wobuffet

Assuming you want an academic job afterwards, you should almost surely go with econ rankings; I recommend the National Research Council's rankings on phds.org over US News, however. After all, the people making your hiring decisions will be economists, virtually without exception. And pedigree matters a great deal in economics – even more than in other fields (this is a positive statement, not a normative one). A secondary factor (or the primary factor, if you are _unusually_ certain of your subfield/research interests) should be subfield rankings: see dreck's recs at http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/119708-schools-labor-econ.html#post793088 [yes, the pun was intended] Only in extenuating circumstances would it make sense to break these rules (i.e., attend a school that unambiguously occupies a lower tier than the highest one you were accepted into). For example: - family or significant other - strong geographical preferences - recent major faculty changes have occurred involving people you want to work with - you're less than, say, 75% sure you want to end up in academics [in which case "lay prestige," which I assume means something like "undergrad rankings," could matter more to you]

What no system rejects, however, is periods. I sign up as (for example) user.name@gmail.com, username@gmail.com, and us.er.na.me@gmail.com to sign-ups with different levels of importance so I can filter them automagically within Gmail.

If you don't have a linear algebra course on your transcript already, I'd go for the linear algebra course – especially if you have some econometrics courses planned or already under your belt. Some calculus, linear, and real analysis are the basics that you should typically cover as a first priority. Your complete profile (or at least the math portions of it) would also help.

Check it out: Hicks-Marshall laws of derived demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (proving once again that we are all slaves to defunct economists.)

I heartily agree with this. They are much more labor-intensive to grade, though. As far as the all-Cs versus random approach, I the latter strategy would seem to be strictly preferable given one or both of the following assumptions: i) you care more about do well than about your expected value – say, you want to maximize the chance you get 70% right or higher, and so are indifferent between 68% and 2% correct (or maybe you take the test multiple times and take your highest score) ii) you care about the percentile you achieve, not the absolute number of questions answered (and other test-takers do better than random guessing)

I triple this. No idea if they're admitted anyone off the waitlist, other than one post here on TM saying they didn't. @triple_sec: I don't think that deadline's quite as hard as they make it out to be, at least in waitlist situations. AFAIK, at least a few admits leak out a week (or two?) after the 15th. You're right that now would be awful late though.

Just wondering, how do you know how many you missed?

Good point; the disconnect (yawning gap, even?) between undergraduate- and graduate-level economics, at least at many institutions, is definitely a factor. People pursuing PhDs in the natural sciences or engineering work in labs carrying out procedures and/or constructing things as undergraduates, then continue to do so in grad school. People who want PhDs in the humanities (and most other social sciences, I suspect) read and write things as undergrads, then continue to do the same as grad students. People pursuing PhDs in economics take some math and econ coursework as undergrads, but then basically start from scratch in grad school – arguably with the exception of math prereqs. After all, it's not unheard of for someone with essentially no background in economics (say, 3 or less undergrad courses) to successfully obtain a PhD in economics. Attempting to pull off a similar feat in, say, physics or chemistry would be eminently absurd. (In something like linguistics or psychology, perhaps somewhat less so.) The only other professional/academic field of study I can think of where a solid background isn't really necessary at all for success is law.

That's sort of the point, right? If options A and B are of similar worth, the shorter time investment is obviously strictly superior. And at 2 years vs 5+ years, it isn't even close. Further, I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned networking opportunities, which constitute a huge part of the value of completing a business program.

Lack of quality substitutes, I imagine. Or, if you like, multiple equilibria; TM being the dominant online forum for economics PhD admissions is the equilibrium/steady state that was actually realized because of historical happenstance. Perhaps it's a natural monopoly of sorts (your model could invoke network effects, positive externalities, critical mass, etc. here).

I recall seeing a scatterplot of typical number of years of schooling represented (e.g., something like 21 years for a PhD) and average yearly earnings, with each observation representing a degree (i.e., the highest educational attained). MBAs were above the trend line, and PhDs were significantly below. I can't find it for the life of me now though...

If you're primarily just looking for subfield-specific rankings, try the ones listed at http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/118300-where-can-i-find-field-rankings.html Also, have you tried asking your advisors/letter-writers about what schools you should target?

What range of schools are you shooting for (e.g., top 15 or 20-50)? If you don't know, post your profile and people here can help you decide.

No. If your top priorities are money and prestige, spending 5+ years on an economics PhD is pretty much unambiguously a terrible investment.

Just filled it out. Very interested to see the results!