Canuckonomist

I think mcsokrates has really put it best: it is, in my experience as well, about working productively, and not just working for the sake of working. For those that say grad school is hell, I'd say there is more heterogeneity to it than that. I, on average, loved it. Being at the end of the PhD line now, about to start a TT job in the new academic year, I found that the hardest part of the PhD was finding out what worked best for you, and then not letting the work habits and perceived opinions of colleagues (you'd be surprised how often you infer opinions that are not there) change your strategy. Especially when you share offices, you may get the feeling that so-and-so is working harder than you, and that you should be working harder to keep up, else you look bad. It's up to you to decide how much you want to work (above some minimum threshold), and you shouldn't forget that, lest the stress of over-working burn you out. An advisor once told me that if I managed "6 good hours" a day, 5 (sometimes 6) days a week, I'd do just fine. I liked the sound of that, and thought, "that's it?". So, I took their advice, never working on Saturday, and sometimes I wouldn't work Sunday either. You'd be surprised, though, how hard "6 good hours" can be. It means being conscious of your productivity, staying off the internet, shortening lunches, and knowing when chats with your colleagues are more about wasting time than being productive. It may take you 9 hours to get a good 6 in. But then you get good at it, and you're productive without feeling over-worked. Sometimes you work more than 6 hours in a day because you're on a roll, and that's fine too. Maybe you sleep in a little bit more the next day as a reward (I usually get 7-8 hours of sleep a night, as I can't function on less). As a final note, this thread started with the OP asking how hard a PhD is, and in the end, it really depends on the program, your skills, and your goals. I'll admit that pretty much anywhere the first year is pretty intense, and you might find little time for anything else in your life, save for a good relationship, and occasional commiseration over beers with your colleagues. The research part, however, depends more on you than anything else. I've been able to make time for almost everything else I've wanted to do (similar to people with full-time jobs), and perhaps that means that I could have finished more papers than I have, but that's where trade-offs come in, and as economists, we should know a thing or two about trade-offs. You should also know your utility function, and mine has always insisted on balance. Canuck

Alright, awesome, just making sure. The sad reality is that the academic job market is very tight, and a PhD from an unranked institution significantly reduces your competitiveness in that market. Of course, industry and government is a somewhat different ball-game. Good luck at American!

Out of curiosity, what are your career goals? Why are you pursuing a PhD? That is, are you looking @ Academic or industry placement, or because you love research? (this last one is legitimate, too, and I don't mean it to sound naive.) Canuck

Some thoughts on your items: 1) Matters marginally. Not much to say. 2) Over the years, I get the sense that these don't account for much of anything, because you're not in your PhD yet, and you really don't know what you want (most PhD students don't know what they want until year 2 or 3 either). 3) What others said about publication lags. Also, publications in mid-tier journals may not turn too many heads, speaking from experience. 4) You'd need to get into some conferences where faculty (in particular, admissions committees) would attend, so it'd have to be a "real" conference (not an UG/MA conference). To that effect, most of the big summer conference deadlines, to my knowledge, have passed. 5) You'll only really turn heads with academic publications. 6) This may be the only thing that matters, if you think that enough of the schools you were rejected from did so because of your TOEFL. Of course, you never know. I wouldn't say you're all that ungrateful--you sound more nervous than anything, and it's understandable coming from where you are, not being someone who went from high school straight through to PhD. Forget "is grad school what I want", and look at it as "do I like the research I do, and do I want the training to do it better?". Because of your current experience, you are in a pretty good position to judge whether research is for you. Just because you go through graduate school doesn't mean you're committed to academia, either. You can use those tools back at your think-tank, in the public sector and as a consultant. The only thing you really need to go to grad school is to really like research. I understand the shake-up that a tough break-up can bring, but you should think about the freedom that brings, as a two-body problem is very difficult on an academic career (and vice-versa). Might be your chance to get away from it all and commit yourself to the research monastery that is academia. Canuck

