OneMoreEcon

You can consider changing it to Pass/Fail grading. It's not ideal, but my guess is that an uninformative "Pass" is weakly better than an informative bad grade. Try talking to your professor if you're concerned about the grade, and certainly talk to your econ recommenders to get their feedback on what you should do. You may even be able to get the analysis professor to write a positive rec letter for you describing the situation, your academic goals, standing in the course, etc, which can offset the uninformative aspects of the "Pass" grade.

zurich_econ, I did an "Advanced Search" on the forum using fulbright as a keyword and your username. Only found one general thread and another "declining fulbright" thread with one post, which was from you and deleted. Perhaps you can repeat the concerns, since I'm sure it will be helpful for international students. I'm under the impression that Fulbright is often a bad deal for foreign applicants to US schools, but it's helpful for those applicants to know the details in advance. Hope you're enjoying Palo Alto. EF mentioned at the Christmas dinner last year that we should have convinced you to stay. :)

Forgot about Fulbright. For US students going abroad: US.FULBRIGHTONLINE.ORG || Fulbright Program For U.S. Students For non-US students to come to the US: FOREIGN.FULBRIGHTONLINE.ORG || Fulbright Program For Foreign Students For the latter, keep in mind that Fulbright often requires you to leave the US for a limited amount of time after you finish your studies (from what I recall, 2-3 years), which can be a problem when seeking a US academic position. This has been discussed on the forum in the past. There are ways to get around the restriction, though none are guaranteed. From what I recall, you are still eligible to work at international institutions in the US such as IMF and World Bank, even with the visa restriction. Nonetheless, many foreign applicants find it preferable to decline a Fulbright due to the visa restrictions upon completion of their studies.

NSF GRFP: Homepage - NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP) Javits: Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Program Ford Foundation: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_063981.pdf Jack Kent Cooke Foundation (not required to be a US citizen): Jack Kent Cooke Foundation - Graduate Scholarships Institute for Humane Studies: Humane Studies Fellowships | Institute For Humane Studies SSHRC (for Canadians): SSHRC - Japan IMF Scholarship for Asia (JISPA): Japan-IMF Scholarship Program for Asia (JISPA) ESRC (for UK schools, but not necessarily UK/EU nationals, and I'm not sure how studentships are assigned/awarded): http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ Gates Cambridge (for University of Cambridge): http://www.gatesscholar.org/ For current doctoral students: NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants: nsf.gov - Funding - SBE Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants - US National Science Foundation (NSF) Russell Sage Foundation Small Grants in Behavioral Economics: Small Grants Program in Behavioral Economics | Russell Sage Foundation If you're interested in some aspect of health economics, look into the various predoctoral fellowships by NIH, NIDA, NIAA, and related federal agencies and see if you are eligible. These may potentially include topics relating to aging, early childhood development, and various other health-related topics that don't fall into the traditional framework of "health economics." NDSEG exists, but I doubt it's relevant for most, if any, economics PhD applicants: NDSEG - National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship

This looks pretty good to me and spreads out your risk quite a bit. I personally would add one or two solid safeties that are lower-ranked but well-known for your interests, but that's a personal call. I feel like I should mention that UVA and UCSD have been somewhat known in the past for not being generous with funding, especially UCSD. I would also guess that Georgetown is probably more competitive than its ranking suggests due to its location (though I may be confusing it with George Washington, which is also in DC). I think Lagunoff is at Georgetown, so he might be a good person to look at for your political economy interests. In case I sound too negative, I do think you're competitive in the 20-30 range and will likely get an admit, but it's good to apply in a wide range and also to have applications to more than one school in your target range. You should apply to top 20 for peace of mind, and you may get lucky, especially if your school has sent someone to Northwestern recently. Don't forget to apply for an NSF fellowship. They discriminate less than ad coms when it comes to pedigree, and an NSF can open doors that you didn't realize were possible. You should still have 2-3 months to get an application prepared.

