puecon

I don't know about the top schools but since you had some basic courses in economics, departments of economics at places like UNC, MSU, or University of Washington might give your application a serious consideration (and I think they all have people who work in finance econometrics). The fact that you took say analysis and statistics courses will more than make up for little or no economics background. Regarding the PhD in Statistics, I doubt that the Statistics label will be barrier to getting a good job, even in your country. Employers who care about hiring people who know things like mathematical finance or time series analysis will judge applicants based on their technical background. On the other hand, if you're planning on applying for job where they don't really care whether you studied applied corporate finance or stochastic volatility models, as long as you have a Finance PhD, then it seems like it's not worth bothering with other places and just go to say Texas A&M.

I agree that given that you have already narrowed down your interests so much, you should be able to find out from the university web site if there is any one doing any interesting work in this area. Your profile looks good from math preparation standpoint and so you should be able to get into a department that has some good people for these subjects. However, note that Mathematical Finance and Stochastic Volatility is not something that's being studied exclusively in the finance departments. I think you'll have better chance of getting into a well matched program if you apply to economics and/or statistics PhD programs. There are a lot of econometricians who work in economics departments who do work on volatility or say estimation of mathematical finance models. An economics department with more than one good time series econometrician will likely have someone with your interests. Economics departments at UCSD or UNC could be a very good place for you. Likewise, there are many people doing work in mathematical finance or volatility at statistics departments. For example, Purdue's statistics department has people working in stochastic volatility and mathematical finance while the finance department has 0 people doing this kind of work.

I think I just addressed the issue of the large classes at UC above. Regarding the private university faculty versus public school faculty, unless you're talking about liberal arts colleges, no research university in the USA, including private schools hire a professor for being a good teacher. That's a fact. In the end, their research and publications is what counts and that's what gets them a job. Teaching assistants who don't speak English exist in all research universities, not just UCs. Just look at the make up on a typical econ PhD class at any private university. Saying that UCs are five times worse than private schools are just ridiculous. I actually worked at UC system and took a bunch of courses there, and I know first hand, that teaching in most undergraduate courses is outstanding. Yes, you will get a bad apple every once in a while (nothing that can't happen elsewhere), but it's really surprising how well taught most undergraduate courses are. The courses where you are most likely to get foreign language speakers for your TAs are science, math, engineering, and computer science. But those are exactly the majors where many UCs excel, even in undergraduate rankings.

I think all UCs are outstanding. Consider that even campus like UC Irvine is often harder to get into than most flagship state universities in the country (they take like 50% of applicants). Though, his proposition is a little off. I think this still probably depends on major. For business for example, Berkeley Haas business school is ranked as top 10 undergraduate business program. For computer science and engineering, UCB is among the top 5 schools or so even at undergraduate level and most UCs, while good, are far behind in this area. It's clearly better to go to UCB to study these subjects. Then I heard that social sciences (though, clearly not economics) and humanities are taking a back seat to engineering and sciences at campuses like UCSD and UCSC.

Why not? I think the budget issue is overblown. It is already known with certainty how much the UC funding will go down. They get a 10% cut in the coming year. Then, there are other source of funding for those schools besides the state funding. Plus last time I heard, the plan is to raise undergraduate tuition to make up for that cut. In the end, these measures are bad but not terrible in the face of the current crisis. I have heard of even well endowed private universities considering hire _freeze_ this year for their faculty because their endowment is doing very bad. Almost every big private university endowment took a big hit (30% or so) and most public universities are getting a budget cut or at least a freeze, not just the UCs. As for private vs top UC campuses, you gotta be joking. Maybe some top tier private schools may be clearly better (e.g. Stanford, Harvard, MIT, etc). But compare say Cornell or USC vs UCB or UCLA? Those private schools are just as big, really expensive, about the same rank at undergraduate level and much lower in most graduate disciples. Not so clear, though I'd take a UCB or UCLA.

Those big courses are only common at freshman and sophomore level. Once you start taking junior and senior level courses, there are TONS of courses with very small size (e.g. 10 to 30 people). At UC Berkeley there is also this sophomore seminar program that's designed specifically for students interested in getting closer interaction with faculty. People who are whinning about a large class size, really aren't taking advantage of any of this. I really doubt the situation is any better at UCSD. In fact, I really doubt that it gets any better if you went to Stanford or Caltech. There is no way a Stanford prof will teach a calculus class to 20 students. In fact, on the issue of UCSD vs Berkeley, I'd say Berkeley is definitely better. It has a top 10 undergraduate business program. (UCSD's business school is good but just got started less than a decade ago) and the econ department must have a better student to faculty ratio compared to UCSD.

I think the value of connections is over-hyped, at lest when it comes to getting a job out from MBA program. When you come out of the MBA program, It's not your connection with other MBA students that gets you the job (they're usually competing with you). It's the business school career placement service that gets you a job. Next thing is, if you get placed well as undergraduate student (e.g. good ibank job or something), you can make tons of connections in the industry as well. I had a friend who got a good i-banking job straight out of school and he basically told me he has no idea what's the point of going back from MBA (he was very proactive in making good connections too, e.g. interned for them in the summer) . BTW: I am sure HBS has close to 1000 MBA students, if not more.

