sushigushi

Biostats = mathematical statistics? I think not, it's applied. Where in pure mathematical statistics did you find it dealing with causality? Thank you... (geez, I really thought my econometrics professors who studied under Tinbergen and Cramer would know their sh*t...) Wow... Economist develop theories, we don't just 'prove' them. In order to test these theories, we need to formalize them (metrics don't work without formal models) and we therefore need to make assumptions. Hence the use mathematics. But it's a tool rather than goal. Economics is a science, it's not just 'watered down mathematics'. Mathematicians prove equivalencies. Because A holds -> B holds, etc. To be honest, I don't consider their 'theorems' to be 'theories'. Also, mathematics doesn't have theories in a Popperian sense. The axioms are, per definition, assumed. This makes the 'theorems' completely insulated. What is then the difference with Freud's theory of the subconscious?

Hmm. The 'formal' difference between statistics (or mathematical statistics) and econometrics is that statistics doesn't deal with causality while econometrics does. In that sense, I think econometrics can hardly be called 'watered down statistics'. Economics, and to a lesser degree other social sciences, have spurred the development of 'metrics' because of the lack of experimental data within these fields. Physicists (the first 'metricians'.. remember Gauss's development of OLS) have little need for all these advanced techniques, because they have access to a laboratory. Hence for them causality is a non-issue. So unless you attribute the 'invention' of a method to a discipline on the basis of the B.A./M.A. title held by the person who did the actual publication, econometrics (or 'causal statistics' if you wish) stems from economics because the demands of the discipline have called for its development. As for what mathematicians think, name some other discipline's 'theory' that they don't consider 'low'. I stopped caring what they think a long time ago... I mean... for a discipline which basically has no theories (i.e. it only establishes equivalencies..), they form quite the cheeky bunch of nerds.. :) And finally, as for how 'high level' the math used within economics is, please keep in mind that only crappy and uncreative theorists hide behind incomprehensible mathematics. The real scientific revolutions are generally rooted in very simple mathematics. Why? Because when the theory is correct and to the point, there is no need for complicated formalization (i.e. complicated math).

You mean like the Tinbergen Institute (i.e. University of Amsterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Free University Amsterdam...)... :)

Haha, or quit smoking if you already were smoking... that's what I did as I couldn't really increase my daily dosages (was on 1 1/2 pack a day..)... Started running and working out again too... worked like a charm.. ... now if I could only stop visiting TM... :) How prescient!!! given that Madison is both picturesque, and pretty frozen.... ;)

Hehe, fair enough, but if you were unable to reduce the uncertainty (no internet, no TM and no GradCafe), you might as well have been baking cake! How do |dU/d?| and |dU/dC| compare? And what about |dU/d?(t)| and |dU/dC(t+1)|? In other words: what happens if we consider the fact this is a dynamic model in which at each t you can choose whether to start baking cake (allowing consumption of C after 1 period) or continue hitting F5 om the hope that you will have less ? for that extra period :) Perhaps not having the option of reducing ? might in the end lead to higher Sum[u(t),t={0,...,Admission Results Time}]... but do to the fact that we can make a choice at each t, we never start baking our cake.... ...hmmm... okokok.... these models need some work.. but you catch my drift :)

? Considering my fields of interests, certainly. Mind you, it is the 'lowest ranked' program I applied to, whatever that's supposed to mean. ... But what on earth does that have to do with knowing you have a chance (i.e. getting your first admit) to go for a PhD at one of the institutions you picked yourself?

haha, it's so funny to compare the posts of people who already have a good admit and those who don't... ...for those who already have something in the pocket; seriously quit it :) You sound like those nerdy kids who know they passed a tough exam but still wants to hang out with the bunch who are seriously worried that they failed.. saying: "Yeah man, question 2 was reeeaaally tough... I studied soo hard, I'm soo worried man... yeah"... ...it's not like you're fooling anybody, show some respect :) I mean, I got in at Madison (waiting for the remaining 7 top programs) and I'm chilling major... the first admit marginally reduces your stress more than all the admits after put together.. now you at least know you have an option. SO. PS. If there was no TM and no Gradcafe we would all be soooo much happier.. here, we're all just firing each other up (while reassuring each other that our sick obsessive behavior is OK.... :))... No internet would be even better; there would be no sitting behind the computer hitting F5 every 3 minutes... instead of an anxiety attack every time you see Inbox (1), we would have it once a day... when the mailman drops by.... Ah well...

Ahh... OK, a double call, now I have to respond. Here's a person from a Balkan country (yes, I speak fluent Serbo-Croat.. :) who grew up in the Netherlands... Another funny fact, Shpak, I actually went to St. Petersburg a few years back to study Russian...

'nuff said... now stop bumping this thread and reminding me of that fact ;) ... PS Congrats to everybody who did get in though! :) Good job, and a nice representation by TM I must add!!

They seriously made you do that?!? How rude! Which country are you from? I got a Fulbright in the Netherlands, and they made me do no such thing...

Ok, I have to clarify that :) What I meant was 'the people who drop out in the first year'. I have enough RA'ing behind my belt to know that research is the real nut to crack ;) But since we were discussing attrition rates in the first year, I assumed that it mostly had to do with course workload... Anyhow, I come from a (selective and math focused) undergraduate program where there's just 10 of us graduating each year (first year enrollment for my track is over 40).. so I thought I had a worthy two cents to add to this from my own experience... :)... maybe I'm just not used to being pampered...

I'm pretty well acquainted with the Tinbergen Institute (the MPhill program). If you have any questions, I'm quite sure I can satisfy them. Don't ask me to rank it though, because I don't know any of the other programs you are referring to that well...

Yeah let's hear more from the people who are actually still in ;) (TruDog... EconCandidate... there are a couple of more).. Unless I get into more places (and make a little tour) I don't know if I'll be able to visit the UW-M campus before making a final decision (for me, it's a transatlantic flight).. PS. I'm convinced that of the people who drop out of grad school (i.e. find out that 'grad school isn't really for them'), 85-99% never gave a real grad book (e.g. Mas Colell, Hamilton, Greene, Davidson... etc etc) a serious shot during their undergrad years. They simply didn't know what they were getting themselves into. Seriously, your ability to digest these texts is only marginally influenced by a friendly tap on the shoulder by an adviser/teacher. Perhaps Wisconsin has high attrition rates, because it gives people a chance, and to be honest, I would rather have a 'swim or sink' opportunity than none at all... Ah well, if this holds true about UW-M, it implies that my admit there says nothing about my probability of getting into any other school I applied to, LOL...

Exactly the same as Bgg, that is: University Fellowship nomination, and if that fails, 'some' kind of departmental financial aid. Anyhow, I'm very excited... :) Now I can sit back and relax for the remaining 7 apps to come home regardless of the outcomes... (this was the first of 8..)...

ehm, what I meant to say was: I'm in too... YAAAAAAY !!!!!