You are aiming WAY too high with that list. I'm not saying that you won't get into any of them, but none of those schools could be considered a safety. That's a nice list of reaches and upper-end of realistic targets. Your username gives away the school you're at, which isn't known for its econ department. It's not so clear that the LOR from your department chair is "strong and complimentary" if he calls you a foaming at the mouth liberal. CEA internship is not terribly partisan in my opinion, but the primary benefit of the internship is if you got a solid LOR from a well-known economist. Keep the list you have, but add more in the top 20-30 range and some legitimate safeties. The worst school on your list is UMD, and that's a solid top 20-30 school and should be your target range. If you keep this list and don't add to it, there's a real chance that you'll be reapplying next year after not getting admitted anywhere this season. I could be completely wrong, but I'm trying to be honest so that you have the chance to prepare accordingly. I don't know what kind of political economy or public econ you're interested in, but look for some lower ranked schools that specialize in the areas you are interested in. That would help you with admissions and with your later placement if you stick to those fields, as you can get the attention of better known schools via your advisor(s)' connections.

The advice I would give is obvious. (1) Get settled into your new location as quickly as possible, especially if you are an international student. If possible, arrive a few weeks early to take care of housing, driving license, health insurance, visa issues, any paperwork with the university, setting up a new phone, cable, etc. These are things that take up a lot of time and can distract you after the new semester begins. Take care of them now to prevent them from becoming a distraction. (2) Focus on classes for now. Getting started on research early is great, but it's irrelevant if you don't pass the quals/exams/prelims and have to leave the department after a year or two. (3) Focus on classes some more. An old professor made the joke that you take four classes and should devote 2 days a week to each class. (4) Try to maintain a life outside of classes. I know that seems odd given (2) and (3). Seriously, try to do something outside of school. Join an IM sports team, go to the club once a week, see a movie, read a book, or just take a night off to do nothing once in a while. It's easy to burn yourself out, and you will find it hard to focus on school at the most important times (final exams and prelims/quals). (5) After all of the above, consider reading something in the fields you're interested in or attend a department seminar. These things help you stay focused on why you are doing a PhD. However, there is time for these things later. If you fail out or burn out, your (now former) interests become irrelevant. (6) Realize that there is not enough time for everything. You will not finish every problem set with every answer being absolutely correct. You will not make every extra-curricular activity you want to attend. You may not pass every course. You may miss a seminar with one of your academic idols. In all honesty, most (maybe all) of these will happen. Try to accept it now, but make sure it doesn't prevent you from focusing on the end goal as much as possible. (7) All of this is much easier said than done, and you will struggle to maintain balance.

OK, that makes more sense now. Things may have changed recently, so you want to verify anything I say. It used to be the case that the "(Research)" MSc degrees were really about ESRC funding, since ESRC only funds research degrees, and the MSc programs at LSE are "taught" instead of "research" degrees. So, it was just a way for LSE MSc students to get ESRC funding for the MSc. There was also a rumor - which I never found confirmation for - that the (Research) degrees came with a guaranteed admit to the MRes/PhD as long as you had a Distinction, but the non-Research students still had to apply and be admitted. I don't know if that was or is true, and I don't know if LSE has ever turned down an applicant with a Distinction on an LSE MSc. When I was applying to LSE, I was definitely under the impression that the (Research) and non-Research degrees were identical and only existed to help EU nationals for the ESRC 1+3 funding scheme. The taught MSc programs still require a research component via the thesis, even if it is called a "taught programme." I know of one non-economics program at LSE that allowed you to continue on to the PhD with a Distinction even if you were not on the MSc (Research). I haven't heard about ESRC funding now being available for international students, but you are probably more up to date than I am on their policies. If you're right, it's definitely better to apply for the (Research) version. There have been a lot of changes in European programs in recent years due to the Bologna process (Bologna Process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of them. Things may have changed, but I think it used to be true that the Research and non-Research degrees were the same, and the distinction was really only about ESRC funding. I'm sure others on here are more aware of current policies than me.

