yayapants

Did anyone go? How was it? Was Weyburn mad decent? I couldn't make it so I'd appreciate some highlights.

And lets thank the abundance of water.

I'm one data point. Keep in mind that TM isn't close to being representative of the pool this year.

I disagree with this. Once I had PhD offers on the table, I took a hit to permanent income and reduced consumption. Most of the successful applicants (especially this round) could earn significantly more without a PhD and the likely career path in academia. If I had no offers, I'd probably take a private sector path, make more money but be less happy.

Add 1 more for Scrobles.

That was me.

Yeah it would be helpful before the hopeful deluge.

I like Math and arguing with people in seminars.

Good point. Though I would still just start with reading someone else's code so you learn where you need certain things like the dot operators and reshape.

I second the "dive into it without tutorials example". If you know linear algebra and basic programming things like loops, you'll pick it up in a few days. Just code up something simple like MLE to start with.

Read some philosophy. You're going to spend 5 years reading economics, so you should use the time to read something different. It will keep you human. I recommend John Rawls' Justice As Fairness or the Restatement.

You guys are tempting fate.

The book is good but a bit too intense for what you need. I suggest getting Dynare and reading the user guide. They go through a simple RBC model. They derive the equations and show how to solve models in general. If you want explicit RE solution code, there are plenty around. Dynare does this in MATLAB automatically though I always find coding things helps you understand things at a deeper level.

What is it that you are worried about regarding anonymity? Should I be worried as well?

The questions invite ridicule because you pose a question which has an obvious answer. Then you answer your own question after everyone else offers advice. If you already knew that your LORs were going to mention it, why ask? Do you really think that those reading your LORs are going to think your hotshot letter writers are lying? I use the word ridicule because I don't like boasters.

The answer to the first question is no because such proof is useless unless it is in the form of an LOR. Just because a famous economist knows who you are does not mean they think you are or would make a good economist. And the second answer is you can't have your cake and eat it. Choose to hide all or disclose all. Sorry if this is harsh but your questions invite ridicule.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: First Class Honours from top Australian university Undergrad GPA: 82/100 over Maths/Econ classes (essentially > 3.9) GRE: 800Q 700V AWA? (2nd attempt) Econ Courses: 4 semesters of Micro/Macro and 5 semesters of Econometrics and a whole lot of others Maths Courses: Mathematical Economics, a first year intro course. Sounds pitiful but I have covered multivariate calc, linear algebra, differential equations, optimal control, etc but no proof based stuff. For instance, last 2 semesters of Econometrics was all linear algebra. I know a lot of specific Macro things like the Kalman Filter, Linear RE Solutions, how to derive IRFs, etc. Letters of Recommendation: Yale, Princeton, and Oxford. 2 Profs, 1 Junior. Should be good. Research Experience: Undergraduate thesis, currently working at the central bank in the research department and will publish a working paper or two. Teaching Experience: TA'd final year undergraduate Macro Research Interests: Macro/Monetary Economics Applying to: Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, MIT, Princeton, NYU, Columbia, NWU, Boston Uni, Minnesota and Michigan. Concerns: Lack of Math although I feel as though I just lack the formal proof based courses. I am probably the person to test whether extensive research experience can substitute for proper formal Math. I feel like I am a good fit for the New Keynesian schools or at least Macro schools so hopefully my research experience and fit overcome the lack of formal Math preparation. Regardless, if I fail, I'll get around to Real Analysis and reapply next year. Looks like a win-win. Although I will be down $1,200 or so but whatever.

You hate too many things. Focus on what you want to do. If you hate the math then the PhD ain't for you. But that shouldn't stop you reading economic history. On the otherhand, if you want a PhD for reading economic history, maybe a history PhD is what you want.

Since you already know MATLAB, just add the Symbolic Math toolbox which is based on MAPLE. MAPLE/SM Toolbox is the best you are going to get for computational mathematics. Or you could get Mathematica which looks prettier.

Has anyone done this before? It costs 60 dollars or so and I'm sure my essays were not 3.5. I am from an English speaking country, I can write well so I'm pretty sure they made a huge error.

I second your problem though it works for me at work. Work hours are US downtime hours where I'm from so that makes no sense. I'm sure they'll fix it.

Running out of time is bad - real bad though I don't know what score you will get - playing around with Powerprep I think I deliberately got the last 3 wrong and I still pulled a 790 or something so you really should just make sure you finish. No you have to hand the scratch paper back though the only reason you want to write which ones you got wrong are so you know whether to cancel or not. And finally questions which involve a lot of calculation just don't appear on the test. Its tricky stuff which requires work in the interpretation of the question rather than in the calculation. Hope that helps.

The first time around, before I got to choose to cancel my scores, I was way too stressed to remembered which ones I got wrong. After the test I realised I made at least 5 errors in the 11-20 range. If I had written that down there is no way I would have chosen to see my scores. This time around, I had about 3 at 50:50 in the same range which I wrote down and I kinda knew that it would be fine. I think you need to be realistic with yourself when you have the option of seeing your scores. The GRE is one of the few tests in life you can bail out of without any real punishment and you should make use of it. It may feel bad doing so but it is irrational not to.

I took it today again a failed attempt a few weeks ago. 1Q, 1V and then another Q. Here are some things I learnt between the two that helped: - spend as much time as it takes to do the 1st ten correctly, if you run out of time cancel the score - write down which questions you thought you got wrong - use all the sratch paper, white space is easier to work with - find practice questions which do not involve a lot of calculation (Barrons) Hope this helps someone.

For 1), for 288 to be correct the shading should only cover the 2 larger non triangle areas. That makes it simple to solve.