freelix

So I guess I'm a J-PAL "lifer": Sep 07-Jun 08 at the MIT Cambridge office as a STATA programmer, then Jun 08-Present as a field RA running the actual experiments in India. Two of my rec letter writers were the J-PAL member professors whom I've worked with from the beginning. And you know what? While there may be some element of correlation vs. causation, I'd say I'm doing quite okay for myself this admissions cycle. Talking to Esther about a do-file in the Cambridge office does not make you any more valuable than calling her from Skype about field issues (in fact, I'd say your field contributions are even more appreciated). They know you're not doing this for the money. They know that you think carefully about research design while you're out there. They know you're smart and self-motivated from the moment they offer you a field position. To them, you are more than some whiny MIT undergrad trying to finagle the rec letter; you are somebody who cares genuinely about development economics and are willing to sacrifice time, familiarity, and creature comforts to help make these field experiments come to fruition. Basically, I concur with futg6 and respectfully disagree with economics. kbprathap, I strongly encourage you to take the offer. If you have any specific questions, send me a PM and I'll do my best to answer them.

Institution: MIT Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: Won't know till April 10 Notification date: 3/3 Notified through: E-mail Comments: I goofed and put the wrong contact email in my application, which was why I went through the day assuming I'd been rejected :phttp://www.www.urch.com/forums/../images/smilies/tongue.gif

Institution: MIT Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: Won't know till April 10 Notification date: 3/3 Notified through: E-mail Comments: I goofed and put the wrong contact email in my application, which was why I went through the day assuming I'd been rejected :p

Well, I'm in :tup:! Delayed response...only way I found out was from a congratulatory email from a friend at MIT who saw my name on The List...when I replied with my obvious confusion, he emailed Peter Hoagland (the grad academic administrator), who set the record straight. Folks, that's what happens when you check and double-check your application, yet still somehow manage to put the wrong contact email :blush:.

I'm sorry to say that I would guess that's the case -- acceptances do seem to go out at once via email (for MIT I guess that would be around 30 congratulatory emails at once, nothing too strenuous from the department's side), followed a day or so by the mass email of rejections. I'm assuming I'm out as well.

Institution: UC Berkeley Program: Economics, PhD Decision: Rejected Notification date: 03/02 Notified through: e-mail

Hi all, Sorry, haven't visited this msg board in over a year; it's good to be back and see everyone as lively as ever during admissions seasons :). So I've been blessed to receive a lot of fantastic news over the past week. I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I was wondering if anyone else who got into Harvard received any info on funding in their offer email. I read and re-read the letter, but there was no explicit indication--or denial--of financial aid. I completed Harvard's financial aid/statement of financial resources application way back in January, when I submitted by regular application for grad school. Susan Athey couldn't reach me by phone because I'm currently working in India, so I didn't get the chance to ask her about it. Did any fellow admits who did speak with her get any scoop on funding? All else equal, I'd LOVE to go to the big H, but I'll definitely need some money to make it there (I was rejected from the one external fellowship I applied for, and I'm not eligible for the NSF). Please let me know if you have any insight; thanks! In the meantime, congrats to people hearing great news, and high hopes for all the others still waiting!

Check out the randomized field experiments being conducted in various developing countries (primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia) by the MIT Jameel Poverty Action Lab: Poverty Action Lab. Granted, the work definitely has an empirical bent, and may not convince you of the relevance of your real analysis class =P. However, it is still rigorous research being produced by some of the most celebrated academic economists today (Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Sendhil Mullainathan, Ted Miguel, Michael Kremer, Dean Karlan) in conjunction with on-site international organizations and NGOs. Their findings are meant to translate into actionable policy recommendations--maybe on a smaller scale than you might initially hope for (e.g. how to maximize the social returns to minimal educational resources in a rural village school in Bangladesh)--but actionable nonetheless.

