bigleaguechew

If you're into structural modeling, there's no place better than Stanford (save perhaps Chicago). Not sure what Columbia's comparative strengths are. Anyone??

I recommend using both Princeton Review (for a concise overview of tested material), and Barron's (for the practice tests and specific solution methods for the more challenging math problems). These two books give you surprisingly different approaches to the math section, and I think both contain useful hints. If you work through both and do all of the practice tests, then you will be fine. Also, be sure to take a look at the hints for the analytical writing section in the Princeton Review book. They are on point.

american

I received a doctoral stream offer this week and immediately turned it down. So, at least there is some activity up there in Toronto.

I'd just like to mention that while the USNews rankings get a lot of crap from this message board and elsewhere, I think that these updated rankings largely reflect the opinions that I've heard here and in casual conversations with members of the economics community recently. Also, a 34% response rate to a voluntary survey is actually spectacular when compared to typical response rates to such surveys in the general public (usually between 1 to 5%). This probably reflects the fact that a good proportion of those polled actually do give a damn about the results.

This is spot on. It was a very tempting offer as the faculty there seem like a fantastic bunch to work with. However, I decided to stick to my original goal of getting a traditional econ PhD even though it will have to be at a somewhat less prestigious department.

First of all, I think anyone here would be thrilled to get placed into an economics assistant professor position at a business school despite the whole teaching mba courses thing. The pay is substantially better on average, and while teaching mba's might be annoying it's not such a big deal in the grand scheme of a research career. However, knowing nothing about CMU or it's recent placements, I would guess that placements in a marketing or management group in a business school (as opposed to a straight econ group) would indicate that their research is focused on those topics. For instance, it's pretty common for empirical IO people to place into marketing positions, because that is where much of the practical application lies.

Thanks for the invite Dr. Who. I'm just wondering... Anyone else celebrating the end of the decision process tonight? Personally, I'm gonna sleep like a baby for the first time in weeks (and not just because of the steak and cabernet).

Congrats! Funding?

Hey, hey, hey... let's not overlook the fact that I turned down a funded WUSTL offer just this morning. Where's my beer? BTW - I totally buy into the WashU on the rise theory. It's true that they are in the midst of a hiring freeze, but we have not yet seen the impact of the massive influx of talent circa 2005/2006. Should be a great time to join the program.

Just thought I'd share that I turned down an offer from Stanford GSB Marketing today. I heard they have a waitlist, so good luck to those who are waiting.

I think it depends on you. If you are a superstar, there could be a good reason for seeking an upward transfer. However, if it turns out that you are closer to the mean among students in your original program, then I think it would be difficult to gather support for anything other than a somewhat lateral transfer for legitimate reasons. Such reasons might be personal (significant other's employment or moving closer to home) or professional (desired specialization not offered at original school). And I think if you were in a program ranked around 100, I don't see why a transfer into the top 50 would be out of the question. I'd guess the top 20 is a more difficult nut to crack however. Really though, I know nothing. It's just speculation.

I think planning a transfer before beginning a program is a bad idea. These departments are investing a lot in you, and it might be difficult to find professors willing to support your move. Also, when do you plan to apply for a transfer? After your first quarter/semester? I'm not so sure that your qualifications will be so different after one term at a lower ranked program that your chances of acceptance at a top school will increase much. On the other hand, it has been done.

