klop

Like others said, the texts you list are not at the same level. For example, Amemiya is a classic theory text and it is commonly used as a reference for a second year econometrics course, while Ruud and Greene and some others are meant for the first year courses. A good question is, why do you need the text? Is that for self-teaching or for reference? I heard Greene is a popular reference text but not a very good one to learn material from. Also, a lot of econometrics professors do not even stick closely to the text that they assign. Each one seems to have his own set of notes used in graduate courses. You also missed one popular text, "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data" by Woodridge. I have heard many good things about it and I like the organization of its content better than Ruud, so I think I'll get a copy for myself eventually for reference.

Not many schools allow you "test out" of first year courses (except possibly for econometrics). There are some exceptions, like CMU. However, I still wouldn't count on being able to pass the quals at a more reputable department without taking their theory sequence. Each year a big chunk of students who complete the first year theory courses at their department still fail to pass the qualifying examination. Transferring out of a Ph.D. program usually means losing a year. Of course, it is more likely you'll do well and pass the quals at the instution where you transfer if you have already studied the first year courses elsewhere. As for UDel profs, don't worry about them. It's unlikely, adcoms will know someone from UDel who knows you and even if they do, they have far more important things to do than talk to UDel professors about your situation.

I suspect that becoming even a top student at UDel might not impress the adcoms at the top-30 departments because it's is reasonable to assume that UDel's pool of incoming students is weaker and the courses and grading standards are less regorous. Also, UDel's fall transcripts might not be ready on time to meet the deadlines of many economics departments. UDel's professors might be reluctant to give a strong LoR after only one semester there and it's going to be hard to also get them to write a LoR on time .. my $0.02.

Why bother attending the university you don't like, specially if you think you have a chance to be admitted to a more desirable department? Your situation is indeed special. It's possible that your quantitative GRE score really did hurt you. Most of the top-40 or so economics departments will be reluctant to admit someone with quantitative GRE score of only 720. However, the GRE score can be easily improved. Also, the lack of normal real analysis course also may have hurt you too. If I were you I would find a university nearby that offers a course in real analysis in summer or in the fall semester. Doing well in it can certainly improve your chances.

I would say that most of present-day academic economists are free-marketers (each to a different extent) in the sense that they generally favor the free markets whenever they lead to more efficient outcomes. Having said that, economics is not about preaching the efficiency of free markets. It's about the tools of economic analysis which you should apply to evaluate the economic and public policy decisions. Even Milton Friedman, whose views can be classified as libertarian, wrote that each economic policy choice has to be carefully evaluated with respect to efficiency outcomes. This is something that many people outside of economics can't gasp. I once had a roommate who was a fresh transfer student majoring in political science. He immedeately declared that he has socialist views and that he favors "very big government". Then he eargerly proceeded to ask me: "So what are your views towards regulation?", like the economics can give you a straight answer on whether all regulation is good and bad. Free-market vs other school of thought is not really the question you should ask yourself. You should ask yourself what are the fields of economics that you're interested in and then see which schools have an active research group in that area. If you haven't decided yet, then you should apply to the larger departments which will offer you more possibilities than other schools. By the way, it is true that Monetarism is associated with Milton Friedman who is also a very prominent free-marketer. However, that doesn't imply that monetarism is about free markets in general. Monetarism a view within the macroeconomic theory and policy. But I can see why you'd ask this question. A lot of introductory macroeconomics textbooks talk only about Keynesian and Monetary economics leaving one with a feeling that those are still the prevailing theories in macroeconomics today.

Why not try to apply to other universities where funding is more plentiful? Just have a good safety margin in terms of where you apply so that it'd be more likely that one of them will give you a decent funding offer. Meanwhile, get a job and start paying off your debts. Of course, if you go for an American Ph.D. program then you're likely to face a different type of cost, your time, because most of the top-50 American Ph.D. programs do not allow transferring any coursework. However, given a relatively high level of preparation and a financial aid offer that doesn't come with time-consuming RA or TA duties attached, you can still hope to complete a Ph.D. degree in 4 years at least at some universities.

I don't know how ASU fares in macro theory but Kydland wrote in his autobiography that his intention is to teach and do reasearch until he drops and this is why he went to UCSB after a short stay at U of T which requires the faculty members to retire after 65 or so. Kydland also mentioned in his autobiography that he would like to setup an institute for research in aggregate economics at UCSB. However, I don't know whether his stay at UCSB has had any impact on their macroeconomics program so far. I am also wondering about the state of macroeconomics at UIUC and U Washington. Is anyone going there this year?

JKRIS, what are the non-top-30 schools that do "really get into" macroeconomics? I wonder specially about the following: UCSB, ASU, WUSTL, Boston College, Pitt (though I suspect the last one is quite competitive to get into). Does Iowa have a good macro group? BTW, I just noticed that Steve Williamson is moving from Iowa to WUSTL.

For example this one: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/graduate-admissions/45089-uclas-out.html

It seems like the site manager created a new form for Economics Ph.D. applicants. Now it's going to get more confusing as I am sure some people will keep posting here..

It seems like the graduate admissions forum posts posted in the second half of 2005 and much of 2006 stopped being indexed. For example, searching for UCLA does't render much.

I was undergraduate for the past 3 years and I basically had no life outside of school to the point that I think that was becoming unhealthy (well, beside the school I was working >20hours/week). Why will the graduate school be any better? All these things make me wonder if I should put my life on hold for another 5 years (actually 6 since I wasn't admitted anywhere this time). I shared these worries with one professor and he said yes, the graduate school IS like that. Somehow I had a program in my mind for quite some time that I should be married by 30, just like my parents. Besides, entering the bachelor market at the age of 35 or so will certainly reduce my options in terms of who I can meet.

I am not sure why you say FE programs are geared towards teaching. Most FE/Mathematical finance Masters program websites say that those degree programs are terminal and are meant as a preparation for industry work in things like securities trading, risk management, portofolio management, etc. The tradional finance programs are more geared towards corporate financial management although many of them may include an optional quantitative finance component. Now, if you get Ph.D. in financial economics or finance, then that does prepare you more for teaching and research but there are still industry jobs for finance Ph.Ds. too. Why not just get MBA with a concentration in finance? I believe US News does publish rankings of MBA programs by field concentrations, including finance. It seems like stand-alone finance programs are becoming less common. For example, take look at the universities whose MBA programs are among the top-30 on US News and see how many of them offer degrees in finance. You'll see that there aren't many.

IMHO. I don't think starting around 30 is too old as long as you have already arranged your personal life (e.g. have a family of your own) and you're attending a decent economics Ph.D. program that's likely to help you graduate as soon as possible (4-5 years) and to place you well. If you haven't arranged your personal life by this age then it's less likely you're going to have time while in the graduate school (or at least during the first two to three years untill you pass the qualifying examination). Of course, people have different priorities, for some starting a family at the age of 40 may be fine. For me it's not. That's why I feel extremely frustrated that I didn't make it into any Ph.D. program this year. I'll be 29 in fall of 2007 and I am not sure if I still will be willing to start a Ph.D. program at a such old age if I am not married by then. Plus, my time and what I do with it is now worth to me twice as much compared to when I was 24 and I start wondering whether going to graduate school is still worth it if I can't get into a top-25 (or so) economics department. I certainly wouldn't be worried about the ranking or the other things if I was in the first half of 20s (but I'll probably give it another shot anyways and see what happens).

This is a good course to learn how to write proofs in order to prepare yourself for a more abstract math course like real analysis. However, it doesn't really cover any statistics and the probability section deals with discrete random variables only.