Behaviourist

Good post Keen. I'll add my comments regarding Chicago GSB finance. From the outset, both current students and finance area director, Pietro Veronesi, made it clear that Chicago has a "hands-off" policy. Your second year paper and phd thesis (if you complete them!) will definitely be your own work there. Co-authoring is very rare, and not allowed for either required paper. Finance has no prelim; 2nd year passing is based on grades, PAPER. This confirms what everyone there says: "the focus here is RESEARCH." From the very first class you learn research methods, replicating famous papers. Profs say there is a de-emphasizing of super rigorous mathematical detail in favor of spending more time on empirical tools. I personally feel this is needed at a school where profs don't hand hold students through their papers; if you want feedback from a senior prof, it comes when you present at a seminar, not from hours spent chatting in their office. Important for me is that much of the finance faculty are trained economists. I told John Heaton of my interest in micro and he said, "if you do good research in just about anything, nobody will bother you about it. Half of us here studied as economists. Just be careful though. If you write a dissertation in labor economics, you won't place as a finance professor." That was very encouraging. GSB does not have "departments." It has "research areas." I think the nomenclature is actually important. Students do have access to the entire faculty. I told another prof about one of my specific research interests in micro and he said "when you come here in September, go talk to Thaler about that. He has a lot of experience in that empirircal method and will quickly guide you in the right direction." The best part of the visit was attending a seminar. An outside prof presented his working paper (I can't find it right now but will update post when I do). The entire department was there, including profs who focus on corporate finance and don't really follow asset pricing/macro issues. The questions/comments/critiques lived up to Chicago's reputation of having "harsh" seminars. The presenter often succesfully defended against a critique but equally often said, "yes, I should fix that." I was thoroughly impressed, and at the same time, am now frightened to ever present in front of them. That said, the students all seem very happy there and all have well-rounded lives including athletics and socilization. We went out one night with a 3rd year who goes windsurfing on Lake Mich during the summer, so clearly phd program doesn't end your "life." Since fin programs are small (5-6 per year), the students get pretty close and work together on problem sets/studying. A Chicago grad who is now a prof at TOP school told me, "Chicago is not an easy place to succeed at. You must be very independent and self-motivated. However, when you do come out of there, everyone knows you're a star."

Does anyone think the Fed's actions are motivated by any economic principle besides self-interest?

edit: misread

WOW funny. "Q: How many marxists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: None - the bulb contains within it the seeds of its own revolution."

The point is to come up with an elegant solution that can be easily computed within a minute during an interview. Will one of you brilliant minds check the integrity of my posted answer? I'd like to know whether or not I can do intro probability questions.

Does anybody know why GSB has an econ dissertation area?

Reading this thread made my day. Almost enough to get over the Princeton reject. econphilomath, what an econ crusader you are.

I guess no email means no Princeton for me. :(

I agree. All factors are necessary but not sufficient. That being said, a low GRE is generally a fatal issue whereas others can often be overcome through SOP or LOR. I'm talking mainly about poor GPA that was dragged down due to one poor year that can be explained by extenuating circumstances.

Princeton forgot to set their clocks ahead this weekend. Maybe results will come at 4:15.

I think the higher up in education you go, selection becomes more important and treatment less so. In undergrad, I'd advise someone to go to the best school he can get into (or the stratum of schools), like top 10 vs. state school. For phd, I think this is less important as the pool of econ phds is much smaller than the pool of undergrads to evaluators can spend more time to actually judge an individual's performance versus relying on heuristics like school of origin.

I like the mixed strategy equilibrium!

Look at today's Princeton posts on gradcafe. Hillarious. "The person who posted below is lying. Decisions are not out yet!"

I'll believe it when a regular contributor posts accept/reject.

A degree from a B school makes you marketable to B schools. Don't go to a B school unless you like studying business. That said, a phd from a top school B schools like Harvard, Chicago MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA won't limit you at all.

What's wrong with these people at Princeton? Why no response yet! Must be the fumes from the neighboring cow fields :(

Here's my take: "real" benefits of top school are atmosphere/better exposure to cutting edge ideas ability to open doors using name (it is easier to do industry research when you say Harvard than School X). "Fluffy" benefit is that same candidate with same quality job market paper will likely place better coming from a top school since schools like to advertise that their profs come from good schools. After placing at a better school, "real" benefits again accrue, but now as a prof rather than student. As to estimating magnitude, I leave this as an exercise for the reader!

My fear about Chicago GSB: I've heard from reliable sources (grads who are now profs) that faculty there don't provide much support. It is sink or swim totally on your own. Since some here have said prelim pass rates have improved in recent years, I am hopeful that faculty interaction has as well. Can anyone comment?

I sent this solution to jmancer shortly after he posted the question, but he hasn't confirmed whether or not it is correct: P(winning) = 0C3*(0.5^3) + 1C3*(0.5^4) + 2C4*(0.5^5) + 3C5*(0.5^6) = 1/8 + 3*(1/16) + 6*(1/32) + 10*(1/64) = 21/32 ~ 65.6% The way to get it is this. asianecon rightly says P(winning) = Pr(A wins in 3 games) + Pr(in 4) + Pr(in 5) + Pr(in 6) P(in X) = P(B wins exactly X-3 in the first X-1 games) * P(A wins game X) = combin(X-1,X-3) * [0.5^(X-1)] * 0.5 = combin(X-1,X-3) * [0.5^X] where combin(a,b) is the Excel formula for "a choose b"

Guys. Your common sense intuition should tell you that it is NOT 50%. Team A has a 1 game lead and only needs to win 3 games before team B wins 4. You must consider all the different outcomes that can occur. The results don't follow a binomial distribution with n=6, p=0.5 since if team A wins games 2,3,4 then games 5,6,7 don't even occur. It should make sense that team A has some advantage, since prior to game 1 we would believe it was 50/50 but how can it stay the same after A has won a game?

Some people are accepted in advance but you can also apply any time during the first two years. I'd prefer to be accepted early since it makes designing one's course of study easier. I don't think admit decisions for joint program have been made yet. I'm sure yet if I'll do it if accepted, since the extra coursework may prevent me from taking behavioral econ courses that I want.

I will almost certainly be attending Chicago GSB. Going to flyout on March 31st.

Go to LSE. BUT learn as much math as you can before September. Take a summer session class if you can. Or just buy a book and teach yourself. Remember, the suggested math is multi-var calc (with some diff eq), lin alg, mathematical prob/stat (w/ calculus), and real analysis. Analysis is really the only course which cannot be self-taught (I should know; it's the only math class I actually attend!). Anybody here will give you good book recommendations for self-study.

My friend who is finishing phd at Wharton says it is a night and day job, especially first two years during coursework. You have to study like crazy to understand very hard material and take impossibly difficult tests. If you don't know stata, matlab well, then you spend extra time learning that. Pretty much it sucks. You have time to eat food and go to the gym.

Grats pevdoki1. I knew you'd get into St. Louis. Maybe now you'll relax and start doing the homework proofs in real analysis. I'm tired of answering all the questions in class!