breakz

No reason to go into the hole financially for one vs. another, since you're still looking at 5 more years of schooling and a marginal difference. Have fun at SFU, and go Gators.

I laughed when I read this; with a numerical grade of 75-80% in analysis this spring I received a B. Professor hadn't taught the course since 1999. :hmm:

Damn just had a complete about face in plans. And I was almost set to live in the Triangle too! Good luck this fall guys, you're all sure to have fun.

Thanks! Excited to be here. :tup: Thanks for the info, treble. I'll join once I get confirmation on my situation.

So there's a good chance that I'll be in the Triangle for the next few years. Very excited to say the least. Has anyone looked for housing so far? How are the music and club scenes there?

How are you interested in them? Public finance and urban econ immediately come to mind as potential fields...

Well don't overanalyze it now! It is a simple problem: where do you want to work? Knowing that, get the degree that will prepare you to work there! If you want a private sector position, a Masters in econ is enough in some cases. The people who attend top 10 schools do so partially because they've made these decisions and worked hard to achieve their goals. So "paralysis by analysis" isn't a real concern.

I can't agree more with asquare. This isn't supplemental, you literally have no shot at admission (or success in a program) if you don't take Calc 2 (and subsequently Calc 3).

I figured Rudin was just the upper division hazing mechanism used by math depts, so why question it? :P

LOL yes, and the cookie cake in the dark? Good times...

Tossing in a vote for Rudin. Also nominating "Mathematical Analysis" by Apostol.

Regarding fairness of the AEASTP's admission standards, it's debatable. International students are a strong majority of doctoral candidates, but they often have tougher obstacles to grad admission. In defense of the policy, the program emphasizes preparation relative to what one has already received prior to attending. That's a hard determination to make if considering international schools, as the Program can't judge students' prepareness based on their school's reputation. Alternatively, consider this: if you're at a top int'l program you're probably trained very well. If not, there might not be enough information available on your school to slot you in correctly (foundations or advanced level...)

Fierce is right but I'd caution that our experience was...unique. California fires and subsequent power outages tend to mess with summer curricula...

The Program provides more than training. You'll work on research, sharpen up on STATA, and work with some incredibly bright people. The UCSB department also has some great faculty to work with; they're extremely interested in seeing Program alums succeed. Glad to see more Gators attending! This can only help UF long term...

Based on my personal preferences... MIT Harvard Princeton Chicago Stanford Yale Berkeley Northwestern UPenn Michigan/NYU

Whoops, misremembered it.

Also understand that Professor List works his *** off. Moreso than the majority of other economists. He's worked HARD to get from Wyoming to Chicago.

Everyone's way behind on hires this year. Harvard just posted an opening for the CEA on April 14th or so, so I assume they haven't closed the application process.

delete

Nice, Foundations is a good way to warm up for those classes. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

Did you guys get accepted into the Advanced level, or the Foundations level?

Ecstatic, I can't speak to your specific situation but Berkeley doesn't have a MS in Stat. They do, however, have one of the best Stat programs in the country. I will say, though, that without information about your comprehensive profile I can't make a subjective decision on whether a MS in Stat would be overkill for you. :p Are you aiming for top 5? Top 10?

Congrats! You have a whole summer of great econ and fun ahead of you. :D

This is somewhat of a misinterpretation. Yes, they support math but only because students often apply with very little math. Ask those same people if you should get a MS in Math and you'll get varied opinions. I mean do we really need to spend another year (on top of UG analysis, linear algebra, etc.) preparing for one year of an econ PhD? They do have math camp, you know. I definitely agree with Jeeves here and want to quote him on an important note: For those of you considering a Math MS: this is a serious concern, people! If you're considering a MS in Math you've probably maximized your signaling potential via undergraduate math courses. I've seen a lot of these posts recently, and I believe people don't understand the potential consequences inherent in getting a Math MS. It's a very, very tough degree. I'd like to add that the only additional signal a Math MS can send is for those interested in economic theory. Even then, however, I'd argue it's a low reward, high risk proposition since you may lose interest in theory or hurt your chances of admission after a great undergrad record. A Stat MS is a different story because it's applicable to any empirical work you're involved in. You might not know how to describe a convex set (not true at all btw), but you'll be ready for the research phase everyone on TM seems to neglect.

Yeah I agree with the thought of discussing anything but economics. Although if you have pressing questions make sure you ask them.