Zoethor2

Is it just me or does it seem a bit cruel to come into a thread where someone explicitly posted saying they had gotten a 3.0 and say that one "only" got a 5.0? Maybe I've got the scaling way off, but complaining about getting a 5.0 AWA seems, to me, a lot like complaining about getting a 770 quant...

Agreed -- I would certainly categorize myself as "struggling" with my PhD program, because I came in somewhat underprepared, but I still would describe the overall experience as positive, and the vast majority of my profs have been amazing and extremely approachable!

Outside of the top 10, U Maryland has a good applied micro with a heavy slant towards public program. There are also several professors here who describe themselves as demographic economists, which I think is fairly closely related to public.

I listed in alphabetical order as many as fit, but that's just cause I was petrified that selecting strategically might be called out and get me in trouble. Given that it didn't, and I've never heard of it happening, if I did it again, I would probably do exactly as others have mentioned, and list several schools of a comparable ranking, as well as possibly a comparative safety and reach, to essentially give them an idea where you are aiming for. Optimally, that particular data on your application, I believe, is only supposed to be used internally as a sort of gauge of their relative ranking in our estimate, not as a factor in admissions. But *shrug*...

I skipped it on every one that I could. When I couldn't, I BSed. Did you grow up in a small town, or perhaps a city? I used my semi-rural background as "diversity".

Not CS, but there's a physics undergrad here at UMD. I seem to recall he had had barely any economics courses at all. So it is certainly possible for someone from non-econ/math "hard" fields to find a place in economics PhD programs.

Hey me too! And soon I'll have the midterm grades to prove it. :( I'm vowing to kick my butt into gears during the second half.

I apologize again; the standard I was thinking of when I said publishable quality was in terms of writing style, in-depth thought, and creativity. Not necessarily originality required to actually get an article into a top journal. I simply meant to respond to the previous posters by clarifying what I meant by writing sample, and chose the most concise way I thought I could get across what I meant. Apparently I did a poor job!

I would be inclined to say, forget retaking the GRE and concentrate on acing the TOEFL to the best of your ability. A 3.0 AWA, to me, may just be an indication that you didn't understand how to "write to the test". Graders on standardized tests are grading on a very particular rubric. As long as an adcom has other evidence that you have command of the English language, I think they would be inclined not to penalize you for a 3.0 AWA.

Yes, obviously, you need to be careful about what you send in. But, if you've really written something interesting or original, I feel like that could certainly help. Particularly as it shows that you have the ability to develop a research idea, work through it, and actually complete a finished product paper, which I would think would be a good signal to an adcom that you won't end up languishing as an ABD. I sent in, depending on which school it was, an applied econometric paper that is under review for publication, or an applied game theory paper which my prof and I are submitting this fall. I imagine that most applicants ought to realize that the writing sample they submit ought to be of publishable quality, which is why I didn't think to add that caveat in my post.

I think that in many ways your profile is similar to mine, in that it's very strong, really good GPA, good courses, strong letters, but from a school not necessarily well known to the adcoms. I think that your school probably is better off then mine, since I went to an obviously state school. The only thing that you're missing from pretty much the perfect package would be some research. I would seriously consider sending whichever in class paper you thought was the best to any school willing to take a writing sample (when I applied, I think all but 3 of the 15 said that they would consider a writing sample as part of the application if it was sent). That can help them realize that while you might not have formal research experience, you are interested in writing quality work about economics. Anyway, as others have said, I think you should aim top 20 in the US, send out a broad spread of apps and see what comes back. As someone else pointed out, lower-ranked schools will reject you if they think you're overqualified (I got a couple of rejects from my supposed safety schools... apparently I misjudged what a safety meant for me!) Best of luck!

I don't mean to say it's a hard and fast rule, but it just seems to me that the more time you give them, the better. Generally, letter writers are profs, with teaching loads, research, and service also eating into their schedule. I asked all my letter writers, at the latest, by September, if they were willing to write for me. I got them the materials probably around this time, but they had had the intervening month to at least be bouncing around ideas about what they were going to write. I guess what I'm saying is, the OP sounds like he hasn't even started discussing this with his letter writers, and I think that giving them the materials a month out is probably fine, but giving them a heads up/request ought to happen a while before that. Just my opinion though; I'm hardly an expert! :)

I personally would be seriously concerned about getting LoRs this late in the game. Your writers may feel rushed, which may result in letters that aren't as strong. Or, worse, they may not finish in time. However, if you are confident that they will have enough time to finish a polished letter for you, and you are confident that you will be able to write a polished SoP in time, then go for it. If you have concerns, I would suggest waiting, if it's not overly detrimental. The papers will also certainly help give you an edge if you are able to include them on your cv/resumé

My one word of caution about this is that it can vary a lot between universities. My real analysis prof had no earthly idea that an economics graduate student would want exposure to real analysis beforehand. I was at a state school that doesn't send a lot of people to graduate school, though; I imagine more prestigious schools probably have better informed profs, ceteris paribus.

Personally, if I hadn't taken proofs in undergraduate, I would have already dropped out of the PhD (I've been here two months). It's stressful enough without having to learn how to express myself in formal mathematics. I actually, when back at my undergrad uni, stopped by my proofs instructor's office to tell him how much I appreciated what I had learned from him. I think it's invaluable, although I'll caveat again that that's just from my personal perspective.