econphilomath

That is right. That some top departments took more students is a function of being surprised they got more acceptances than usual because someone higher up took less. This makes them not go to the waitlist and then those move downward generating the ripple effect to programs below. It would also contribute to the feeling waitlists moved less and maybe explains the sentiment on this board that it was more competitive this year. Given all that I guess you could say it was more competitive since the number of slots at the top diminished slightly but demand maybe stayed the same. Hard to know for sure without admin data on applications.

Some top departments took less students this year due to over admitting last year and this generated congestion that rippled down and made waitlists high up not move. This may have been w surprise and generated the observed waitlist frustrations.

I think I was clear in stating very high GRE is more like a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. I stand by the fact that the liklihood of admission drops very very rapidly with GRE score all else equal so it makes sense for applicants to retake as much as they can to improve that margin. I can't extrapolate outside the very top schools though but I imagine this general principle holds for all top 10 schools and is more the case now that ETS lets you choose what scores to submit.

Some say the Yale PhD has lots of value added. People seem to like it there and do well, especially in some fields. Very few tend to choose Yale over Harvard/MIT but not zero. 30k in Boston is like 20k in New Haven. So its like twice the purchasing power. Probably visit New Haven before deciding. I doubt you will go to Yale over Harvard but its not as obvious as some people may claim.

So in summary, if you want a top 5 or top 10 econ phd and you have time and money to retake to get a higher score, I highly recommend doing so. Keep doing that to get the highest possible score possible. Especially if you don't have crazy math. Its important to note I'm saying this especially now that ETS changed the rules so you can choose what score to send so there no signaling cost to repeating the test. I view the time and money as trivial costs relative to the benefit, hence the recomendation to keep taking the test to get the highest score possible. Since others are already doing that it makes it harder to get away with a lower score. I would also note that while you may find someone with low gre quant in a top department and cry "counter example" remember when your applying you want to raise the probability of admission and I'm saying the conditional probability changes a lot with marginal movements of gre. Hopefully some admissions committees ignore gre but most won't. As for evidence I'm not sure I have any credible way of signaling where I get this from nor how sincere my interest in helping you all is. You can check that I was an avid poster back in the days when I was an applicant. That timeline is consistent but does not prove that I am now in the know. I just thought I would come back and give some advice. Not revolutionary advice in any case, I just found it surprising to see almost no admits with less than a near perfect score and the huge amount of applicants with a perfect score. I keep thinking there are probably some kids out there who worked super hard on their app and stopped taking gre with a good but not great score thinking they had a shot and didn't bother to do it again ... and are now at a disadvantage.

You would be surprised. I know it stinks but you got to play the game. Think about how hard you have worked to make all the other things on your CV look good...years for that GPA...years before that to get into that top 20 college... RA work, crazy math classes just to impress adcoms etc. Effort for GRE is trivial relative to all that. I suggest hunker down and crank it out. I think anyone can get a max score, its just a matter of practice and planning. So I figured I signal to you all to take that into consideration.

Age old advice but now with more intensity behind it. Why? It used to be the case that all your scores are reported when you apply. Now its only the one you want. You can do 5 a year so my recommendation is the following: Start early. Way before your going to apply. Practice and start taking tests 25 weeks before applications are due so you have time to do 5. Plan on the fact you will take it five times or until you max out quant. Keep practicing and taking exams until you hit max. Can't stress how important it is to max it out these days. Hundreds of econ phd applicants are already doing this. Imagine if filtering by "all who maxed out quant GRE" gives you literally hundreds of files, adcoms will start with that and not even bother to read the others. Maybe dip down to 95p but its easy to rank and filter by GRE, not so easy to do that with LOR or SOP or GPA-Institution combinations. Also if you don't max it out it signals 1) you made one or two mistakes on 8th grade math but more importantly 2) you may not have the grit to keep trying 3) your not well informed on how things work This is especially true for applied candidates that may not have crazy math or from countries less well known. More important than ever to get those triangle areas right and not trip up on the most trivial of barriers. So while it seems overkill, (it is) we have basically found ourselves in a prisoners dilemma, now you've been warned.

