abababba

At Harvard with linear algebra, calculus and probability, nothing else really.

My apologies to my classmates I forgot, include MIT and Northwestern in my post above, this obviously doesn't change anything. I think Harvard students have a significant advantage in applying to Harvard Econ, probably 6 of the people in my class are Harvard undergrads, one or two others had some other Harvard experience. I believe this is justified, I don't believe the committee is stupid and the process has very little randomness. I heard that around 10 Harvard undergrads go to grad econ each year so this is a high percentage sticking around. If someone has already been through the Harvard undergrad ciriculum and possibly even taken the first year graduate sequence, there is a lot less uncertainty about their future performance. There will almost never be an underqualified Harvard graduate econ applicant, they have already been through one gauntlet.

I'm at Harvard. My class has people from the following schools (the domestic students): Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, Williams, Dartmouth, Columbia So reputation matters, but there are a few schools in there with great undergrad reputations but without graduate Economics.

I would like to point out that this is illegal under the 13th ammedment of the United States Constitution. Its something otherwise known as slavery. They can have you sign a contract with a financial penalty but no one can legally force you to work for them. And also, don't you get to see the contract before you sign it? Any legally binding provision should be obvious.

Take the job, you can always cancel any employment contract. You just have to pay back the signing bonus.

I would also think it would be important if you are planning to eventually go into the private sector.

I don't make ethical arguments, unless you consider absolute consequentalism an ethical position. Countless times I said I would love it if the government could optimally implement policy and make the world better off. But they can't. This is in no way an ethical position, its nothing but consequentalism.

All I claim is that the average good that people pay money for probably makes them happier than most of the goods government provides. I long for the perfect policy the perfect government and the perfect bureaucrat. Unfortunately they don't exist, because we are all people and the best of intentions through government almost never meets with the best result. I only claimed that profit was the best signal, not a perfect signal. Better than government. So many good intentioned people have done so many bad things with this same logic. By a large margin, the average hour spent in private sector production is more valuable than the average hour spent in government or as an academic economist. People can be idiots and fail to optimize. However, government seems to do much worse. If the thing you care most about is helping people, you should most likely not be an economist. Other preferences would make the profession a reasonable choice.

I think there is a misconception about what actually contributes value to society rooted in the zero sum bias that all humans seem to have. We have this natural inclination that making a lot of money means that someone else is worse off. Its just not true. Except in a few cases, people are getting paid a lot of money when they are adding a lot of value to society. Economists can be successful regardless of whether their ideas change society. They are not paid their marginal contribution to society or anything close to it. They are successful based on whether other economists think their ideas are intelligent. If you like the free flowing lifestyle of an economist and want to set your own schedule but still want to add value to the world, start your own business. You can always match your skills to the business model and you will only be successful if you produce a product that makes people better off. This is the most accurate measure of productivity. A lot of people go to a PhD to become famous economists because they value pride over luxury.

Yale publishes its placements because its probably better of even with schools that are ranked higher. Only MIT and Harvard consistently place better than Yale. Princeton, Berkeley and Stanford often do worse, especially recently, but sometimes better.

One vote from me to be the most productive by creating value for others through the free market by earning the most money you possibly can (except don't be a lobbyist). I think economists have done more harm than good in the developing world and have contributed to the crony lifestyle of a lot of the elites in some countries. Create a product that people use and enjoy and are willing to buy. This is truly the best measure of whether you are adding value to people's lives. And if you have any liberal guilt about making money, give it up, it doesn't help you and it doesn't help anyone else. You making money doesn't subtract from the ability of anyone else to do the same thing. Research is not the best way to help people, you have to do it because you love it and its stimulating/interesting or because you have a giant ego.

Publish, IMHO

Simon and Blume has a lot of Linear Algebra and its specialized to what you need for economics. This is probably the most understandable Math for Ecomists text.

I've heard of certain soft quotas for male/female ratios and domestic/international but I don't think anyone is going to turn down an extremely qualified applicant to meet a quota. Its probably only a small factor.

I think someone said last year they got a scorecard with everything perfect except for one point missing in a single category. They got an honorable mention instead of a fellowship. The morale of the story, you have to be almost perfect in all the rating categories.