Cassin

http://www.sfbtr15.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redaktion/events/SFB_Announcement.pdf This year’s speakers are: •David Atkin, Princeton (Development) •Richard Hornbeck, MIT (History) •Oleg Itskhoki, Harvard (International) •Greg Kaplan, NYU (Macro/Labor) •Mihai Manea, Harvard (Theory) •Eric Weese, MIT (Political Economy) •Ali Yurukoglu, NYU Stern (IO)

I would add that marginal admits do exhibit a random component around a deterministic trend (best/worst applicants - less random). Imagine a committee with finite time, holistic evaluations of profiles. Once they get past "best fits" they start comparing relative weaknesses/strengths in a multi-dimensional space. "This one has only 780Q/3.7gpa but did a senior thesis; this one's LoR sounds more emphatic." Some judgments are going to be based on gut feeling/mental coin toss. Relatively large set of competent, good students (all with some minor weaknesses) but only a portion can be admitted. Another possibility is that LOR writers with asymmetric social networks (co-authors, alma-mater, compatible research schools of thought, recent seminar presentations) could give very asymmetric ex-ante chances getting into comparable schools. Different sets of people are applying to different schools (imperfect overlap). Which includes endogenous fit (self-selection) as well as constrained optimization with different choice sets. At Stanford you got marginal reject. With another commitee in another year, with slightly different pool of applicants, you could've gotten marginal admit in the first round. At Rice maybe they were strategically working on yield and thought you'd get into top 10. At Berkeley maybe in their evaluation you were not as good as what they wanted this year. Cornell/Duke - either pure luck or bad fit. Funding choices also have some randomness but I would say less because for some schools everyone gets uniform funding; for some others funding is so limited, only superstars would get funded, which are easier to characterize.

Your background is decent. There is only one (compound) reason to have economics background -- it helps you better understand why you want to apply to PhD, pose better questions, more chances to get economics research experience and having the professors with respectable research profiles in the field comment on your chances of surviving the PhD. Helps to write research proposals/get economics grants. Less stuck when writing a term paper early in your program (especially when picking question/motivation). Granted, a lot of people don't know what they are going to write their job market paper on (or will change their mind), so it's not a problem if you only have vague ideas in your SOP (it doesn't matter much). But it is true that having an honors economics thesis and other similar projects (/RA experience) would be a plus. The mathematics background with (A's) is meant to illustrate survival chances in first year. I don't think having too many 'advanced' math classes can compensate for lack of economics research but for a profile that has 'some of everything,' Putnam/advanced maths can give a sense of "high IQ" flavour, which is a good thing for top 5. Economics graduate or senior undergraduate courses are helpful but not required. Don't apply to "just" MIT/Chicago/UPenn; you'll be better off choosing between several admits in top 10/top 20. If you applied to 20 top 20 schools, you'd probably get into half (noisy forecast) if you can get some econ. research experience. After being admitted, I would say that it will hurt you initially that you have less intuition (both general and obsure-model-specific) than some of your classmates when learning first-year stuff and sometimes there're questions that go beyond the 'math' to interpret results and math majors find those questions a little more intimidating at first (especially in first-year macro). But don't fear, after a semester or two you'll be completely caught up with the rest of your class. On the other hand, you'd probably do better than your typical classmate writing a dry paper on theoretical econometrics or a technical theory paper. For an example of such paper, see Weinstein and Yildiz (2007). Depending on your field of interest, you may be able to leverage your human capital.

You can leave this question blank if you don't feel comfortable unanswering it. To make sure they don't think you missed it on their form, you can put something like "---------"

I take this to mean they receive at least 50 applications with 800Q/800V. But they CERTAINLY do not use it as a filter since I was admitted with one of the largest fellowship packages that they were offering, only with 800Q/610V/5.5A. Practically speaking, there are several software programs you can find on the internet that help with learning custom word list vocabulary definitions. My own preparation included: Quantitative - not studying after acing the two downloadable tests; Verbal - studying several GRE word lists (smallest with 500, largest with 5000 words) over a few months up to one year in advance of the test, Analytical) reading the full list of publicly available GRE essay topics and 30-60 minutes (combined) thinking about them.

