econofrosh

Good day, everyone! It's been about two years since I last visited this site, let alone contributed to any of the threads. I was just a freshman/sophomore then, and now I'm en route to graduating. The question however is whether I should be on my way to grad school. Long story short, I guess I just want to ask all of you: How do/did you know grad school was for you? How do/did you know, you should not have joined the job market, perhaps earned some cash and work experience before calling the decision to apply for master's/phd. Just wanted to get your insight as this decision's really been bothering me. I know I do like/love economics. It's just that I really I want to be sure I don't want to be elsewhere six/twelve months from now. P.S. Say your math grades are just average (bad by this forum's standards haha), which would be a better course to take: Real Analysis II or Numerical Analysis or Abstract Algebra I? (I was considering Abstract Algebra I as a prep for Graduate Linear Algebra.)

Hey everyone. I know this isn't the best time to be posting a query. [Good luck with the rest of the schools =) ] I would just like to inquire about the usefulness of an economics elective in Project Evaluation relative to other "useless" econ field courses offered in the undergrad. In particular, would it be seen more favorably by RA-hiring profs or research firms? Thanks.

We're using Carter for our undergraduate math econ class. It is pretty readable, but I'm not sure if it's the best out there. I think De La Fuente covers more material than Carter does so in that respect, Mathematical Methods and Models for Economists might be better.

I might not have read it right, but NYU is one of the schools that has a foreign language requirement, isn't it? Among Mandarin, Spanish, and French, which do you guys think would be most useful?

^ though it could be that grade-inflation is not as rife in ASU as it is in most other US universities. hence the lower cut-off.

Does going into an AgEcon dept automatically rule out the option of going into theory? :hmm:

Well, to be fair with American Econ programs, most only require multivariable calculus and linear algebra [edit: at bare minimum]; the "bunch of other math courses" are "needed" only to sharpen a student's mathematical ability or to wean out less competitive applicants or what have you.

breakz, how different are the foundation and advanced programs? The website describes them as preparation for MA and PhD respectively, and prerequisites differ for each. Do these programs assign different textbooks or what not?

I think the expected effect of the economy on gradschool applications will be felt next year than this. It probably takes time for people to plan their careers and get a feel of how long the recession is going to last. So it's scary to think of the numbers in the future. Good prospects though for the applicants of the current cycle, except maybe for those looking at business schools since GMAT numbers are up.

thanks for the advice everyone. my plan now is to continue reading Morash's book, which I've acquired for some months now but never really got to study. And then I could probably do some more exercises on general proof-writing from Chartrand's book or the first few chapters of Lay, while flipping through some pages of a simpler (if there was such a thing) real analysis text. pookie bear, I'm not sure which one my school is using. It probably depends on the professor. I've heard some used Bartle while some have used Rudin. treblekicker, glad to hear it's not impossible. good job.

Hello everyone. I have a similar concern to that of the OP so I decided to just post it in this thread. My situation is somewhat different from that of GymShorts in that I have not taken an 'Intro to Proofs' course and am jumping right off to a pool of sharks (i.e. I am going from basic calculus series to real analysis) So I am looking for a cage, an armor, or anything that would help me fend for myself against the great white proofs of Rudin. I've searched around and found some interesting textbooks, such as Stephen Abbot's Understanding Analysis, Steven Lay's Analysis: With an Introduction to Proof, and Wiltold Kosmala's Friendly Introduction to Analysis. Given the plethora of choices, would you have a definitive recommendation for a text that would make for a great self-study introduction to analysis and at the same time a companion to Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis?

Advanced Calculus looks like Calc III in my school with some parts from Calc II. Finding a maximum and minimum of functions of several variables is probably the most basic form of optimization. Although in general, vector calculus isn't useful to econ, I think. Functions of Real Variables looks like an Analysis course. I haven't a clue if a second numerical analysis class is that important in the margin.

