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 !!!!!

I'm in too... yay!

geez, this thread is older than my high-school diploma...

hehe... yeah sorry about the spam, I realized what I was doing after I posted it :) On a different note: 'prosperous future', 'respect from all', 'benefits and admiration'... ?!?!??? Do these people even know what they are selling? I thought we were all applying and craving for 'diminished relative earnings', 'disrespect from all non-PhDs' and a 'decreased sexual intercourse incidence'...

Jeez, I think they are mining these forums. This is what I got today, same guys (check the phone nr) U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A S Do you want for a prosperous future, increased money earning power, and the respect of all? We can assist with Diplomas from prestigious non-accredited universities based on your present knowledge and life experience. No required tests, classes, books, or interviews. Bachelors, masters, MBA, and doctorate (PhD) diplomas available in the field of your choice - that's right, you can become a Doctor and receive all the benefits and admiration that comes with it! No one is turned down. Confidentiality assured CALL US 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK

As far as I gathered Europe in general is more committed to theoretical econometrics. The US has a bunch of star-players/research groups, but other than that, there are far more people 'at it' on this side of the Atlantic. Plus, we don't make you put a mortgage on your grandmother to pay for your studies ;)... seriously, the financial prospects are sooo different... too bad I don't want to go into pure metrics, so grandma is just going to have to live with it... On a different note, a very well known (tsa/forecasting) professor of mine told me that the trend is for metrics to be moving towards Asia. According to him, in 20 years, Western students will be going to China, Korea etc. for graduate studies in metrics... ...ahhh, globalization... globalization and kids not squeeking about 'too much math' in high school...

I spent a good deal of time working with sociologists and I believe the 'hating' comes from the fact that most other social scientists don't understand economic methodology. They see it as 'limited' without acknowledging what it adds (i.e. clarity).. economists on the other hand never bother explaining what they are doing and just snub the rest by saying 'no, we are right, and you are wrong... now go write a novel or something...' However, I think our methods are worth explaining. For example, when we talk about rationality, we don't 'believe' it. People vary in rationalilty when making decisions... and sociologists seem to be tireless in pointing this out as an 'argument' against the rational choice approach generally used in neo classical economics... If I had a dime for every time I heard 'Economists are missing an important nuance...'.. well, I wouldn't be applying for any fellowships... They however miss the point. We use often rationality because it allows for formal approach to the study of behavior, not because it captures 'everything worth capturing'. This formal stating of hypotheses in its turn allows for quantification through which we can test these hypotheses. Endless nuances on the other hand prohibit this... We simply extract the most essential parts of a social process (including, say, transactions) and then test this very specific perspective by using econometrics to weed out all the distorting disturbances. This process can't 'explain' everything (which sociologists are somehow bent on doing... while at the same time denying that there is an 'unified theory of everything'... *sigh*, tiring), but it can shed light on important factors and relations, especially if other unaccounted for influences can be controlled for so that quantification can take place properly... ...if this can be explained to the other social sciences maybe we can stop arguing about who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'. It's just a difference in approach. .... Oh, and I do think we are using the 'right' approach :P

That's EXACTLY what I thought... dammit... one of the rare times I hoped I got it wrong... Yeah, there is a home stay requirement (J1 visa), from which you are exempted if you go on to work for the IMF, Worldbank or any other international body that happens to have its headquaters in the US... well that and the US Defense industry (... hmmm). Otherwise you have to wait two years before you can come back to the US for anything permanent. As for the financial aid, it only covers a fraction of the costs as it amounts to $12500 (and an inconspicuous health insurance sponsorship for the duration of your studies, which in case of a five year graduate program might actually exceed the former in value)... so either the Dutch government is going to cough up some more (fingers crossed, sent in the application yesterday..) or the school in question... Does anybody think the pre-screening makes any difference?

Personally, I can hardly believe that it does anything for econ PhD applicants, as opposed to softer fields like, say, international relations and sociology. On the other hand, there is an interview... and an elaborate assessment (using the standards of the country of origin), and I doubt the graduate programs would throw that information away. I mean, you do get ranked, mercilessly (i.e. US-style...). As far as I understood, the grant seems to carry a decent amount of status in the US. I nevertheless stuffed the award letter in all of my supplemental materials, as everybody here (in the Netherlands) seems to be convinced that it does make a difference beyond what the (limited) monetary award does in itself. My question is: Do adcoms care at all? (Do think at the margin please, I know a Fulbright and a crappy file won't get you anywhere...)

Okokok, I decided to come out of the shadows after some six months of 'lurking' :) you all do seem like a friendly bunch... and at least as frustrated with the waiting as I am... i.e. perfect company to amplify my anxiousness with until March... ...now, I'm supposed to post my profile somewhere so I can get shamed when I get rejected at every single one of the 8 top 15 programs I have applied to? let's do it.. it sure beats working on my TA and RA tasks now :P