Having spent 5 years at each institution, I'll tell you that there isn't much difference for an MA with respect to the main issues, so you can't really "make a mistake", so go with your gut on this one. What city do you want to live in? Do you have family ties anywhere? Those are good questions to ask now, as both programs will prepare you well for a PhD and work in the private sector. setsanto: Looking forward to having you on board! Feel free to send me your e-mail when you sign on with us, and I can keep you in the loop about econ grad social things we do this summer. This way, if you're around, you can meet some upper years, and potentially, some of your classmates. We held a BBQ in August last year, and it was well-attended by incoming and current students. Canuck

Assuming the OP is not Canadian, getting into a decent Canadian MA is very difficult nowadays. Our funding is short for International students. so we only take a few. Unfortunately, you'd be in the same pool as the star pupils from China, India, etc.

Hmm, interesting. Theorists I know (mostly finance and IO) find opportunities consulting. Some have even been called as experts to testify in anti-trust cases. I don't really know what the wage disparity is in the US, because in Canada, most of the starting salaries in academia range from $90-$110K for economics departments, and $150K+ for business schools, depending on cost-of-living. Of course, we don't see much in the ways of big raises over our careers (even after promotions), but $90K+ is definitely middle class income.

From my second-hand experience with the grant system, you don't actually earn extra 'salary' through a grant. The grant pays for conferences, RAs, equipment and data. Theorists get grants, but they tend to be smaller (usually for the same stuff minus data, as they want you to try and hire RAs to give grad students experience). In either case, IIRC, you don't get your grant personally (not in Canada anyway) but instead you draw on your grant by submitting receipts to the department's financial officer.

This is probably what I'd do, but it depends on the quality of profs at UF vs. your current school. You're going to want good reference letters, and it's difficult to get to know someone and get a good letter from a good prof in the first term of your master's (this is when you're applying). So you'll probably use letters from where you did your undergrad. That makes it a bit of a tough call, but you could probably succeed with either course of action. Canuck

Everyone has their favourite software. As a theorist, for numerical computations, graphs, etc, I use Maple (over Matlab and Mathematica). It's $100 for a student edition, and it pretty much covers what I need. Of course, that's just personal preference.

You may be another candidate that can benefit from a good Canadian/Euro (that is, non-terminal) master's. Now it is true that I applied such a long time ago (4 years), but most TMers were still as adamant then that a B in real analysis would kill you. I had decent success on the PhD application circuit (Admits to UToronto, Queen's, BU---didn't apply any lower than BU) but I was also a B-average math student, with a C in 2nd year probability and a B in real analysis. The catch is that I had a strong master's and strong LORs. A strong GRE (which I also had) doesn't really help much. The GRE is just an excuse to reject you, and you're unlikely to ever be admitted because of it. In a practical sense, as an applied micro theorist, I've done quite well on the conference circuit despite my math deficiencies and my focus on theory (a double-whammy, so to speak). It's possible to pick up the math along the way and succeed---after all, pure math exams aren't always the best indicator of your ability to do quality economic research. My advice: Apply to two or three of Queen's, Toronto, UBC and SFU for a master's. Most of them fund somewhat, and you'll be able to either help your application, or get through a one-year test run of graduate economics and find out it isn't for you. Canuck EDIT: Just so I don't cause any confusion, when I say "applied theorist" I mean pure theory in an applied micro field. That is, I don't do representation theorems. My dissertation is, at present, pure theory. That said, I do have plans for some empirical support in the future.

Canada doesn't offer "Tuition waivers" in the same explicit sense that US schools do. Toronto, for instance, offers about $30K minimum to first years, which works out to $22K+Tuition, but you have to do the math yourself. If you're an international student, they offer you $30K + tuition-matching bursary so it works out to $22K + tuition. Most other schools do the same.

I'm not sure how much ABD matters, but taking some empirical coursework in your second year can be useful for industry, especially at a bank. I had one colleague go after first year, and one go at the ABD mark, and they had similar success, so, it's not clear that you couldn't do as well out of first year.

Crap crap crap. Sorry about that. Here I am with my Toronto Blinders on, thinking everyone's comps are bunched together within a week somewhere in June. Yes. If your comps are split like this, then studying for each in turn is optimal.

