possible_phd

Don't most schools in NYC have subsidized housing for students? Might want to consider that.

Yup. Different schools value different things.

Evolutionary adaptations that inappropriately influence decisions in the modern world such that they lower expected utility is pretty much the definition of "error," in the economic sense of rationality. By the by, I have a paper in the works (7+ studies all worked almost right away) that provides an explanation -- or at least a partial explanation -- for loss aversion.

As for the OP's question: you often pick up a masters degree along the way, so that could be helpful. This is especially true at schools like Chicago, where you're allowed to pick up an MBA during your PhD, not just a regular ol' masters of marketing or finance or whatever. A Booth MBA can go a long way, and I know two people who left the PhD program there with MBAs.

Say what? No, not necessarily. Completing coursework and defending your proposal is all you need for ABD. You defend a proposal when you have SOME data but not ALL the data; you're PROPOSING an idea that you want to pursue. Getting from that point to a completed dissertation -- which may or may not deviate drastically from what was proposed, depending on how the data work out -- is not just writing a few chapters. We propose at the end of third year now, and I can tell you I was nowhere near ready to slap together a dissertation.

He is Sabotagebot, designed 15 years hence by an applicant rejected from all programs and sent back in time to sabotage all competition.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6792[/ATTACH] womp womp...

And for the sake of your career prospects. The job market for CCT folks just hasn't been very strong in the last decade or so.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "tie-over," but as I already stated, I don't really think this program would prep you for a PhD in marketing. I don't think there's any overlap whatsoever, aside from the fact that "marketing" is in the name of both degrees. Just read through the program description; that should make it pretty clear whether or not it's relevant to academic research.

I know someone who went through that program, and I don't see how it would prepare a person for CCT at all. It's also not very good prep for any PhD-level marketing program, because as far as I can tell, it's essentially a data-heavy market research/analytics program. This is the type of program that would prepare someone to do market research in industry, not in academia. The only benefit in terms of PhD prep would be if it helped you familiarize yourself with data and analysis, but I don't think that's worth the two years. It would also be good prep for when you'll have to teach market research to MBAs one day.

Nope. Don't care.

Hate to be a downer, but nothing about your profile seems very competitive to me. Your GMAT is way too low at under 600, and your GPAs are too low given the caliber of your pedigree (not saying they're bad schools at all, just that you're more likely to get a pass on so-so grades if you went to elite schools or studied a really tough major, regardless of whether or not that's fair). I don't think you really have a clear idea of your competition. There are plenty of applicants with incredibly high GMAT scores and top notch grades from top notch schools -- especially for PhD programs at schools like Duke, where I see you applied! I'm not seeing anything in your profile that would give somebody a reason to give you a chance over those other people. Do you have research experience? Letters of recommendation from well-known researchers? Personal connections? Anything? Because you certainly aren't going to win on the numbers. In the absence of these others factors, you're going to have to do two, possibly three things to be successful: 1) up that GMAT score a LOT; 2) develop realistic expectations regarding the caliber of school where you'll be competitive; and 3) maybe go for a research-heavy masters at the best school you can. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but blunt truth is better than nice platitudes if your goal is to be successful rather than to feel better about yourself. And trust me, if you start a career as a researcher, you better get used to feeling bad about yourself! :-P

Anthropology / sociology is to CCT what psychology is to CB and what economics is to quant.

YouTube contains untold knowledge. Seek "how to tie a bow tie" and ye shall find!

It depends on the personal prejudices of whoever sees it. I wouldn't hold it against you at all. That being said, I might hold it against you if you weren't aware enough to realize that covering it up is the smart thing to do. Don't make an issue out of it, and it won't be an issue.

If you get a 750 and your letters are good, you'll very likely get admitted to one of those programs. This of course assumes your SOP and interviews go well. That being said, it might be worth your while to throw in a few lower-ranked programs, because even perfect profiles get dinged. One point, though: I love Emory, but it's not super CB-focused, to the best of my knowledge. You should check the faculty to make sure there are people there doing stuff that you want to do (e.g., Ryan Hamilton).

It depends on how behavioral you want your behavioral economics. Are you talking straight up judgment and decision making? Plenty of people in CB do that. Check out Chicago.

Keep an eye on Who Went Where this summer for a more complete list.

It was on my resume, but it was literally the very last line and was never mentioned anywhere else in my application. I'd been a member since I graduated high school, and it was just always on my resume after that (I'm the ripe old age of 30 now, and my membership has since lapsed). It's no surprise then that I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but as you can see here -- and if you go back and read previous posts on this very topic -- a lot of people are very passionately against it for some reason. Given that, it's a judgment call as to whether you want to keep it included amongst a list of other memberships/awards or just take it off completely. I don't think seeing it on someone's CV would sway me either way unless I felt like the person were drawing too much attention to it or were bragging somehow. So in that sense, I think I might tend to agree with the general feeling here that it probably won't help and might even hurt. ETA: I will obviously disagree with this second part. Formalizing it for the sake of formalizing can indicate insecurity (symbolic self-completion theory, anyone?), but this sort of simplistic assumption betrays the nuance we look for as academics. Part of why I tested and joined way back in 1999 or 2000 was just to see if I could make it, but the real reason I "formalized it" and joined was because I wanted a differentiator for when I was looking for internships and jobs; and indeed, some recruiters did specifically mention it as a positive when recruiting me. Everybody else I was competing with was smart, too (we were nuclear engineers), but it was still a positive signal. That being said, I again agree that in academia, it's not likely to be a positive.

You should be specific enough to show that you're not ignorant but not so detailed that you show how ignorant you really are.

Agreed. I don't think a university education has been valued primarily as a simply source of education for quite some time. You can use the same books and read the case Harvard cases at almost any school. Heck, you can learn this stuff on your own! Don't we all have hobbies and interests that we self-studied and could be considered relative experts on? It's not about knowledge as a commodity but rather the intangibles -- network, prestige, signaling, etc. Moreover, it's also about the experience! I think anybody who goes to university can tell you that it's as much about learning how to live on your own and experiencing university life as it is about earning a degree. Nothing lasts forever, but I don't see a paradigm shift happening in our lifetimes.

I'm also in marketing at a top school. We don't teach; we don't have an undergrad program, so there's not a class readily available for us to take over. I know one student who taught a course at another local university a few years back during his 4th year, but that's generally not encouraged. We don't have any fellowships as far as I'm aware. I'm sure there are outside programs offering fellowships to which we could apply, but I don't know anyone who has. Stipends aren't a cost, so they obviously aren't factored into the "cost of attendance." Stipends are, however, income, so the government counts it when determining your eligibility for loans. EVERY piece of income counts, because it's based on your tax returns. The typical difference between cost of attendance and stipend is positive in the amount of the entire stipend less any activity fees. Why? Because you have no costs! Your tuition is paid for. You have a net positive balance of your entire stipend income plus whatever other income minus anything school-related not covered (e.g., activity fees as mentioned). I don't think many PhD students take out loans at all, because we don't qualify for much. I applied my first year and I think I was only eligible for $250 somehow. If I were eligible for more, I'd take out as much as I could to pay down old debts and to invest since rates are at historic lows and you don't have to make payments while in school.

http://blog.ezyang.com/img/wrong-on-the-internet/argument.jpg

Champagne? Fine wine? Caviar? Yeah, I got my LOR writers fancy cookies.

I think it's also potentially risky.