What about funding in the 6th year? Stipends are probably different by 20% as well. Working in first year will be no bueno. If your certain you want to do labor/public + behavioral it seems the choice should be Berkeley if funding is similar. Every year they place multiple top 20 jobs in those fields. Not like Stanford does terrible, just this is the relative strength of Berkeley. Only downside of Berkeley is there will be 10 other students doing the same and it may be harder to stand out. On the bright side you'll get great peer effects and have a blast. If your not so certain what you will do I think Stanford has a little bit deeper faculty in a broader set of things across the board, more tools IMHO. Also if your working and doing first year you prob will learn less, take easier electives etc. Seems to me both are great so recommend visit and go with your gut. Think about those financial constraints though, I might even look into getting a loan so you can avoid the 10 hr/w teaching in first year and to make up for stipend differences. Assume you'll make 100k+ after graduation so probably not going to be a big deal to pay it off.

Both places are great. Go to visit day and get a good feeling of how you would fit in. Take a look at your financial package. Ask yourself, do you have funding that allows you to spend time on your own research? Do you have 6th year covered? Your on the flat part of the objective function so any epsilon shock to preferences can make the difference. On specifics, I can give my 2 cents in applied fields: Devo just got a big bump hiring Chris Udry, guy is super respected and a great adviser. I bet Northwestern will produce some top quality Devo-IOish candidates in the near future given the strong tools and framework people pick up there and newish faculty. Chicago has been hiring good applied tooled-up juniors recently (Lamadon, Dinnerstein, Hull) and has powerhouse applied people like Magne Mogstad and J. Heckman who would advise the crap out of a hardworking, gritty applied student. Throw in a junior of your choice and you have yourself a solid committee. I would be torn. What a great problem to have.

Agree 100% with the posts above. Getting into a top 10 is not that random. But hey I admire your willingness to put in the work. Having said that, you will have plenty of time to beef up your skills in grad school. There is something to showing up tooled up and blowing people away but honestly if you have the drive to pass on a top 10 to do MA which is basically repeating 1st year I am pretty sure you will be fine. If you want to do structural work, you can do it. Barriers to entry are not that high. Every top department has some space for that although training is not the same across departments. Maybe do some work over the summer, make sure you can code, etc. PM me if you want to discuss more details.

Not much to lose. Not sure why you think your implicitly waitlisted, normally people are explicitly waitlisted. I'd reach out now.

I would definitly go to the flyout if you can but I would decide after that given not a lot of new information will get revealed after that. That is plenty of time for the admissions people to call people on the waitlist and move down. Last minute craziness is why class size is not the same each year...

Given the poster had asked about macro-firm dynamics, seems Berkely placements or Restud Tour candidates in Labor or Public are not as relevant. Macro placements at Princeton go to top 10 all the time. Berkeley places labor and public students well but does not really even produce macro. Each place has their specialization and you could say Esteban and Richard Rogerson are the macro equivalent to David Card and Emmanuel Saez of Labor/Public in terms of advising. As a side note NCox berkeley grad doing public-household finance and is one on the tour is going to Princeton. As a second side note, Berkeley has a certain vibe that is cool for sure. Its close to SF as well. Princeton is more chill and compact but close to NYC so has a decent mix with something for everyone as well. As a third side note, IMHO people way over estimate home much the coolness of the area will matter. You will be studying 24/7 for multiple years so maybe work hard now and then get a job at a cool place 😉

This funding issue seems like its something people overlook all the time. I know it must be hard to imagine yourself in 5th year struggling to finish your job market paper and juggling teaching and wishing you had funding for 6th year. This is super important. When they say some departments have more resources that others, this is one of the reasons it matters. You don't want to be on the market worrying about your bills.

You probably won't hear back from the waitlist until the very end. If you think you like where you got in I would just decline the waitlist and help everyone else out limiting the congestion. Somebody out there will appreciate it very much and it seems you will be affected very little.

