zappa24

Whether you can defer admissions at all is up to the department as was mentioned by the last poster. Some schools won't allow it, saying that you'll need to take your chances and reapply. Others will allow you to defer admissions to a later year. Whether you can defer funding is a completely different story. It's probably likely that your department will give your funding to another student and force you to compete for funding again even if they do allow you to defer. So make sure to ask your department not only if they will allow you to defer admissions, but also if you will still be guaranteed funding when you return. Edit: I forgot that you said it was a fellowship. If it is a university-wide fellowship, it might even be less of a guarantee that it will be there when you come back. In this case, definitely confirm that not only can you defer admissions, but whether you can defer the fellowship (it would suck if you deferred and then discovered that your funding wasn't there.)

I agree with your final answer, but doesn't the math on that become P(B|A) = 1 + 10/35 = 1 10/35, which can't be right because we are talking about a probability. edit: After further review, I can see that the last two terms are supposed to be in the denominator. It isn't clear, because the given form has the wrong order of operations as to what is intended. My new question is "Is that the correct form for Bayes' Rule?" Shouldn't it be P(B|A) = P(A|B)P(B)/(P(A|B)P(B) + P(A|~B)P(~B))? Also, since this is after the fact, the P(A|B) = P(A|~B) = P(A) = 1 where A is the event that team A wins game one.

There weren't any economics classes at my high school (kind of hard to indoctrinate people if you don't require a class or even offer it.) To the OP, there is nothing terribly idealistic about Pareto Improvement. Something is Pareto Optimal if you can't make anyone better off without making someone else worse off. The OP seems to believe that this PO is necessarily good for everyone, but an economy that utilizes all of its resources in an efficient manner that then gave all of the output to one person could be PO.

This thread sparked my interest, since Riverside may be the UC school I've heard the least about. After looking at their website, the only thing I can say for sure is they have one of the hottest departments I've ever seen.:D

It looks like we are indeed on the exact same page, but why is it my page has so many more words to explain the exact same thing :p

Let's assume you can't transfer to another school because you don't get accepted into another program. That leaves you about 3 options. 1. Get the Master's at your current school, get the PhD at the same, then try to apply to other schools. Problem here is that schools almost certainly will not accept you if you have a PhD in the same program at a different school. 2. Leave you program after getting another Master's and studying more math and economics (the option you seem to be contemplating.) Having two Master's degrees will probably raise some "red flags" as will dropping out of a PhD program. Schools will wonder if they want to take a chance even if you are able to improve the rest of your profile. Plus, the marginal benefit of doing more classes is decreasing, which means that any improvements won't necessarily outweigh the the "red flags" I mentioned. 3. Stay in your current program, get your PhD, and move into the job market. This is probably your best choice at the moment. Everyone wants to get into a highly ranked program since the rewards are much more handsome than the rewards for a lower ranked one. At some point, though, we have to take what we've done in the past as a given and settle for the best we can get. That doesn't mean you should settle for anything less than the best you can get from your current situation (which is almost certainly more than you think.)

I think that would be true in a lot of northern states as well, either a ban or an introduction of Intelligent Design, Creationism, or both into science classrooms. This is the root of the fears behind the "tyranny of the majority", because the majority doesn't necessarily have a rational or enlightened position just because there are more people in it. It's especially worrisome in a day of mass media where you can find a source of "news" that fits your particular viewpoint, thus trapping you in your own particular world view even when it has irrational parts to it. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter", Winston Churchill. "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that", George Carlin. On the other hand, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried", Winston Churchill. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got so far. It's a work in progress, and assuming it to be in any way perfect is a disservice to it.

I seem to remember from last year that the jokes were based on the seemingly high acceptance rate of PSE. Most of the jokes were along the lines of "I got accepted to PSE through a message in (a notice through the mail even though I didn't apply, a newspaper flier, a fortune cookie.) Once the first joke came out, it was more about keeping the running gag going than anything else. It might have been they needed to build up the program to a sizable number really fast, leading to a large number of acceptances. It could also have been a misconception. There did seem to be a bit of advertising done by PSE on the GradCafe board that fueled the misconception. It had nothing to do with hatred toward France.

The Hahn/Arrow book actually isn't that hard to find, as there are a few copies of it on Amazon. As for not too expensive, it depends on your idea of expensive (there were used copies around $75).

For Trig: The important thing is the Pythagorean Theorem, slightly rewritten. X^2 + Y^2 = R^2 (1) Divide through by R^2 gives you (X/R)^2 + (Y/R)^2 = 1 (2) or sin^2 (Theta) + cos^2(Theta) = 1 (3) The Tan/Sec and Cot/Csc relationships can be derived by simply dividing (1) through by X^2 or Y^2. Factoring: The example given doesn't really have a nice way to factor. It comes down to guessing a possible x and plugging it in to see if the equation equals to 0. If it does, you have a root that can be factored out using synthetic division. If it doesn't, guess again (keeping in mind that you do have some idea which way to go after making a couple of wrong guesses.) OR you can use the graphing calculator to find one possible root and then factor it out using synthetic division. Finally, once you get it into a quadratic form, it's time for the quadratic formula (anything of the form ax^(2d) + bx^d + c = 0 can be thought of as a quadratic form.

At my undergrad, Calculus I was differentiation. Calculus II was devoted to integration. Calculus III was the before mentioned hodge podge of techniques. Multivariate Calculus didn't come until Calculus IV. The Math department has since condensed the entire sequence to three courses.

Even more of a reason to take Real Analysis, then. Signal to admins that that Math GPA is indeed a fluke with an easy A.

A bit of an interlude here, but if you are applying to the Ohio State program, you will get quite a bit from the graduate program head about how there is no such thing as an international student. He actually spent two minutes in math camp saying that it should be "foreign" student because of the definition of the word "international."

First thing, is that you haven't received the Analytical score yet? I am assuming the answer is yes, but I'm doing enough assuming in economics. Also, have you had the intermediate levels of Macro and Micro, yet? The big thing that stands out to me is the Math GPA. I think a high grade in Real Analysis/Advanced Calculus would help quite a bit to counteract the 3.0. A mathematical statistics course could also be a plus if you're going to spend some time improving the application. Don't consider retaking the GRE unless you are sure with practice that you can get at least 790. As for research, few students coming directly from their undergraduate institution are going to have any significant research experience. Sure, you are not going to have the most research of the applicants in your application pool, but you also won't have the least (not by a long shot.) I've heard several theories on the positives of research when it comes to applications (huge plus if you have it), along with the neutrals (no big deal if you don't have it), and even a few negatives (don't want to retrain you if you are heavy into undergrad research.)

I'm midway through the second quarter of the first year. The second quarter Econometrics class (Econ 740) is quite difficult in that the professor gives you homework so long and difficult, it takes up most of your free time. The micro classes are difficult, but not overly so. The first AED class (AED 801, which you take in the second quarter) is pretty fun. As for preparation, start learning mathematical concepts such as: 1. Convex sets 2. Convex functions and concave functions 3. Quasi-convex and quasi-concave functions 4. Heterogenenous of degree zero, one, etc. 5. Constrained optimization (just skim it to get an idea) 6. Monotonicity That should get you through a good bit of the math involved in the first couple of quarters.