How does Prajit Dutta's Strategies and Games compare to the other books mentioned above? Is it any good as an undergraduate text?

all right. thanks for the input. i don't really know why my professor prescribed Carter. She admitted it was a graduate level text, but everyone in the class (except me) has had only a semester of calculus under their belt. Looks like I'll use Simon&Blume first until I've taken Linear Algebra. We're skimming through the subject matter though. Something like a crash course on the basics of matrices. We'll later study sets&spaces, which is probably why she recommended the text?

thanks for the replies. :) i was looking at the table of contents, and i think the book presumes prior exposure to multivariate calculus and linear algebra. i also noticed that the book does not include a chapter on dynamic optimization. although, the section is available online. it seems like a great book for the phd level but is probably inaccessible to me since i haven't taken linear algebra. i'll take a look at sundaram and de la fuente's books. i should probably wait for a 2nd edition. hopefully by that time, the publishers would've included the chapter on dynamic optimization and probably a review of calculus and matrix algebra.

so.. one of the primary texts for a Math Econ class i am taking is Carter's Foundations of Mathematical Economics. It's unfortunately not available anywhere convenient, and for a book I might use only for 1 or 2 courses i'll be taking, having it shipped might prove a bit too pricey. I believe the book is used primarily in the graduate level and so I was wondering if purchasing the book would be a good investment. I was basically contemplating the following: (i) is it advisable for an undergraduate to use it as a reference text? (ii) can it serve as good motivation to those taking upper level math courses? (iii) will it be useful in preparation for (and during the course of taking) graduate econ? (iv) is there a better (more popular?) alternative? I'm also looking at Simon & Blume (another one of the primary texts) and am currently using Chiang for reference while I am deciding on which text to purchase. Would you buy this book?

why not opt for JD/MA joint programs?

what would make your application more solid, imho, is if you can have someone from your MBA endorse your application for PhD.

Nope. I think most grad schools require applicants have at least 16 years of prior schooling to be qualified. In the Philippines, most students have about 10/11 (elementary and seconday) + 4 (tertiary) = 14/15 years and so they find themselves barred from applying to many universities abroad. Duke explicitly says so in their website; Harvard requires either a 5-year undergraduate degree or a year of graduate study for Filipino applicants. Canadian universities like Toronto have similar requirements.

Well, first off, hello fellow Pinoy! So that people here could give you a spot on advice, you'd probably have to specify your end-goal. Do you see the terminal MA as a stepping stone towards a job in the private sector? Or do you see yourself applying for a PhD subsequently? In either case, your quantitative background is deficient relative to the competition. I don't know if this applies to CityU HK or for Auckland, but for UPF, UCL and especially QEM, you would need at least Linear Algebra and Multivariable Calculus on your transcript to make the cut. I'm assuming you have taken only Intro Calc (not even Calc I) so you should consider taking the said courses. Don't be bothered by Real Analysis or Measure Theory courses you might see in the profiles thread if your goal is just an MA, but if you're going for a PhD in the future, then you should look into these courses as well. There are probably more experienced Filipino TM-ers out there. Some are taking an MA in Canadian schools. They might give you better advice.

To the TS: any chance you're from the Philippines?

I second GymShorts and light years. Great thread! ;) Might I suggest / request adding a section on PhD from Applied/Ag Econ vs. Econ Departments?

I think you should aim for some more top 20 schools. I mean you have an excellent GPA and transcript. the only problem i see is that you are missing two key courses but from the looks of your grades so far, adcoms would probably think you'll ace them. if you're really not feeling confident, why don't you go top 10-40 instead of 20-50? :)

This will be a bit (or maybe too) optimistic but I think if you could have an honest talk with your previous LOR writers, and explain to them what happened (why you chose LSE MSc over PhD in other schools, the reasons for your not being able to grab a distinction etc.), I'm sure they'd be willing to endorse your application as enthusiastically as in the past. Moreover, by doing this, they might also be able to explain on your behalf the "extenuating circumstances" you faced as a graduate student at LSE. Other possible ways you could somehow cover for your performance at LSE are to take some graduate level classes (Math, Econ etc.) at a reputable institution and ace them, be a research assistant, and in doing so maybe even get a new prof to write you an LOR.

you could start by reviewing basic (univariate) differentiation and integration. then to a lesser extent, you can look at vectors again. make sure you still know how to get your dot and cross products. it might also help to revisit your quadric surfaces. anyhow, don't be too worried. if you did well in your previous course, everything should come back to you in time.