I see what you mean, and I think I understand your situation better now. I'll be frank--if you haven't taken at least introductory econometrics and you don't have any experience programming a statistical package like STATA or SAS, then all else equal, your chances for getting an RA position in the Research Department won't be as strong as, say, the typical applicant with an econ major. A lot of the RA work amounts to coding software to run analyses, specification checks, etc. on large datasets. While the programming languages are easy to pick up (in fact, there's a weeklong training session in the summer for all new incoming RAs to familiarize themselves with the software packages used at the Fed), they generally expect you to be trained in intermediate concepts of regression analysis and inferential statistics. Of course, if you've picked up these tools in courses other than formal econometrics (statistics courses in Linear Models, for instance, which I would imagine you might have taken for your finance minor), and you've done quantitative computer modeling as an analyst at your IB, then this could compensate for the lack of metrics. Alternatively, with your finance background and work experience, you might be a better candidate for the operations division of the Bank, as opposed to the Research Department. I don't know much about what RAs do there, but you can find out more by going to the Bank's website. It's great that you have enthusiasm to learn some valuable skills at work before you pursue your PhD. But as with any job you're thinking of applying for, make sure to thoroughly research the Boston Fed on your own, and pinpoint some areas/tools that you specifically want to become more knowledgeable about as an RA. In my opinion, this makes you a more focused and attractive applicant.

The pay is around $45k (not including benefits), so less than your current IB salary (I presume). The hours are typical 9-5 when you start out (with some variation--if you're working for an economist who has you out doing field work, for instance), but can be adjusted as necessary once you start taking classes (they're quite flexible about this, and are much more concerned that finish your work on time rather than what points of the day/week you do it). I can't imagine how your previous IB career could hurt your chances. I can't say whether it would help either, but I definitely wouldn't worry about it working against you. The math is somewhat of a stickler...all else equal, they prefer folks with solid undergrad math credentials. Nevertheless, I met RAs who were taking real analysis, linear algebra, and ODEs at nearby colleges, so I'm sure this issue can be surmounted if the rest of your background is strong. Finally, I'm not too sure what you mean by "expanding your knowledge"...if that's what you intend to put down as your reason for wanting the job, then you should definitely be more specific (e.g. "I want to be part of the research that helps inform FOMC decisions," etc.)

Veroniquaz: When I was visiting the Boston Fed, I was told about an econ PhD student who was working on his dissertation and working in some capacity at Bank (in fact, I think he was spending most of his time there). I've also talked with another PhD student who RAed at the Bank before grad school and was returning there for a summer job after completing his first year. I don't have more than this anecdotal evidence, but it certainly leads me to believe that there are some options for PhD students. I also think you can work there if you're an international on a student visa. I would shoot the Bank's HR person an inquiry about this just to be sure.

I have some experience with this, since I applied for RA positions at a couple Fed branches at the beginning of the year. It's a great deal they offer to the aspiring econ/finance PhD there--after 6 months you qualify for full tuition reimbursement to take math classes at nearby colleges--Harvard, MIT, U Mass, BU, you name it. Almost all the RAs take advantage of this benefit. It's my understanding that the Boston Fed generally recruits for RAs around December, sorts through the applications, and invites some of the candidates for interviews in late January and early February. So you should go online around November to check out the Bank's online application. You upload your resume, a cover letter, your transcript, and (optional but helpful) 1-2 letters of recommendation from economics faculty at your undergrad. The system is all laid out so it's an easy point-and-click process. If you get invited for interview within a few weeks of submitting your app, it's usually a good sign, so I would definitely recommend that you put some serious time and effort into your electronic application materials (specifically your cover letter--succinctly but accurately describe your interest in going into academia, and why you think the Fed experience would help you toward this goal). At the interview, you meet with different groups of research economists, so that both you and they can get a feel for a good possible match. Just be yourself and enjoy your time chatting with them...there's some people doing really interesting research there! Feel free to PM me if you have more specific questions. Good luck!