Your question isn't completely clear. When you say Res, do you mean the MRes or do you mean the MSc (Research)? MRes is basically the first year coursework for the PhD program. There are also the MSc (Research) and MSc courses. The distinction between the latter, from what I recall, is really just about ESRC funding, and the MSc (Research) courses allow you to get ERSC funding on the 1+3 scheme. You also mention EME (Res) and MSc (Res) as the second option. Do you mean MSc EME (Research) and MSc Economics (Research) here? EME is an MSc program, so it's not clear what you mean by EME and MSc as separate programs. More detail from LSE is here: PhD Routes and Coursework Requirements If you're set on EME and think you're qualified, the right choice would be apply to MRes EME as first choice and the one-year MSc EME as your second choice. If you're less confident about your chances/qualifications, then go for MSc EME (one-year programme) as your first choice and MSc EME (two-year programme) as your second choice. The two-year program has you do the Diploma year first and then MSc in year two. Details on the two-year program are here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/calendar/programmeRegulations/taughtMasters/2011_MScEconometricsAndMathematicalEconomicsTwoYear.htm If you're an EU national and going for ESRC money, you should apply for the "(Research)" degrees, regardless of whether it is the EME or Economics program. If you really think you're good for the EME course, the intermediate option is to apply to MSc EME (one-year) as your first choice and MSc Economics (one-year) as your second choice. Some posters have also mentioned before that you can switch between the EME and Economics programs when you arrive in London before starting the course. Edit: chisquared has some useful comments in this post: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/131652-strong-student-msc-needed.html#post858584

I would drop differential geometry and make it a four-course semester. I'll disagree with JRav a bit and say that Discrete Math is likely to be a nice introduction to proofs and may cover useful material (full disclosure: a discrete math course intended for CS majors was my intro to proofs before RA with Rudin). Since it's only your third semester, you have time to enjoy a nice intro to proofs before something more demanding. Having said that, it may be beneficial to delay Real Analysis with Rudin for another semester, but I know that is not uncommon for such a course to be offered only once a year. Actually, you should probably delay differential geometry and real analysis until you've had a basic course in proof-based mathematics. It's probably better to go for the advanced undergrad econ courses, since they'll almost certainly only use calculus (up to multivariable calc for constrained optimization). This would put you in a nice position to take the advanced math in your junior year and grad econ courses in fall of your senior year, with the option open for a thesis or research assistant position.

I was going to post this earlier but held of; however, since other posters brought it up, I'll mention it now. OP is the one who originally planned on pursuing an MD and was curious about adding on a PhD in economics to do (unrelated to medicine) R&D. Later, the OP mentioned being in nursing school and was enrolling (not *planning to enroll* but *was enrolling*) in U. of Chicago for undergrad econ once nursing school was finished. Previous posters are all thinking of the same person and same profile. Now, it turns out OP is at a low-ranked state school with a relatively weak GPA for a school of such caliber. To the OP, I don't mean any of the above as an insult. However, it is difficult to give honest advice when your profile and goals change with every new thread you post in. Unlike some others I've called out in the past, I don't think you're trying to troll us. Nonetheless, it's difficult to offer helpful advice if you aren't open and honest with us about your background and your future goals.

