Jump to content
Urch Forums

OneMoreEcon

2nd Level
  • Posts

    756
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by OneMoreEcon

  1. 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.
  2. 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. :)
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. It's not moot, as a math professor has finished a PhD, albeit in a different field, and can speak to his/her beliefs about your ability to do original research required to finish a PhD. As I'm sure you've read on these forums in other threads, an econ professor is almost always better as a LOR writer than a math professor, but a math professor will still be better than ANY grad student, even a highly regarded econ PhD student. I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to give very sincere advice to help you. Research is a process, from coming up with an idea, to writing up a paper, to dealing with revisions as needed until your paper is accepted for publication by a journal editor. A published math professor understands that process, even if he/she knows nothing about economics. An economics professor knows more about the specific process in economics, given our long publication lags and all, but the math professor knows a hell of a lot more about it than any grad student.
  17. At best, the recommendation means nothing, as a grad student can't even credibly speak about a student's ability/likelihood of finishing a PhD (since the recommender also hasn't finished a PhD). At almost best, it looks very naive. At worst... I'm not sure what "worst" is, but you certainly don't want to find out via first-hand experience. The best advice I can give is to go talk to econ professors now, inform them of your intentions to apply to grad school, and ask for their advice. You still have several months to form a good enough relationship to get a meaningful and useful recommendation letter. As more general advice that probably doesn't apply to the OP... If you happen to be in a place where students generally have little to no direct interaction with professors (which describes some well-known European schools, for instance), you still shouldn't ask your grad student TA for a recommendation, though you can certainly talk to them about grad school applications. It is not uncommon in such situations for a student to ask the professor for a recommendation and (unbeknownst to the student) then the professor asks the grad student TA for feedback about the student for a LOR. It's a silly game where the grad student's recommendation is given by the professor, but it means nothing when it comes from the TA and a great deal when it comes from the professor (who doesn't know the student, but trusts and relies upon the TA).
  18. This is a good, realistic target range. Your school (which isn't very hard to discover) has placed people into some of these grad programs in the relatively recent past, which is a good sign that you should be competitive at a few of these schools, if not all. Definitely apply to safeties and some reaches, but I think you're on the right track with the schools you've listed.
  19. The exact format depends upon the journal. If you're genuinely concerned about this, the best thing to do is use LaTeX to write your papers and do citations using BibTex. There is a small learning curve with LaTeX, but you can easily be up and running with it in one day if you begin with the Not So Short Guide To LaTeX. If you've ever wondered why all working papers look the same, it's because they're written with LaTeX instead of a standard word processor like MS Word. With BibTex, you can specify the format for citations with two lines of code, and you can usually download a .sty file (if needed) that you add to the LaTeX directory which does the citation formatting (both in the text of the paper and all of the bibliography) for you. Some useful examples are here: Reed College | CIS | Choosing a BibTeX Style AER and Econometrica (ECTA) citation/bibliography can be done using the Harvard package in LaTeX. You can find out more about LaTeX using the search function, since it's been brought up before. The one drawback for many people is that it's not WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), but there are nice interfaces that are close, such as Scientific Word (expensive) and Lyx (free). However, I'd really recommend that you get a free version of LaTeX and try writing a short document using the Not So Short Guide To LaTeX, http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/tex/info/lshort/english/lshort.pdf. For nearly everything you want to do (especially when you're just beginning), you only need to read the first three chapters.
  20. Details matter but can't be fully explained in a bullet point. No, you wouldn't, because they wouldn't accept that paper, and you seem to be overlooking that fact... and the fact that those old dinosaurs are the ones who decide whether or not your paper gets published. Regardless, I would argue that you're wrong for denigrating the "careerist instincts of young academics." It's simply a matter of speaking to their target audience in a language that the target audience understands. Your argument could easily be extended to say "why do economists use math to formalize intuition when we could just explain the intuition?" Again, it's because details matter. Markets are neither efficient nor inefficient. The efficiency of "markets" depends on how you model the market. And you can even respond by making claims about the real world, but every model is a simplification of the real world (else we'd end up with the joke about the map whose scale is identical to the real world, and thus the map is the same size as the thing it represents). So the aspects of the real world that you choose to include generally determine the results you get. Also, it's already been mentioned that the "bullet point" version is often seen in the abstract and, for instance, brief statements of results or theorems, which are offset from the text via bold, italics, indentation (or often all three), while the details follow. I could go on a longer rant, but I'll stop myself with this comment: Bullet points are for presentations and forum posts. Details are explained in the final product, often known as the paper.
  21. And since I didn't bring it up before, you should also check out Chris Blattman's blog (and the rest of his website), Chris Blattman - Research, international development, foreign policy, and violent conflict, especially the advice he posts links to on the right side of the screen. His research interests overlap nicely, so you can probably get very good advice. Start with these (and any comments): Yale undergraduate advising – Chris Blattman Recommendation letters – Chris Blattman How to get a PhD *and* save the world – Chris Blattman Which is for you: MPA, MPA/ID, or PhD? – Chris Blattman