There's a first-year student at Princeton who was undergraduate at Duke but none were admitted from Rice.

I get a feeling that some of the "brand" power is on some irrational level, rather than a simple quality input/output assessment. Growing up in Europe, I still "feel" that Oxford ought to be better than, say, MIT in some generic discipline - echo of the But on a rational level, I didn't even apply to Oxford since I prefer working in North America - placement facts.

In terms of research Princeton's strengths: Theoretical Micro, Theoretical Metrics (behind Yale but maybe ahead of NWU), International. Princeton's weaknesses: IO, Corporate Finance. Applied Metrics are largely reduced-form, while Yale, NWU, Penn are structural -- whether this is a feature or a bug depends on personal preferences (structural vs. reduced form is the current battle in econ methods and comes up often at flyout cross-university comparisons and discussions). One interesting feature of the department is that in macro (New Keynesian vs. Minnesota-macro), theoretical metrics (Bayesian vs. Frequentist) and micro (aspects of "behavioral") there are big names from different "sides" of the fence. I can't say to what extent this is true in other departments (probably less true). In terms of location The discussion here is accurate: Princeton is relatively upscale (I saw Maybach 62 once), has expensive services but small and doesn't have many venues, somewhat limited public transit (not relevant if you get a car); 50 minutes to NYC is nice. One professor has remarked that a married graduate student who stays in Princeton for the summer is ideal in terms of research output versus (lack of) potential distractions. Yes, New Haven is "a bit of a dump" compared to Princeton (which is very polished). On the other hand, New Haven has more theaters, higher population and has cheaper services. Princeton is safer and has less crime than Evanston/New Haven (granted that NH is a lot better than in early 1990's but I did cross a shattered bus stop during the campus tour of Yale). Princeton has many trees and various animals live here or in very close proximity: foxes, deer, squirrels, badgers, groundhogs. In terms of weather This winter has been very mild, compared to midwest like Evanston/Chicago. We had snow lying around for maybe 5 days total (not consecutive) -- negative temperatures at night but positive during the day. In terms of the program No elimination in year 1 and I haven't heard horror stories about the 2nd year field exams (similar to MIT/Harvard in terms of lack of non-voluntary attrition). Very different from NWU -- Rawlsian risk aversion is a plus here. Yale doesn't have much attrition either. I believe that funding continuation is possible in year 5 contingent on teaching some number of sections. The program used to be four years de jure but now it's 5 years de facto and steps have been taken in that direction. After fifth year the funding is harder to come by (not sure what 'harder means), which is a deliberate incentive mechanism. According to the University's president, they would rather have plenty of funding during the expected term, rather than spread it out too much (or use the majorityl during the first 2-3 years like some other universities do). I may add more things later on.

I think that as TM aspirants we tend to overestimate the people with top admits a bit (I remember looking up people's profiles who went to various top 5 schools three years ago and thinking it's impossible). It's true that the overall quality of the class varies with the ranking but all of us are imperfect and flawed in our own ways :). In reality, the 'superstar' premium requires only a small (expected) ability differential, just like the top high school sprinter is not much slower than the Olympic champion in the absolute sense (which does not take away from the praise for the champion's dedication and achievement in any way). The bottom line is, don't feel too discouraged by not getting accepted by your dream school (it's not over yet) and don't feel overconfident otherwise (it's not over yet). On the up side, it's important to keep thinking seriously about economic questions no matter where you end up (the reason to pursue the PhD in the first place). On the down side, even after getting the top tenure-track job at a top 10 school, most (many) people don't get tenure. None of the above is meant to address the thread topic directly but is meant as a perspective on a broader issue. :)

Not true, our clocks are correct.

