chptlk

I think its a very useful tool to have. Firstly it provides a valuable source for understanding continuous time dynamic systems. Also, the intuition goes through even for dynammic programming (discrete). Finally, while the chances of you needing it in macro is really high, it has a lot applications in game theory too. Most important, I would think, is the intuition it has to offer. In a lot of situations you may find the intuition will be applicable in a completely different setting, and your work may then be to come up with the required tools appropriate for this new setting. So learn it if you can (and if you enjoy this stuff)

My bet = Fuhito Kojima (Harvard) (check his webpage out to see why) ... also I heard both their job talks

double post

I couldn't agree more. Also there's some concern about the lag involved in current hiring activity and rankings. The point is that the rankings would matter to you (if it does at all) about the time you hit the job market, and thats about 5 years from now. Also, as mentioned by macroeconomicus, in the fields of Macro and Game Theory WUSTL dominates both Virginia and Wisconsin by a fairly visible margin.

Pevdoki... welcome to wash u

The uneven wieght ball question has been doing the circuit for quite a while.... here are other cheap thrills you can get out of it... get a relation between the minimum no. of turns (say x) you need to figure the odd ball out and the total number of balls (say y).... Enjoy

that was awesome.... :tup:

I agree with the wake up call bit. The rest I find amusing. As Economics students, that too at the graduate level, I don't see why people would have moral issues with individuals maximizing their own utility (i.e. being a "victim" of "poaching", if you like). Also, applying the same logic, NYU had followed precisely the same "poaching" to become what it is today. Go further back and you'll suddenly notice Harvard and Princeton poaching from European Universities. As for Wisconsin being regarded better than Wustl. Perhaps that is true....the only thing you do know for sure right now is that some Professors in the former don't feel that way. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The big jump came in Macro, and honestly I'm glad it did come....even though I still need some time to figure the whole deal out. Work hours vary greatly across people, and is to a large extent related to previous training. Some fairly novel and neat intuition on old material. So I'm fairly happy.... (perhaps a little sleep deprived?)

Myerson can perhaps be credited for the most findings in auction theory that could possibly be packed in two or three papers... Incredible... all three of them [clap][clap][clap]

Can anyone suggest a good (recent) survey article in the field of Economic Decision Theory? Thanks in advance.

This maybe an obvious piece of information that I have forever missed out on. Does anybody know if the editorial board of a journal is paid. What about referees? If so, then what allows or disallows the holding of multiple editorial positions. How does it affect tenure decisions (if it does so at all)?

I flunked Econometrics .... I don't think it agrees with me

I personally do not know of an undergrad who got his/her work published in the top 5 journals. However, it is a possibility. The best strategy in my opinion is to show your work to your recommenders and ask them if you should send a copy of your work along with your application. As far as getting published goes, it is perhaps better to wait it out than to get published in a lower level journal since it would be a permanent entry in your cv. Econphd.net offers much the same advice, and I find it quite plausible that Econ. departments may want a clean slate. If, however, you feel that your work is of top quality and you don't mind spending on submission fees then do send in your work to the top places. If it gets accepted you're guaranteed some good offers, if not, the editorial review may offer you some tips on future work. Overall, I don't think getting published at a lower ranked journal, is what you should be worrying about now. All the best.

Congratulations!!

(an indicative list... not exhaustive) Radiohead, Beatles, Miles Davis, Arcade Fire, David Bowie, Mozart

I don't like the idea of retirement. I quite like the idea of being paid for coming up with and solving puzzles.

You may find this useful. http://www.atypon-link.com/doi/abs/10.1257/000282806777212044

I would add Fudenberg and Tirole -Game Theory to the list Most of the problems in this book come with incredible insights.

I disagree and would disagree even more vehemently if I could make some sense of what you've said above. For Example you say: While its true that many ideas can garner validity experimentally, a lot of new research gets incorporated into the field without the potential of modifying its existential structure. "Existential Structure"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At this moment I am seriously hoping that you have read a lot lot more of Sartre than economics. But seriously, what on earth are you talking about? I'll be charitable though. I'll assume that was a typo. So what you really meant was essential structure. If that is the case than I would ask you to name one, indeed any piece of research that has been "incorporated into the field" between 1900 and 1970 which hasn't been worked upon or modified or atleast critiqued thereafter. Then you carry on "Ultimately, the foundations of microeconomics are simply models to help us understand social realities. But I see people use these models as primary tools to explain reality" I get a terrible suspicion that you do not quite know what you're talking about. Again I invite you to give me an example of a situtation where someone used one of "the foundations of microeconomics" as a tool to explain reality. My personal favourite "I'm not trying to argue that this method is necessarily bad, but just that it's pretty masturbatory to talk about economics the way we talk about hard sciences like physics." Not necessarily "bad"!!!! Since this isn't a morality tale I assume you're saying that it is sometimes "useful" (aka good). Then it comes to the way we talk about hard sciences like physics. So I would request you now to give me an example of how you talk about (in three sentences) string theory (a field in physics, just in case). I believe you want everyone to talk "about" economics in a way different to the way they talk "about" physics. I would be grateful if you could elaborate just a bit on this "theory of ways" Finally please refrain from making statements such as "After all, while complete objectivity can be claimed in neither physics nor economics, its far more sensical to argue that our assumptions in economics can be subjected to a deal of relativity, whereas to argue that in in physics requires delving into a far deeper philosophical conundrum" when it seems rather evident that you're unaware of the nature of cutting edge research in either field. Regards.

Why do I get the feeling that I'm the only one in the forum heading to WUSTL? :(

Prufrock ... On a lighter note, I assure you, I couldn't help but point out a perhaps unrealistic assumption on your part... a finite amount of time (fair enough) "that can be spent on either" ... now these being the only two demands on ones time is unrealistic...and if there are other choices involved then more time spent on math does not necessarily imply that the time had to be taken away from grammar lessons

The way I see it, very rarely will any of us get a chance to flaunt such stuff around in the future. The path of an academic isn't always strewn with diamonds and mercs. So I don't think anyone should grudge him. On the informational aspect of it ... I, for one, wanted to know what the big offers are like, so it sure worked for me. Lastly, were I to meet him, I'd simply congratulate him and ask him to treat a poorer colleague to some good beer.

I would add the relatively new(its only weak point) open access journal Theoretical Economics

Hope this helps http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/econ211/readings.htm