Sufficient? I would argue that there's no such thing as having a "sufficient" background for guaranteed admission. All you have to do is scroll down the profiles and results thread from this year to see that many, many stellar applicants don't make it to top schools where they certainly have the ability to succeed. The fact is that there are limited slots at every econ program, and excellent candidates face the possibility of being turned down from any one of them. I definitely agree with the previous two replies, though, that you're wrong if you think you think having courses in topology and measure-theoretic probability constitute minimal requirements for admission. I have a friend who's starting U Penn's program this year who has taken neither of these--so I guess he doesn't have "excellent" preparation as defined by Penn's website. For another top 10 perspective, here's NYU's FAQ Admissions page: "It is also important to realize that we are not looking for mathematical wizards but individuals who have a reasonable amount of mathematical maturity and can apply their logical mind to economic questions." The take-away? Take enough math and do well enough to show you can handle rigor--and here a course like real analysis is a good signal--but don't think you need to have every course in the math and stats department on your transcript to have a realistic chance of getting into a top school. Necessary? I would say strong letters of recommendation from economics professors who know you and your work well, WANT to see you get admitted to a top program, and can convincingly communicate to the adcoms WHY they believe you deserve to get in (i.e. can vouch for your future promise as a RESEARCHER, not merely as a student who can get good grades in hard math courses). I really think this aspect of the application is absolutely crucial, but is so often overlooked by posters in this forum in favor of the math courses. Again, from NYU's website: "It isn't easy to define this, but what we look for is evidence of creativity, originality, drive ... ingredients that will make you a successful researcher. The ability to do well in courses or exams is correlated with this talent, and we certainly look for that and we also demand that you do well in our coursework, but that isn't the ultimate goal. Many students are really good at coursework but are just not the same when it comes to research." I hope I've provided some counter-balancing food for thought on this issue.

Could you give some reasons as to why you think so? (I should also have mentioned that although the Chicago Fed title sounds fancier--"Associate Economist"--it's exactly the same as Research Assistant/Research Associate positions at every other Fed. Same pay, same responsibilities, same everything). Thanks!

I know, I know what you're thinking..."WORK experience helping an application for ECON PHD??? Ha!--surely you jest!" But read below--you'll see that my situation is quite different... The dilemma: 3 competing offers for fulltime jobs next year--I need to make a decision TOMORROW, so your advice and guidance would be hugely appreciated: - MIT Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL), Research Assistant (http://www.povertyactionlab.com) - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Research Assistant - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Associate Economist So far, the advantages/disadvantages as I see them: MIT J-PAL ADVANTAGES: Work directly with Professors Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT (two leading development economists) and Executive Director Rachel Glennerster, and perhaps some other luminaries who are Lab Members (e.g. Sendhil Mullainathan and Michael Kremer of Harvard). If I build a good relationship with them and do my work well, I should hopefully be able to earn a couple of good rec letters from these profs. This is currently a gaping hole in my profile...nobody to vouch for me whose opinion matters. Although my math grades are good so far and I have some research experience, I've never had an opportunity to RA for an actual econ prof at the current institution where I'm getting my Masters in Public Policy (which, frustatingly enough, is a top-5 econ school). DISADVANTAGES: FULLTIME position means just that--no opportunity to take extra math/econ classes, even though the position is directly at the MIT campus. This means my formal math education before applying to Ph.D. programs will effectively end with Real Analysis I this year. No Real Analysis II, no measure theory, no functional analysis, no diff eq's, blah blah blah. Also, I don't know anything about development (although obviously I'll learn quite a bit if I work at J-PAL)...certainly not enough to know that it's what I want to pursue in grad school. BOSTON AND CHICAGO FEDS ADVANTAGES: Both are highly-regarded Banks when it comes to being more "intellectual" and academically oriented. Full tuition reimbursement after working for 6 months, meaning I could potentially take classes at UChicago or Northwestern or Harvard or MIT to get a stronger math background. Opportunity to explore different fields of economics (whereas J-PAL is focused exclusively on randomized field experiments in evaluating poverty alleviation programs, the Fed economists study pretty much everything out there). Pays 10K more than the J-PAL (although salary was never the motivation for applying to any of these jobs). DISADVANTAGES: There are no professors at the Fed. Economists, but not professors--and unfortunately in this status-obsessed field, that makes a huge difference. Plus, getting a job at the Fed (12 regional banks and Board of Governors = potentially 100s of RAs applying for Econ Ph.D. programs each year) is much more commonplace than working at MIT J-PAL (3-4 RAs in Cambridge and a scattering of about 10 or so across the globe working on field projects). My application could end up drawing reactions like "Oh, here's just another Fed guy..." Right now, it looks as though accepting the J-PAL offer is the better move. But I wanted to run this buy you guys before I pick up the phone tomorrow and make those life-altering calls. BTW, congrats to everyone who's been hearing good news from admissions committees nationwide. You're where I want to be in a couple of years...which is why I want to make sure the next step I take is the right one. THANKS!!