Type of Undergrad: B.A. Econ / B.S. Math from a top 100 econphd.net public school Undergrad GPA: 3.5 Overall, 4.0 Econ, 4.0 Math GRE: 790Q, 610V, 5.5AWA Math Courses: One year of real analysis (A+'s); two quarters each of theoretical linear algebra (A+'s), numerical analysis (A+'s), math prob stat, nonlinear dynamics and chaos; one quarter each of PDE's, abstract algebra and complex analysis Econ Courses: applied metrics (A+'s), public finance (A+'s), labor, game theory (A+), and a few others in addition to intermediate micro/macro Letters of Recommendation: It seems as though I had one very respected letter writer, and other letters were more or less ignored at many schools (just what I gathered from my conversations with grad directors where I was accepted) Research Experience: Virtually none. Started an undergrad research project that was never finished Work Experience: 2 years in consulting (business, but not econ) Research Interests: Applied micro, IO SOP: Talked about how my experiences and coursework have influenced my research interests. Tailored last paragraph to each school I applied to. I cannot say this with enough emphasis... THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE DEFINITELY MATTERS AT SCHOOLS OUTSIDE OF THE TOP 10. IF YOU DO NOT COME FROM AN IVY AND YOU DON'T HAVE A SPOTLESS MATH/ECON RECORD WITH SOLID RESEARCH EXPERIENCE, I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO SPEND SOME TIME ON YOUR SOP AND START WORKING ON IT EARLY! Concerns: I had about a year straight of abysmal grades (yes, we're talking about F's and W's here people) in my sophomore year of college due to some family issues. I think it was important that this occurred when I was an english major, and I made up for it by excelling in all of my econ and math courses. So, if you have screwed up and permanently marred your transcript like I did, HOPE IS NOT LOST! It just means that you have to work extra hard to outperform your classmates from here on out. RESULTS: Attending: UCSD ($) Admitted, Declined: Stanford GSB Marketing ($$$$$$$$), Penn State ($$), WUSTL ($), UNC ($/2), UVA ($), Texas ($$), ASU ($$), Arizona ($$), Pittsburgh ($), Ohio State ($), U of Washinton ($), Maryland (stiffed me) Waitlists: Minnesota, BU Rejections: Top 10, NYU, Columbia, UCLA, Michigan, JHU, Wharton (but it doesn't count in my mind cuz I hardly showed up for the interview) Never heard back from: USC (not that I care anymore, but seriously WTF?) What would you have done differently? Nothing really. I had a huge black spot on my record with that one atrocious year, and nobody knew how that would affect me. My letter writers were extremely supportive in helping me apply to as many places as I could afford, and cover a broad spectrum of programs. I thought UCSD was a long shot heading into this process, and I am thrilled to be going there. I can honestly say that I would have been happy at just about any of the programs that I was accepted to, and it was incredibly difficult for me to turn down so many attractive offers. Obviously, this is a problem that I am happy to have, but you'd be surprised how gut wrenching it is to turn down a fellowship offer from a school that you had been day-dreaming about attending just a few weeks earlier. Still, I would advise everyone who isn't a superstar with stellar LOR's to adopt a similar strategy and apply to as many places as you can afford.

This summarizes my reasoning perfectly. Thanks for the support!

Just declined my offer from Stanford GSB. I suppose it's still possible that Minnesota will swoop in, but for now it looks like my decision is made.

I was pretty psyched about the Stanford thing for a while because it would be a great opportunity to study under some of the top minds in micro theory (Kreps, etc.) and structural IO (Bresnahan, Reese, etc.). Ultimately, however, I would spend more of my time in graduate school, and indeed throughout the rest of my career, working on research in marketing rather than the broader topics in economics that quant marketing is built upon. So over the last few weeks I've invested a great deal of time perusing the top marketing journals to see what I'd be getting myself into, and I'm just not sure I'd be happy working on such research. Therefore, I think that I am going to have to sacrifice the benefits of Stanford GSB for the freedom to research exactly what I want at a traditional econ program. As of now, it looks like I'll be heading to UCSD next year, and jumping into that treacherous econ job market without a top 10 PhD 5 years from now. I just have to remind myself that if someone told me at the beginning of this process that I'd receive full funding to go to UCSD, I would be ecstatic.

I'm contemplating what I would do if offered a funded admit tomorrow off of Minnesota's waitlist. As of now, I am most likely heading to UCSD, so I am thinking about how the departments compare. Obviously Minnesota's strength lies in macro and UCSD's in metrics. However, I am most interested in applied micro and possibly IO. Aside from field strengths, two major factors will be driving my decision making: 1) Minnesota's placements are without question much better than UCSD's. 2) I have heard from faculty at my university that Minnesota has a unique and rigid approach to economics, but I'm not really sure how to interpret that. Any thoughts on any of the above? I'm especially curious about #2. Also, anyone else heading to SD or Minn?

I think Pitt is best known for experimental economics, but I have a very high opinion of the overall program. One of my letter writers is very familiar with the department, and conveyed to me that it is an extremely friendly and supportive environment.

They also ignored my email, so I have completely lost interest.

Go to NYU. Period. End of sentence. End of thread.

They do. And its not making my decision any easier.

Often times yes, but as a CA resident I had tuition and fees waived.

I think this is (somewhat) relevant to this highly entertaining thread, so I'll post my question here: If I go to UCSD, I expect to end up with some debt at the end due to crappy stipend (16.5k) relative to the high cost of living in La Jolla. Anyone know how feasible it is to work during summer months to supplement income? Is that something that is generally encouraged or discouraged by econ depts?

Yes, UCSB seems like the clear choice to me. That is an insane funding package for a UC school by the way.