to you. If you're feeling brave, there is nothing wrong with sending an email to a prof or other person working at such an inst and asking them for advice. If you're less brave, most econ depts and research "centers" at schools have regular talks and events -- try to go to those and introduce yourself to the person you are sitting next to. Or email the prof who organized/spoke afterwards to see if they will meet you for an informational interview (i.e. chatting with you about their career and your goals). Most profs will be flattered and since people love to talk about themselves, the probability of success is high. It's a good way for them to learn about your goals and whether you're in the middle of a job search or grad application process (be honest), but, since there is no pressure (i.e. you are just asking them for advice, not a job) they can use this chance to scope you out and might actually suggest some work you might do for them or a colleague if they think you might be a good match. I have a good friend that got his research job this way. I hope sharing these experiences helps somebody. The only reason I've had these experiences is because I've been out of school and working (in a research industry) for a few years... so there can be payoffs (even academic ones) to doing something other than school if, as they say, that is the way the cookie crumbled in your case. Remember, professors have to get their funding from somewhere and understanding the greater industry helps in that regards.

You may already have looked into this, but econphd.net has a list of grad textbooks (with comments) up for pretty much exactly this purpose.

Duplicate post.

Thanks so much for the additional advice on Maryland. I had spent some time reviewing their profs' websites during the application rush, and was quite interested in Vegh and Kranton at that time, but I'll definitely spend some time reviewing the work of all those people you mentioned. Anyways, here is another question I've been wondering about: How hard is it to get involved in research during the first two years of grad school? Does it vary based on school and/or do some professors really encourage you to focus solely on your studies/quals instead? I was very, very lucky to be able to do research all through high school and college, and now having worked at a research inst for the last three years, it would be hard for me to give that up, especially because research is really the biggest draw of doing a PhD for me. I know that you have to work really hard to do well in classes and on quals, to get to the point where you can start the dissertation phase, but are profs going to think you're unreasonable and/or give you the time of day if you also want to be involved in rsch early on? And one more question: are there any particular fellowships or organizations (eg. BREAD, AEA, etc.) that you recommend looking into and getting involved with while in grad school? Hopefully you're not regretting offering your advice with all these questions. And, thanks again for your help!

Notacolour: No worries. I didn't think you were trying to call me out or anything but did appreciate the opportunity to quickly fix my post. Misspiggy: I would second the not taking a full-time job unless you really financially need to or if it's for research. And I would add that finding even a volunteer research position at a univ (it's hard for a prof to turn down free, competent, and enthusiastic labor) could go a long way in terms of future admissions and would be a valuable experience (that could open both academic and industry doors for you) no matter what. If you really wanted to take initiative, perhaps the best thing you could do is study some local profs' websites and email them explaining what you studied in college, saying you are interested in their research and were wondering if you might be able to contribute to their work or that of their colleagues'. It's worked for me in the past.

UMD it is for me. Anyone else joining me there?

Thanks for correcting me. I thought that misspiggy was an econ applicant from another thread, but I was wrong... She's in CS. Anyways, I edited my original post accordingly.

You consider the reasons you want to pursue a (correction: CS) PhD, then consider which schools are good enough to help you reach those goals, then figure out what you need to get accepted at them. If, for some reason, in the process of assessing your reasons, goals, or to-do list for admission, you realize that you don't really want this that badly, or don't think it's worth the time and energy and money it will take to prepare the kind of profile that will get you into the schools you'd want to attend, then you stop and think and talk to people and come up with new goals. In any case though, you keep pursuing your dreams. Honestly though, I've been in your situation. I applied to a number of schools last year, fully realizing they were all reaches (despite what my advisors/mentors all said about how I'd be an easy admit everywhere) and was rejected at every single one. Perhaps it's a little different from your case because I realized this was a possible outcome from the beginning and was quite prepared for it. If you really want to go to CS grad school, then you might dept events, keep up with research online, and take extra relevant classes like I did... or perhaps something else would be more appropriate in your case. Sometimes you can get the most out of life when it actually doesn't go as planned. What are your interests? Maybe this can be a chance to try out a neat job and get some industry experience, or to travel somewhere. No matter what you do though, I'd really urge you to make sure you are doing something that is worthwhile to you with your time, so that you get something out of it and have new options even if the outcome at the end isn't what you originally hoped for. In my experience, doing something that will be of value to you no matter what is the difference between people who are highly successful and those who are not, because very few, if any, people lead lives that always go exactly as planned. Oh, and first and foremost, you have to remember that getting rejected everywhere is more a function of the schools you applied to than of your own competence. Since none of the (clearly) highly selective schools you applied to didn't accept you, just move on to whatever the second best thing you can think of to do is. Don't sulk or treat it like a failure as some people might, and you'll be able to move on and get a lot more done than if you do.

I actually wrote two posts in this thread about contacting schools regarding their reasons for rejections: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/graduate-admissions/45089-uclas-out.html Good luck!

Would you recommend then that someone with a 780 or 790 GREQ take the test over if they thought they could get an 800? In what kinds, if any cases, might it make a difference. eg. Could this difference help if there was a question about one's ability to excel in math classes?

