andrem

There's a consensus that 'International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards', aka Basel Accords, was necessary to help protecting international financial system from the current crisis. I wonder now why the whole world unterstood that, but Americans resisted a lot in implementing it. Regulation is not the opposite of Free Market, and policy makers need to quickly understand that.

I love this: "A solution is derived from economic theory, and two useless but true theorems are proved."

Q 790 - Chicago ($$), NWU ($$), NYU($$), UPENN($$), UCL($$) 790Q - MIT($), NYU(off of waitlist), UCLA ($), 790Q - Stanford GSB (finance)($$), MIT Sloan (Financial Economics)($$), Harvard (Business Economics)($$), Northwestern Kellogg (Finance)($$), NYU Stern(Finance)($$), Princeton (Economics)($$), Chicago (Economics)($$). 780Q - UPenn ($$ attending) 770Q - Chicago($$), Berkeley($$) Some examples from PHD economics results. Not discussing here the other aspects. Find one guy with 790Q with acceptances at 5 top finance programs.

False. They have some little importance. However it's obvious that LORs play a major role, math background also. Verbal and writing will never make the difference between Stanford and UCSD, but maybe you can miss some schools because of it. I believe they play a marginal role, based on people's profiles and acceptances that you can see here.

Sorry. Post edited.

I never thought I would ever be happy about living in a developing country. If someone needs the paper, please don't PM me, come to my country and try downloading it at a LAN house.

Just re-applying without stating this year on LSE would be nonsense?

I really cannot understand. You were accepted by SEVERAL top 10 schools with $$ and wanted to take it slow?? I cannot imagine refusing two(some means at least two) top 10 schools to go MSc LSE. I would never refuse U penn or Northwestern, e.g. I think applying again is the better option. And pray.

Gujarati is way better in some topics. I worked with both in my first econometrics undergrad course and Woodrigde is good in the beggining but gets very confusing in some more advanced topics. I'll search my books and post some thoughts about each part, since I took notes on it.

What do you think about the study of Linear and Nonlinear Programming??

First. A rigorous master in economics first is a good idea. One that covers the same topics of a First Year PhD program. You have a chance to see economic research in practice and it improves your chances of getting into a good PhD program. Second, there's a lot of easy-to-read econ papers if your problems by reading them was related to math. Anyway, economics are not easy. I read two Barro papers that used little math for my undergraduate 'thesis'(?) and I took a lot of time to do it. So, despite of having advanced math you will usually need time, because you will probably have to re-read it taking notes. I remember from undergrad school that Blanchard's book had a lot of references to readable papers. Mit ocw also has reference for some readable papers in the Applied Macro and Micro courses.

In my country, in Latin America, I never heard about no one going direct to phd. Most go to a master in economics first. There are two programs compared to the best master programs in the world, with a considerable share of the faculty from Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. In one of them there's two advanced Math Analysis courses, and in Micro, Macro and Econometrics you study almost the same content seen in First Year phd programs. Also, people that end these masters usually succeed in phd programs, so they place lots of people in top schools every year. Also, I heard their LORs have a lot of impact, since it cames from professor that worked with you in research. By giving an important backgroung, since you'll start the PhD after already taking 2 advanced math analysis (at least) and reading the whole basic literature, it increases a lot your chances of joining a good program. Also, if working with economic research is what you want, I really think 2 years are not that much, since you'll be doing that anyway. More than this, is an opportunity to decide if you really want to deal with this your whole life.

Since your grades in math are very good and you had some courses in advanced math I think it would be not a good idea to accept an non-top school now. You should prob go to an econ MA. After that you are able to decide if it's really what you want and also had good shots at top schools.

:tup: Yes!!

I think at least for undergrad studies there a lot of non-useful math out there. Can't really say about grad studies although. It depends a little on the field. A eminent Brazilian economist, J.A Sheickmann, who's now professor at Princeton always say in interviews that many of his recent ideas appeared after sharing thought with physicians, since he works with complex systems. I really can't say a thing about his research since it's too advanced for me, but it clearly shows that very advanced math is necessary at some points depending on the field you are in. Since grad economics is often much more advanced than undergrad econ, I prefer to believe that is really necessary since ever each program gives a lot of value to math, sometimes more than they give to econ studies before grad school.

I had good stat classes already and a lot of econometrics, but I feel that I need a more formal approach to most of the topics. Statistical Inference can maybe be an option. There's some other courses I can take, I just listed some I had an eye on. I would like some other suggestions, since I can take probably any math course I need up to my time constraints.

In fact I had both courses, but I'll consider to take at least Calc 2 again since it won't take a lot of time and I had it long ago.

I would like some suggestions about math courses that are necessary to a chance at a top program and also useful for Phd studies. I know that in many other topics people have discussed this issue, but I never found one which makes me sure about what to take. I'll put a list of the courses I have the opportunity to take and which should I choose if I was able to take 8 of them. Calc 1-4 Linear Algebra 1-2 Algebra 1 - 3 Real Analysis Mathematical Analysis Topology Differential Equations Differential Geometry Partial Differential Equations Probability 1-2 Introduction to Stochastic Processes Calculus of Finite Differences I know some courses like Linear Algebra are absolutely necessary, but no clue about some of them.

What do you think about a person who has low undergrad GPA grades 3.0/4.0 but is able to get through a great M.A. with high grades? For example, PUC-RIO places lots of people (about 40% of the alumni) every year in top 5 schools. A low GPA at undergrad but good grades with LORs from a program like this would be enough to put someone in a top 10? I know there's some other variables, but I would like to know what you think based on your experience.