Fong, Salant are at Stanford GSB, aren't they? Kyna Fong - PhD Candidate, Economic Policy and Analysis, Stanford GSB Yuval Salant - Home Exactly. Jha's advisor listed is none other than Susan Athey, who's now at Harvard. So that's another not a representative sample.

As an economist, I found Penn's discriminatory pricing intriguing. Last year they had several outcomes: 1) tuition+$25K yr1 + $20K 2-5 (fellowship+bonus in first year) 2) tuition+$18.3k x5 years (fellowship in first year) 3) tuition waiver +later funding from TA/RA conditional on passing prelims (non-trivial at Penn), wait list for first year funding 4) Admission, no financial aid, very high on waist list for funding 5) Admission, no financial aid, high on wait list for funding 6) No admission, wait list for admission and funding 7) Reject One of my LOR's graduated from Penn and said that everyone eventually gets funding after prelims but he had to use intergenerational transfers in first year. Attrition is noticeable and the department releases number of students left by stage X list. Right now Penn is very good in micro theory and macro theory.

1) Stanford plays games with funding. Last year they gave 32k or 37k fellowship in ONLY first year, which would be followed by "RA stipend for the second year will be based on the University's approved rate of inrease." Notice how they didn't even specify the ballpark or past numbers, because I think it's around 20k and they don't want to put weaknesses in the admission letters. Press them hard about spelling out the details. I had the 37k and this didn't make my decision harder. 2) Don't worry so much about up front money during your education if academia is your top concern. Stanford's placements have been very bad relative to its rank for last few years. MIT/Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Northwestern have been doing better. Neither Arrow nor Kreps are involed with the department. Do not be swayed by big names from the old days (e.g. MIT still has Paul Samuelson on their departmental photo - kind of amusing). Research productivity declines with age because it's, in part, based on creativity and ideas that mainstream has not yet considered. The other thing is that most of top placements that Stanford may mention came out from GSB. Some consider Stanford GSB to be superior to MIT in terms of personal attention and placement (no comment as I didn't apply to GSB - hindsight 20/20). At UPenn flyout I was told to avoid Stanford at all costs in favour of any other of my theory schools (UPenn or not) because many of their top names have not been as active as they used to be. On a positive note, Stanford has Ilya Segal who also works on theory like auctions. Milgrom is still very solid. Chatting with Matt Jackson about his current work was also interesting. So it seems IO/auctions/networks/mechanism design are Stanford's strength. Even though I am not a classmate, I got this feeling too (but some TM'ers disagree and have chosen Stanford over Princeton/Yale). Last year Stanford had over-recruited - I wonder how they have adjusted this year. For what it's worth, Stanford's modern macro is also weak, I would consider Yale to be a bit stronger there.

Before people freak out about the deadlines, it's April 15th actually :). Last year Harvard had sent informal emails to at least some of their waitlisted students whether they would attend with certainty, if given admission (being so late in the game, some would have already committed themselves). In general, not every waitlisted student from every university will get such offers - it really depends on a particular year's turnout (e.g. last year Princeton cancelled its waitlist). Pretty much, Geanakoplos said something like how Cowles' endowment is "5 times anyone's guess." (strange equilibrium :). The weather was terrible - near freezing in the morning (same day as Stanford's second day palms too). And something like 1/3 of the class fails all prelims on the first try.. But they do have a solid collobration with Kellogg's theorists. +Opportunities to work at NBER I would think.

Don't forget the very important aspect of two-sided matching of research interests. If many applicants have equivalently-strong profiles, then it's a good idea to choose by (relative) fit. In my mind, when I think of search theory(+macro theory), I think of Penn. They kept talking about search during their flyout presentations. MIT/Harvard feel more applied theory to me (surely some pure theorists get in, but either relatively fewer or they are the ones who are named W.L. Putnam Fellows four times out of four:). And it's not useful to strategy pick your field choices for each school. It's not just what you write in your SOP but what kind of research you have done that LOR's will talk about. Besides, doing what you really like at Penn would be better than doing what you are not really interested in at MIT.

