mazzalupi

It is a coordination game. That's where the top researchers and grad students are so that's where other top grad students and researchers want to be.

The key missing variable is whether you are on semesters or quarters.

They will still see it on the report sent by the ETS but it's not a problem. Most applications have a place where you list your GRE score which is what I think most admissions committee members are going to focus on. You also have to send the official score report, but as long as you have a solid score entered on the application it's not a problem. I really think that most schools just check off that they have an official score report and maybe that it's the same score that you put on your app. Good luck if you need to retake the test (not sure if you meant that you do or if it was just hypothetical). You can improve a lot the second time you take it.

At most top schools, everyone in the graduate microeconomics class will also have had at least one semester of real analysis as an undergraduate or covered it in your school's summer math preparation class for econ students. So, if you haven't had it, you might be at a disadvantage and it may be hard for you to do well in the graduate microeconomics. With that said, I think that math is sometimes overemphicized at the expense of taking real economics classes. Taking more econ classes may be better for a number of reasons (including greater contact with economists leading to either research opportunities, letters of recomendation, or just advice on graduate school). That the graduate micro text is Varian or Nicholson makes me think it may not be a Ph.D. class but another type of graduate class (also your comment about the chain rule). If this is the case, you'll probably be fine without analysis. Real analysis is important but by no means required for admission to a top school. Most people will have it, but if you are strong in other areas you may be fine.

I agree. Probably the "safest" thing would be not to mention the names. If names come up in discussion of your research ideas and not directly in a list (for example: "results from such an analysis could be even more striking than the findings of Karlan et. al (2008) since..."), you also have the added benefit of not having to change essays for different schools (since such a sentence would be true no matter if you are applying to Yale where Karlan is or MIT, UCSD, NYU, and so on). Again, I think they key is to write it in a scholarly tone. I don't think that mentioning names will hurt you if your essay is sophisticated. Essays are also extremely personal and tied to what your preparation is and experiences are. So my advice may not be right for everyone. I would say also, though, that I would try to focus on the future rather than past acomplishments. For example, your CV should speak for itself. Many accomplishments do not need to be listed in your essay except in passing if they are on your CV. I would focus on why you want a Ph.D. (probably can be summed up in a few sentences) and what kinds of projects you are likely to work on (which should be the majority of the essay). Your transcript will also be in your file. They'll know your grades and what classes you have taken. Further, you don't have enough words to talk about a lot of this. Certainly your past acomplishments will influence what you want to do, however. The trick is to fit them in in passing. Lastly, the essay that you write in early January is going to be a lot better than the essay you write in November for the simple reason that you've had a chance to think about it and rewrite it. A forward looking applicant would be to make a list of due dates for the schools you are applying to and see which ones are early and which are later. If your top school is the first application that is due, it may be a good idea to leave plenty of time to write your essays. You might even consider applying to some earlier deadline schools to get the ball rolling (consider it a commitment contract to write your essay early). Fellowships that have early deadlines could also be a good way to start the essay writing process.

Gender and other "types" are certainly relevant. We need to understand these things better. The discussion of academia being friendly to certain types implies that some other occupations are not -- it is important to understand why. At least one Clark medalist has worked on these issues: Research Summary for a General Audience

Keep in mind that the essays are most importantly about you. Most schools limit you to 1000 words. The longest an essay is going to be 2,500 words. I wouldn't waste more than a sentence mentioning any names. For example, you could write that you are interested in their program because it is strong in the fields you are interested in and because of the work of a few big names in those fields. Just listing the names is fine. I wouldn't go beyond that. I would spend the majority of your essay talking about what interests you. If you can include a couple 4-5 sentence research topics (mini research proposals) that you might want to do work on that would be ideal. If a topic is similar to what someone at that school is doing work on or even someone at another school, you might want to cite a paper of theirs. This has proven to be a successful strategy. I would never say that you want to work with a particular person. It needs to be in the context of your interests. Above all else, an application essay is a way to demonstrate your ability to write scholarly. The tone should be similar to a research paper.

Is Hines returning to Michigan next year? He was visiting Cal this year.

Berkeley (-Chetty, -Farrell, -Imbens, -Jones, -Shapiro) Chicago (+Kortum, -Townsend) Columbia (-Bagwell, +Bai, -Grohe, +Moreira, +Ng, +Reis, +Schmitt, +Uribe, -Vytlacil) Harvard (+Athey, +Chetty, -Hoxby, +Imbens, +Melitz, -Moreira) Michigan (+T. Borgers, +S. Collins, +S. Dynarski, +B. Jacob, +B. McCall, -S. Ng, +E. Norton, +P. Rhode, +J. Smith, -G. Solon) Minnesota (-Kortum, +Rios-Rull) MIT (+Townsend) Northwestern (-Matzkin) NYU (-Chen, +Cogley, -Eaton, +Graham) Penn (+Persico, -Rios-Rull, -Wright) Princeton (-Bernanke, -Krueger, -Melitz, -Reis, -Svenson) Stanford (+Bagwell, +Hong, +Hoxby, +Jones, +Piazzesi, +Schneider) Wisconsin (+Lentz, -Manuelli,+Taber,+Wright,+Williams) Yale (+Chen, +Horner, -Pearce, +Vytlacil)

Harvard (+Chetty, -Hoxby, -Moreira, +Imbens, +Athey)

what is the fellowship from harvard vs. berkeley this year?

Undeniably, berkeley is a great place for psychology and economics plus labor. Rabin, DellaVigna, Malmendier, Koszegi, and Card are all top researchers in their fields.

isn't akerlof retiring this year? interesting haas has a lot of peeps with phd from MIT. that is unexpected. regardless, you should be evaluating the schools based on the research they produce. Q: if you were on the job market would you want to be at haas? for a lot of people, they say no. many economists would rather have a position in an econ dept over a position in the same school's business school, that is, everywhere except perhaps university of chicago. chicago's business school is very well respected among economists. even harvard's business school isn't considered a great place for economics research among economists, although clearly it is well respected among other people (this is not to say anything about the business economics joint Ph.D., though, which I think might be weakly more selective than the pure econ -- admissions to these joint programs is different than reputation of research in the business school). i think of stanford's business school as more similar to harvard's than university of chicago's.

counter example re. placements is http://www.princeton.edu/~jjurek/JWJ_Website/Biography_files/CV.pdf counter example re. a very famous prof with tenure http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~ulrike/cv.pdf

What part of 6-10 admits per year vs. 20-30 don't you get? Business econ programs are weakly more selective, and these figures suggest perhaps even strictly more selective.