Now that the application season is over, it's about time for me to return to the depths of PhD-dom. I'll leave a few parting thoughts to those just beginning, from someone that's closer to the end. 1. First-years: when studying for comps, I've gathered (both first hand, and from colleagues) that studying for both equally seems to be the best course of action. Trying to focus on one, pass it, and worry about the second on the retake has most often proved disastrous. This may seem obvious, but about this time of year, every year, I hear the same strategy being thrown around. EDIT: mcsokrates has an important caveat to this point directly below. Please read if your comps are staggered. 2. Listen to your supervisor (provided you've picked a good one) and be humble. Learn all you can from them, because they have so much to teach you. I'm not suggesting you be a toady, but when they offer criticism, always consider each critique carefully, and if you dismiss any of them, have a very good reason for doing so. I've seen more students than I'd like to get defensive about their work as if criticism on their papers is a personal attack on them, which is not the case. Remember that they're trying to make your work better so that you can succeed on the market. A supervisor has almost as much to gain from your success as you do, and a good one makes up the difference in altruism. 3. I would say, "go to conferences, network, meet people", but that's because it's apparently a good idea in finance, and I've loved doing it. Some supervisors in other areas don't want you going "out into the community" with your work until you're on the job market, and I trust their judgement, so don't take my words over theirs. That said, conferences as a PhD student are quite cheap, travel is at least half-covered if your paper is on the program, and it's a really eye-opening experience (and a super-phun-tyme), especially if you get selected to discuss other papers. It's one of the best ways to travel as a PhD, too. I also think it looks good on a CV, but I don't know yet. That remains to be seen, and I'll report back when (or if) I get a job in the next year or two. Lastly, many students will try to tell you that the PhD feels like it never ends, and that it's one very gruelling process. Maybe that's true for other disciplines, but it seems less so on average for economics. It's plenty of work, yes, but you'd be surprised how fast it goes. Enjoy it while you're in it, because in no time you'll be on the job-market, and I've heard time and time again from graduated colleagues that your 3rd-5th years are the only years of your academic career where you ever truly have a pure focus research. Once the PhD is done, so much else has demands on your time. You may not be able to enjoy first year, though, as it is a pretty soul-sucking process. You'll likely hate economics, and think I was lying to you all along. It may take you a whole semester in your 2nd year to remember why you liked it in the first place. Never fear, my colleagues! For those of you truly interested in research, it does get better---and then it's over. Canuck

I know there are a lot of people piling on this poor chap, but I think it's for a good cause, so I'll join in, as a 4th year (almost job marketeer) theorist @ a top 25. Actually, no. Nowhere on a school's website does it tell you "these are the people that didn't get a job this year". We've had the odd candidate in each of the last years not get a job, but we don't post that. Academia is like that: the farther you go down the rankings, the more likely it is you'll get a worse job, or you won't get placed at all. Not worthless, but worth less as it is for all schools under the top 5-7. Especially for someone interested in micro theory. I was once told by a prominent micro theorist (and subsequently by a recent theory job candidate here @ Toronto) that if you don't get into a top 5-10 school, the chances of getting a comparable job to your applied theorist and empirical colleagues declines dramatically. Theory is a really hard field to find a job in even if you're great. In addition, being a theorist (without the empirical/data skills) can be a serious detriment in the private sector. For example, I'm a market microstructure theorist. While there are some good private sector jobs for me, there are better jobs available for my empirical MM colleagues 7 days a week and twice on sundays. Good to go into? I'd just caution you against pure theory. You go into what you want to, but instead of pure micro theory, applied IO theory could be more employable (you stated an interest in IO).