Some legitimate reasons I can think of: -wife and/or children -high moving expenses (international) Good time for bargaining is fly-outs and talking to admissions director: -they'll see you in person -you show at least some interest in their school that you showed up -some departments (esp. public) have little leeway and tight budgets, they may mention it -other departments in top 6-10 may be more aggressive if you are a good match for them and have good match with top 5 but seem interested in them anyway (NYU, Northwestern come to mind) -some adcoms actually reserve extra funds for flyout bargaining or have something extra because they had a few funded declines already and may be able to redistribute HOWEVER: -if you ask for more money, make sure you are committed to attend! -it's not nice to ask 5 different departments for a raise Personally, I went with unadjusted offers (but then I also have external funding) and didn't ask other departments I did not attend to commit extra funds they said they have.

I had January 31st admission offer because they were putting a nomination through the graduate school for university-wide fellowship, which takes extra time with its own internal deadline of January 31st. This was followed up by a typical generic email by applyyourself.com on February 9th titled 'Application for Admission Decision' click the link to find out or "scratch here for a chance to win." Their 'official' confirmation with the fellowship details was later, somewhere in late February or early March (I can't remember the date but it was after Yale). I expect that a few people will get a similar notice but majority will have to wait. I know how anxious most of you feel about the time moving so slow. Don't worry, the time will come. Here's what I could find in my emailbox archives: Yale was Friday, February 23, 2007 11:42 am Penn was Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:56 pm Northwestern (unofficial) was Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:29 pm NYU was phonecall either on March 1st or 2nd with follow-up unofficial email at Friday, March 2, 2007 4:50 pm Northwestern (official) was Monday, March 5, 2007 1:28 pm Princeton was Tuesday, March 6, 2007 3:15 pm Stanford was Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:10 pm Generalization: expect nothing on weekends.

Also, Roland Benabou who teaches Behavioral theory with Douglas Bernheim (and during the last flyout Stanford thought he was staying!). Two junior theory hires last year is a positive signal for commitment to theory: Sylvain Chassang, Satoru Takahashi. The department is strong both in game theory as well as [axiomatic] decision theory (e.g. preferences for flexibility, preferences for early resolution of uncertainty, addiction, commitment).

Beware what you wish for... :smack: :p

I don't see any hard evidence or definition on Google, except some wild speculation. Please, be more specific about your sources.

Scan, make .pdf of new grades. Send that by email. I did that for ~10 schools after the middle of January (committees just started to get together - they don't work in December). They'll ask for a real sealed copy after matriculation anyway, so they are OK with unofficial copies for the fall grades. Anything to stand out from the crowd is a plus.

Macro gossip: Rochester macro used to be very strong. After some internal fall-out (personality clash), a number of strong faculty have left. They haven't recovered (yet). That's all I know.

Stockholm is probably a descent choice for modern (dynamic) quant macro. No idea about the others.

The only thing I've heard is that Heckman prefers his students to study structural econometric models, unlike Levitt's reduced-form instrumental variables. So perhaps Columbia was trying to use that intradepartmental rift strategically. Here's a somewhat more recent article about Heckman's research, Prof John Heckman, News - Graduate Studies, UCD

I have spoken with the top NYU MA student of 2006-2007 at the April flyout. He said that out of ~90 students, only one (he) was able to get into NYU PhD (or any good school ~top10-15). He was adamant that it's not a good preparation for PhD - he got lucky that, by chance, he already had some connections with the NYU faculty before doing the MA (through his consulting work experience). He decided to do MA because he was out of school for a number of years and wasn't committed to research initially. Like others have said above in this thread, the material there is of applied nature and is useful for people who want to work in the private sector/policy (true for most US MA's). US academic system is different from the Commonwealth. Since top undergraduates can enter PhD directly, terminal MA are used for orthogonal purposes (revenue, policy-training). On the other hand, UK/Canadian PhD programs generally require MA first, which necessitates that their Master's programs are useful for research work.