That's really B.S. Berkeley: Ranked as a top 3 undergraduate engineering school in the nation. Top 3 undergraduate CS program in the nation, top 10 undergraduate business school in the nation. Science, math, and econ majors are also among the best. It does have a bit of a sink or swim attitude. UCLA is also not far behind, though getting into Berkeley is tougher (usnews says they admit less people 21% vs 25%). Going to UCs saves a ton of money if you're a California resident. Next is the issue about brand recognition. Everyone knows what UC Berkeley and UCLA is. I never heard of Barnard until you mentioned it on this thread. UCs do tend to have a more of sink or swim attitude (e.g. you need to apply to your undergraduate major, grading is tough, etc). Some people don't like that, and for them going to a small liberal arts school is perhaps better. But people who complete the degrees at UC with success tend to have good job and grad school opportunities.

Let me tell you this. If you're really interested in MBA-type career, why even bother with MBA degree at all? The UC Berkeley and UCLA undergraduate business programs are both top 10 at undergraduate level. Their training and placement record into industry is outstanding. Once you come out of one of those schools with a business degree, there is very little reason to go back for MBA degree. If you got a job with a good career ladder, few years later you will be making more than fresh MBAs coming from the same departments. MBA level courses are basically comparable to junior/senior level undergraduate business courses taught at UCLA and Berkeley. A good MBA degree costs tons of money and they generally do not take students with no work experience.

I am not sure why you speak with so much authority. Berkeley's econ program is outstanding, at both graduate and undergraduate level. For one, the undergraduate student to faculty ratio is better at Berkeley. In fact Berkeley's student to faculty ratio is comparable to Ivy League schools. UCLA's student to faculty ratio is much higher. This means there are more opportunities to enroll in small undergraduate courses and seminars at Berkeley and to get to know faculty better, which may help in getting a good LoR. Next, there is a whole separate agecon department which also teaches an undergraduate major (environmental economics), again with tons of good undergraduate courses and opportunities to get to know world class faculty from that area. Overall, though UCLA and Berkeley are very good undergraduate institutions with very good faculty and relatively smart students.

Given that they placed NYU so low as well as some other schools discussed above, this study is probably based on too much stale data.

I was waitlisted there once, together with a current classmate and a whole bunch people on this board, none of whom got admission eventually. Sounds like they have a large waiting list.

You have a pretty good profile. I think a top 20-25ish admit is a (possible) long shot but anything lower ranked should be a fair game for you. One reject doesn't mean anything. I was rejected from USC too but had offer from Purdue, UCI, Colorado, etc. I bet you could get an offer from more than one department approximately in that range or higher. I think you're not applying to enough PhD programs. 10 or more should be a good number. Throw in some schools like UCI, MSU, Virginia, and others that might be good in applied micro. Getting 3.6 in math courses from UCLA is good thing because of grading steep curve, though I suspect lots of snobbish adcoms do not realize how much work one has to put into getting good grades at top public universities. USC does seem like a strange place. Most of their students are foreign (maybe +90%). Do they not like taking domestic students or do they not get enough applications or something?

It's a very small run-out-of-mill program, but has at least two good senior faculty members, Hirshleifer (behavioral finance) and Jorion (VAR models). Students take the standard finance courses at UCLA, but I was told there is usually one finance seminar each year taught by UC Irvine faculty. If you come think about it, I think taking courses at UCLA is a big plus. Schools of UC Irvine's caliber rarely offer courses that are as good as at UCLA.

It was really annoying that most people did not report whether the funding is for one year or just 9 months, and if it is for 9 months whether the university gives an opportunity for additional funding. Nor people mention whether there are any fees you have to pay. The standard Purdue funding package is about $17K per year (or econ and business students), but some additional breakdown is necessary to make sense of the funding package. At Purdue, we get paid about $17000 for the entire academic year, so you are required to do some work even during summer. EVERYONE gets this package (1st, 2nd, 5th year students), except for students funded by other or additional means (grants, etc) or the unfortunate ones without the standard funding package in the first year. This compensation figure is confusing because first all federal and state taxes are subtracted from it. Then the medical and dental plan payments are automatically subtracted. Moreover, you owe the school approximately $2000 per year in various fees, which you pay from your after-tax income. (This fee was introduced less than a decade ago ostensibly to allow the graduate students to use numerous services for free. When I inquired what are those services, I was told it's the library service and the gym. I think this is outrageous. I have never heard of a gym and a library service that costs $2000 per year. In fact, I never heard of university who demands graduate students to cough out some money to use the library). I am guessing that our after-tax, after-fee income is slightly over $13,000 per year. Surprisingly, this is enough to live in West Lafayette. For the 2008/2009 year you could still find a decent 2-bedroom apartment (the most economical option IMO) walking distance from campus for around $800/month. The cost of car insurance is nearly half of what you would pay in any large city. Some grad students manage to live with a family. I am guessing that my purchasing power is equivalent to maybe $23K of after tax income in a large expensive college town. I was reading an article recently that the university does recognize that the graduate student compensation is still somewhat lousy here, but given the financial crisis, this is not going to change soon. If I remember, the situation at MSU is similar except that the summer work and funding are optional. So the whole funding situation can seldom be summarized with a single number. All in all, I think the applicants should worry most about getting any funding at all, specially this year.