  22. Take the advice of your professors about courses. Proof-based linear algebra and thesis sound great, but doing a bad job on either/both will hurt. These issues should come across in the letters that they write. If they say to take the LA/ODE course and do more stats instead of writing a non-empirical thesis, I would listen to them instead of what I write here on TM. If they say proof-based LA and a thesis, go for that. The standard advice here (and which I generally agree with), is that the proof-based LA and a thesis are the best option, but that's really conditional on doing well in both. However, the recommendation letters matter most, and showing respect for your recommenders by taking their advice will likely result in a much better outcome than ignoring their advice, even if you are successful in the course and thesis, as they may feel disrespected (and there's some truth to that feeling) and not push you as hard. This is what I meant by you seeming to have realistic expectations. I may be wrong, but it seems that you'd be happy at a top ARE program, top 40/50 econ PhD, or a well-respected public policy school. Let me also say that I can't give a great assessment of your profile, and a lot of it will hinge on your recommendation letters. Since you're at Duke, you have access to researchers whose opinions are likely to be highly regarded by admissions committees. Also, outside of Berkeley, most ARE programs are regarded as easier to get into than the econ department. Some public policy programs, like Harvard, are damn near impossible to get into, but it's because they are basically econ PhD programs and take very few students (much fewer than econ departments and much closer to b-school specializations)... and in Harvard's case, I've heard that they have a strong bias towards promoting top MPP students to the PhD. Coming from Duke and having good LORs, I wouldn't be surprised if you got into high-ranked ARE and policy programs. Econ programs are harder for me to guess and will really depend on your letters. Strong enough letters? Maybe break into top 20. Decent/good but not great letters? I don't know... top 40/50, maybe better.
  23. If you are willing to have realistic expectations about where you can go for a PhD (and it sounds like you do), then you actually are in good shape already. You're an econ major from Duke, a highly respected school with a top notch economics department. For the math, you've already taken multivariable calc. Anything else that this forum tends to regard as borderline necessary (some of which is not strictly necessary but very helpful, such as analysis) could be taken in one semester, such as this fall. Research is not necessary, and very few people have meaningful research experience when applying. Basically nobody has a publication or a self-authored paper that will end up in a good journal. Some people have experience as a research assistant, either while as a student or as a full-time RA after graduating, but even that is not as common as you would think if you only read TM. Reading this site, you'd think 75% of all applicants have tons of math, a year as a full-time RA, and wish they had a solo-authored Econometrica forthcoming... but this simply isn't true. Since you're at Duke, the best thing to do is talk to some of your economics professors about your interest in graduate economics and your career goals. I would recommend doing this sooner rather than later. Don't ask for a recommendation letter, and don't regard these conversations as an attempt to get a recommendation letter. Just ask for their advice about what you should do given your goals. At least a few people will appreciate your interest and offer helpful advice, which you should follow. After you've established a relationship, which you should try to do over the summer, you can then have another conversation where - after taking their advice into account - you can let them know what you plan to do and ask if they can help. If you choose to go for a full-time RA, such as at JPAL, you can ask if they'd feel comfortable writing a letter and if there's a particular type of position they think would be most helpful (eg. field position, full-time in Cambridge, etc). If you decide to apply straight to PhD programs, you can also ask if they'd be comfortable writing recommendation letters and if there's anything that you can do to help get the strongest letter possible, like taking some additional math classes and keeping them updated on your progress or writing a senior thesis, possibly with one/some of them as your advisor(s). My guess is that you'll be in good shape to apply directly to PhD programs - maybe not Harvard and MIT, but very good schools that will help you accomplish your goals - if you (i) take linear algebra in the fall, (ii) take an intro to proofs or a first course in analysis in the fall, and (iii) take the advice of your professors about other econ/stats/probability courses and the possibility of doing a thesis. Of course, you may always want the experience of doing field work, so doing that for a year with JPAL or IPA is an option, too.
  24. Just had to push your luck with this comment, didn't you? :) Check your inbox.
  25. Well, since I'm the one who said it in this thread, I'll give my reasoning in one word... yield. There's a ton of overlap in admissions to top schools, which your signature attests to. I don't think the difference between top 5 or top 10 has much, if anything, to do with strength of profile, as all have great profiles. The main difference is that some schools - for whatever reason - have a higher number of their admitted students accept the offer and therefore offer fewer spots. I suspect part of the reason is based on legitimate, sincere, honest evaluation of the schools, and some of the reason is based on our (and our friends' and family's) perceptions of these schools, among other things. I don't think most students admitted to Harvard or MIT have stronger profiles than students admitted to Yale, Berkeley, or Northwestern (and for the EJMR crowd, I think Y and B are generally the two in MC PHYBS thought to be outside the top 5). However, I have a strong hunch/belief/suspicion/whatever that the "top 5" generally admit fewer students than the top 6-10 because they traditionally get a higher number of acceptances (yield = number accepted / number admitted). Because they admit fewer people, it's "harder" to get in. Or, more importantly here, it's harder to guess if your profile is one of the lucky ones. I'm pretty sure I know where the OP is at, and it's a minor - very minor - strike against him/her. However, that minor strike is all it can take to get in the reject pile at top schools with a better yield. For example, Penn and MIT may look for equally strong profiles. The same applicant may get admitted to both. That applicant will almost certainly go to MIT. Thus, Penn needs to admit someone else that MIT probably won't but has an equally strong profile to get their desired size for the incoming class. My comment in the previous post is that he/she has a strong enough profile to almost certainly get into that larger pool that Penn will admit but may not be good/lucky enough to get into that smaller pool that MIT admits based on whatever criteria MIT uses to determine admissions. Should Princeton have a better yield than Northwestern? Probably not, but it probably does... because "it's Princeton." Yes, even at the pinnacle of "rationality" known as PhD economics, many of us behave "irrationally." And, since I'm rambling, we should always toss Chicago out of the discussion unless we restrict the discussion to funded offers. Funded offers are hard to come by at Chicago, but they seem to admit more random but strong profiles than others do but without funding and see who survives.
×
×
  • Create New...