That makes sense. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, Tatonnement, as much as to clarify notacolour's comments that yes, sometimes depts have to use arbitrary criteria, especially for the last few slots. Overall though, I would still consider the admissions process a merit-based system as opposed to a lottery, as others have sometimes suggested. Anyways, thanks for your good advice and thoughts on UMD. Here's another question: How would you view additional math classes (say, grad real analysis and measure/integ theory as in my case) taken by someone who has been out of college for a few years. To what extent can such classes signal a serious interest in grad econ, an ability to do rigorous math (assuming good grades in these courses), an improvement over less stellar grades rigorous post-Calc courses from a competitive college, and/or an improvement over little/no post-Calculus/linear algebra math courses in college? This is something I've wondered and often been asked about, so I'm really curious how you find it's viewed "from the other side."

I just heard back at last. Anyone else get the email?

It looks like those numbers (i.e. 10 candidates etc) reflect only what's been reported here and/or on gradcafe, which I doubt reflects the whole applicant pool.

Notacolour's comments are quite consistent with everything I've heard from grad students/faculty on adcoms. I'm told that (at two econ depts, anyways) after making the obvious admits, adcoms do end up using arbitrary criteria for choosing some of their students. But even if the criteria is arbitrary, it doesn't make the process random. Although, it can seem random or be as good as random (which is what I think most people mean when they call this a stochastic process) if you don't have extra info on what schools pay attention to what.

Hey, thanks for sharing your experiences. Here's one question to consider: in those rare cases where people do move up to a higher-ranked school to teach, what factors play a role? (eg. innovative research, conferences, publications, past work/interaction with faculty at higher-ranked schools, being super-hardworking, working with advisors who work/interact with faculty at higher-ranked schools, good job placement office, randomness, etc.?) Oh, and since it looks highly probable that I will be attending UMD, do you have any general thoughts on their dept and/or the faculty/opportunities there. My interests are in growth/development and although I did research them, of the schools to which I applied, UMD is the one about which I know the least.

Mhreza, are you an international student? I have a lot of friends and family who are international, from non-English-speaking countries, and in my experience (in all of their grad applications) adcoms are much more lenient on verbal/writing scoring for internationals if there is a high TOEFL and GRE Math scores to offset them. But even considering this, I have to agree with the others that 2.5 is a bit low. You should try to aim for at least a 3.5. The other thing with international student applicants is that grad schools are much more risk averse when it comes to them, because they are often not as familiar with some of the int'l univs and there's a lot of variation in student quality, even at some of the best international schools. There is a huge pool to choose from, and while they do make exceptions if you have a low GRE and are excellent in every other category or, less frequently, if you have a low GPA but are exceptional in every other category (with considerable research and glowing LORs), it is practically impossible to overcome both a low GPA and low GRE, especially if you happen to be international. The whole process is much more competitive now than it used to be. To an adcom looking at such a profile on paper, the applicant is a huge risk. This is what might go through their heads: the applicant is clearly intelligent, and passionate about ee, given all of the research experience. (On the other hand, if the papers are coauthorships with the applicant's name towards the end of the author list, then maybe s/he was just lucky to have connections and get one someone else's work.) But then looking at the gpa and GRE, it seems like the applicant may not be so hard-working or academically focused; perhaps, they are someone who wants and easy route to research and is not patient enough to sit and study for tests. In that case, they are likely to do poorly on quals (especially if a lot of people fail quals at the schools you've applied to). On the other hand, maybe the applicant just wasn't challenged in their undergrad institution or will do better in grad school where study is more focused (but you have to give them some reason to believe this). There doesn't seem to be any indication, from the GRE/GPA perhaps, that the applicant can excel on coursework/tests. Rather than spend the time debating these risks and merits, it seems to make sense to look at other applicants who are less risky. In my experience, this is how adcoms think. And it's not to say that you can't get admitted to a good school, but you have to think of ways (LORs, SOP, and especially GRE in your case) to overcome the negative bias they will have based on your GPA and show them that you are a passionate and dedicated researcher who will work hard to do well in your grad courses/quals (that's probably their biggest worry). On the other hand, if you decide not to retake the GRE (given your research background, I am sure you can do better on it if you really study and put your all into it, which I suspect you have not yet done) then they will see you as someone who is probably smart but also lazy, gives up easily and who (as unrelated as GREs may be to grad curriculum in EE) isn't willing to do the things it will take to succeed in grad school. So to answer your question, there isn't a school that really doesn't consider the GREs. The most you can hope for if you have a mediocre GPA or low GRE is a school that has no official cut-off and will read your application carefully and consider you as a whole package. But even upon a careful read, the adcoms will likely have the same concerns I've described here, unless your LORs explain some exceptional circumstances and/or you raise your GREs.

Did you hear that their admit rate for 2006 was 34%? I know the UCLA website shows a high rate for several years ago, but econ admissions appear to have become much more selective over this time period, and I doubt their admit rate is that high now.