I find this statement puzzling. Do you not have property taxes in the US? Doesn't a large part of your early payments go to interest on your mortgage? Don't you also have home maintenance costs and home insurance, and all those other costs? These seem like all sorts of things that lead to you throwing away hundreds of dollars per month. Unless you're certain that housing prices are going up, buying a house for what is likely to be 5 years seems to be mostly a bet. I went through some of these calculations when I arrived in Toronto, and the condo boom made renting surprisingly cheap. To buy a similar-sized condo to the apartment I rent here in Toronto, the amount paid in condo fees (roughly equivalent property taxes on a home) plus the interest payments in the first five years are greater than the rent payments over the first 60 months (on a 20 year mortgage). Similar calculations can be done for homes. Money spent towards rent in Canada also receives similar tax credits to home-ownership. Canuck

Others would have to answer this, because I didn't apply sub-30. As for top-30, I don't know if you've got a shot (no one knows, really), but my guess would be no. I'd randomly throw in two top-30 apps just for kicks, though. I got into 3 top 30s with only 1 C but a number of Bs in math (no retakes). I had all of those grad courses you mentioned with As (except macro, B) from (I'd say) a top 5 master's program in Econ, including ace-ing Grad math econ in my third year of UG, and doing 2 grad finance courses in my 4th year (@ the same school), plus research experience and great letters from decent people. I'm sure my profile is around here somewhere. If you peg your profile against mine (for example), you'll see how competitive things are. No, I mean the exact same positions. PhDs lead to higher placement in some cases, in some cases not. There are a number of 'real-world' jobs where a master's and a few years work experience smokes a PhD as far as employability goes (for example, almost all private-sector finance jobs, and many government jobs). You may have a leg-up at community colleges, but then again, you may not. A lot of colleges in Canada prefer an M.A with real-world experience over PhDs when it comes to teaching college students how to perform in the real-world. Canuck

Here is hir 2011 post

The quant doesn't really test math skills. It tests your ability to answer 28 grade 10 math questions in 45 minutes. The quant is one of those things that doesn't make your application better (in the sense that it can negate bad grades) but it can make your application worse (by failing to meet thresholds). It's possible that grad math might do good things for you, but you'll probably need top grades (A/A+), as it's true that most MA/MS grades are terribly inflated. Also, they'll take into consideration where you got your master's (i.e. the best school you could get into with your UG grades), and that might discount the impact of good master's grades. Think really hard about whether a PhD is what you want to do with your 20s-to-early 30s. Academic jobs are scarce, and you may find that with a low-ranked PhD you might only get an academic position with a very heavy teaching load, but more likely at a community college or a spot in the private sector. To put it into perspective, I'm (probably) the median candidate at a top 25 program, and I'm still worried that I may not find an academic job at all, let alone one that is good. In the end, you might only be eligible for roughly the same jobs you were eligible for with your master's. In short, be very certain that you want to do this because you want to do research for 5-6 years, because it might be the only time you get paid to do research that you really want to do (notice that I write might, as one never knows where you might end up). Canuck

A colleague of mine bought a condo in our first-year here in Toronto. While the condo boom may go bust in the next couple years, zhe's easily made 10% a year for the last 4 on this unit. It may be worth it, if you believe that house prices will go up over the next half-decade.

While today and tomorrow (to some extent) are the big days for a number of applicants, I'd like to take the time to see if any PhDs (or MAs, etc.,) on the board are heading to any of the big conferences this year, and if so, would they like to spoil the anonymity of TM by meeting up for a pint (alcoholic or non-alcoholic, of course)? A bunch of the finance-related results don't come out until the end of April, but so far I'll be at: 1. Trans-Atlantic Doctoral Conference @ LBS 2. Western Finance Assoc. Meeting 3. Canadian Economics Assoc. Conference If you're going to one of these this summer, we should have a TM get together. Canuck

I'd vote Maryland, but then again, I'm theoretical market microstructure, and being around Pete Kyle is just the bees knees. I don't know why you say it's hard to resist Wisconsin ranking-wise if Maryland has the best placements. As someone who is on the cusp of joining the job-market, placements are all I care about. Canuck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTHcS33mbrk P.S: If you're wondering why I'm on TM on a Saturday night, it's because lit reviews are boring as hell.

I took this to mean that it's good to know the whats-what, because you won't have time to figure it out in grad school. Unlike in undergrad when you could go out regularly, and learn from success and failure, you won't be going out as often (if at all) for the purposes of "recreational activities" (as the late Frank Zappa once put it, in the sleeve of "Zoot Allures). Hence, the opportunities that present themselves in whatever setting will have to be acted upon fast, and accurately.