Insider here. 1) macro/trade group is one of the strongest and consistently places top 10/20 even this year that was rough for macro. (Columbia, NYU, Feds, etc) 2) Esteban does this stuff (as do many others) and was chosen best adviser this last year. Quality advising matters folks. 3) just hired Gianluca Violante (senior, NYU), Ben Moll stayed (senior, decline NYU) and Gregor Yarosh from Stanford just signed on. Tons of other macro and trade faculty to choose from as well. 4) If you like firm dynamics, the IO group (now 6 professors deep, one of the biggest) is also a resource so that macro-IO studying firm investment/dynamics is feasible. Without saying anything bad about Berkeley because its a great place, I think given your interests, the difference between Berkeley and Princeton is at its biggest and favors Princeton.

LOL ! What a champ!

That's too bad. Do you know if he would be at Maryland after that?

Bluebucket is right about the funding. If your waitlisted and have funding you should tell them ASAP. That will get you in before April 15th. NSF will too. I would bet the farm a waitlister will not get funding from them for the first year and possibly for the second year. If you are now unfunded but admitted I also would sign minuscule probability of getting funding and I would start planning assuming no funding. So given that I myself was in a similar situation, I will pitch in with my own biased personal opinion. Please take no offense from the ramblings of this TM-old timer. First of all, we are in this partly out of consumption. We like economics and academia, just sitting around thinking and stuff. Having cash to live comfortably and having as many lattes as you like makes a difference I think. You want to study and think in a relaxed environment not having to worry about paying the bills or your health insurance. RAing all day will distract you from your research too (although it is useful sometimes, but only on your terms, not out of necessity). So if you are planning on taking on some debt or getting funding from somewhere, plan on leaving a little bit of cash to be comfortable. If you have outside funding and consider using to go to MIT, I would hesitate if the funding has strings attached. If you have to go back to your country after 5 years for example, this eliminates the job market option and then what's the point of going to a better placing program like MIT anyway? You can't go on the job market and that extra punch coming from there will not be all that different from other top programs. If you want to go back after your PhD or there are no strings attached, well then its a no brainer go for it. Regarding taking out a loan to go to MIT, I would definitely hesitate if you have any other top funded offers. IMHO the training and the peers that possibly could be better just can't be that different to justify 70k+ in debt, it's just impossible. If you are good at MIT you will be good at any other top program and honestly I think it is crazy to get in debt 60k a year to go to grad school given the opportunity cost of getting plus 30k+ at another top program like Princeton, Stanford or Yale. All the top programs place their students well enough and the material is basically the same. Super funded vs no funding is a game ender for me at least. Then again, if you don't have a comparable offer, then I might do it depending on your personal situation. This is not an MBA, but hey its not like you will suffer after graduation and heck, you went to MIT ! But again even programs outside the top ten have great economist and place their good students decently too. Its just that these generally don't give that much funding anyway. I probably would have taken my outside funding to go to MIT if I did not have other top funded admits. Anyway, just thought I would throw it out there. It seems it was a super competitive year so congrats on the admits and waitlisters.

Sounds to me like all the places mentioned are good enough a fit that a difference in the stipend or personal location preferences would tilt the balance. If you value close housing and Columbia is giving you more $$ then take that. If NYU or Minnesota money is better then go there. Personally I would be leaning NYU but could be persuaded to choose Columbia if they gave me more money (plus their housing is better). Also, you might want to ask at Columbia because I remember them having an extra 5k-7k to throw at kids sitting on the fence. As for Sargent as a super adviser I would be wary of choosing a place just for one guy. He could move, you might change your mind and the most probable is that another 10 other folks also have him as an adviser. Not that its a bad idea, I just would not bet the farm on Sargent being your adviser and becoming the next Eichenbaum.

I guess the natural counterpart would be to look at actual placements at top 20 programs. It is easy to look up because the list of APs is online for each of the 20 programs as are their CVs list school and year of graduation.

That will be a loss to the few applied students at NWU. Good for Maryland though.

If its any help, I got a couple of emails from professors in my field and then an email from the secretary a few days later. The letter came a week or so after that I lived pretty far away too. Note: All this was season 2008.

oops double post.

I agree, MIT cleaned up this year, especially at the top. Last year was great too but it was shared. This year was quite frankly ridiculous, especially if you look at flyouts and offers. But Jeeves, now you have to live up to really high expectations!! Anyway, I'm just saying that Yale has had a solid last two years, especially compared to the rest of the tops schools.