A couple of random comments. (1) I don't know what German schools you're looking at, but any respectable economics department at a German university will be aware of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, Maryland, etc, and know the reputation of those schools. If you want comments on specific German PhD programs, feel free to start a new thread. (2) Berkeley Extension is not Berkeley, regardless of how they are affiliated. One thing you should do before giving them any money is to see if you get a transcript from "Berkeley" or "Berkeley Extension." If the latter, it will not be worth your money. There is a good chance that any school you apply to will have someone who is aware of the distinction. Similarly, Harvard Extension is not Harvard. (3) Do they teach advanced courses or have full-time faculty teaching at these extension schools? For some reason (and I may be completely wrong), I thought that summer econ courses at Berkeley were solely taught by grad students. When I looked at the Extension school website, it looks like they only offer introductory courses in math and econ. Economics courses - UC Berkeley Extension and Mathematics & Statistics courses - UC Berkeley Extension If you can't take higher-level courses taught by full-time Berkeley faculty, I don't see any great signaling power from these courses. (4) One option you may not have looked at is the AEA summer program, AEA Summer Training Program. It's moving to Univ of New Mexico next year but has been at UCSB for a few years (and was at, I think, NC State before that for a few years). They have beginner and advanced tracks, and you seem likely to get a full scholarship from what little of your profile I can piece together assuming your grades are decent. While it may not be at the fanciest universities, it appears to be a solid program with real faculty who - I would guess - are more than happy to write strong LORs for top students. Some of the faculty are very well-known, too; Gary Charness is a top experimental/behavioral guy and taught at least one of the advanced micro courses this summer.

Decision theory is never a sub-specialty for anyone I've ever seen. I may be overstating a bit here, but micro theory can generally be split into general equilibrium, decision theory, and game theory. Decision theory may also be called things like "decision-making under risk and uncertainty." Some useful names off the top of my head: Machina, Wakker, Schmeidler, Karni, Gilboa, Ok. Start with those people and see who they cite. My impression is that it's a somewhat small community when it comes to the "big" names. Israeli schools tend to have a nice concentration of theorists (decision theory and game theory). Machina is at UCSD. Some business schools actually specialize in hardcore decision theory. Duke is one, with Nau (among many others). Kellogg MEDS or MECS (they have MEDS and MECS, and I confuse them) is another. Is there some particular aspect of decision theory you're interested in? Risk and uncertainty are the two general areas. Machina has been big on generalizations of expected utility that maintain as much of the axioms as possible while accommodating widely observed behavioral anomalies. Some people focus now on relaxing the basic assumptions, with the completeness axiom being the one I read most about (see Efe Ok at NYU and coauthors, recent work by Karni, and there's someone at Berkeley whose name escapes me at the moment). Also look a bit at "statistical decision theory" (Savage, after all, was a statistician, and his famous book with decision theory was "Foundations of Statistics") and maybe some more traditional b-school topics like operations research. Hope that helps a bit.

Check with NSF, but they used to interpret "less than 12 months" as meaning 12 months of full-time courses. If you did a 9-month program, then you would still be eligible to apply under that interpretation. This interpretation is also what allows students to apply three times: senior year of undergrad, first year of PhD, and second year of PhD. Check the bullet points in IV(2) of this link: Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) (nsf10604). The reason second-year PhD students are allowed to apply is because they've only completed 9 months of full-time graduate coursework, even if they've been enrolled in a PhD program for 12 months. You'd probably run into problems if you took graduate courses in the summer after your first year. However, you should check to see that NSF still uses this interpretation of the 9-month rule.

I skimmed over this and realize some has already been said, but... Taxing consumption is a bigger burden on those who spend a larger proportion of their income on consumption (i.e. people who save less of their income). This is better known as "poor people." Sales tax already does this at the state level in many states. Yes, I realize many states have income and sales taxes. And some states have exemptions on sales tax for things like food. However, a flat "consumption" tax imposes a larger burden on the poor, as Charis said above. Also, in many fields, there already is an oversupply of PhD students, especially in the humanities and hard sciences. "Encouraging" more PhD students across the board (i.e. not targeting benefits to specific fields with a demonstrable under-supply) would be worse than the current system, as it would encourage gainfully employed people to give up productive work to become grad students in English or a hard science where there's overconfidence about the ability to get an academic job (which results in years of post-doc'ing for low wages that could be better spent in the private sector with higher wages and - likely - more productivity, as there is less of a reliance on outside subsidies to fund the work... subsidies typically provided to academic researchers via grants). Given your few posts so far, you're either a naive undergrad, a troll, or both. I'm hoping it's the first one.