ilikefreefood

I would say choose Brown, unless you're fairly certain that you want to do theoretical macro. Minnesota does have strong academic placements, but it is surely the least diversified department of your choices. For example, if you go to Minnesota, you are basically taking development out of your feasible set. Minnesota is also relatively weak in econometrics. In comparison, Brown is fairly strong in both econometrics and development.

As someone who did consulting before heading back for an Econ PhD, I think you really overstate the quality of life of your average private sector job. The quality of life value of living one's life according to "I find this question interesting and valuable, and so I'm going to do my best to answer it" really is large. Obviously, it's not perfect, there's still tenure to achieve and there are still departmental politics, but many people find it a whole lot better than "these people have a lot of money, and so I have to answer the questions that they want me to answer regardless of their social value, and I have to do it subject to their deadlines/scheduling demands/budgets." At the top of the consulting pyramid, the quality of life is better, but you're still answering other people's questions for hire, and a lot of people just don't find that nearly as satisfying. Also, academic salaries at research universities in economics aren't that bad; much better than most other academic professions. For example, starting salaries at the top schools this year were around 140k. Less prestigious programs and liberal arts colleges obviously pay less, Also, there's not the kind of salary growth that you see for people who rise up in the ranks in the private sector. but no one's starving, the job security is excellent, and you get all the benefits listed above. Most of my former coworkers got their MBAs and are back in the private sector. They do make a lot of money, but I certainly don't envy their lifestyle.

I attend a Top 30 school, and I personally know people who never passed one qualifier and who were permitted to advance to candidacy in this program. Maybe that's not the case everywhere, and it certainly isn't exceptionally common, but it can and does happen. Like you said (in your later post), qualifier exams are a noisy and imperfect signal. Many schools have even opted to eliminate them for this reason. Mechanism design matters. And sure, the OP's attitude toward the workload is worthy of concern, but it's hardly unusual to feel discouraged in the first year. Really, we know very little about him/her. Never forget that there's huge selection bias in the subset of graduate students who are willing to linger around on a board like this and rehash what are undoubtely some of the most stressful times in their lives. Keep doing your best, OP, and don't let the fearmongers and rationalizers upset you too much. :)

I think that some of the posters here, especially Mathemagician, are overstating the degree to which these things are set in stone. Schools often have petition processes, but its structure and its leniency varies greatly from school to school. If you ask upper-year students in your program they'll generally have a better idea of how/whether it works. Based on my knowledge of people who have petitioned successfully, it really helps to have external funding or publications. It may also really help to be on a friendly basis with one or more faculty in the department who are willing to be your advocate (though note that laziness may not help with this). Also, if you can't pass one qualifier, and that qualifier is not in your intended field, a committee may be more lenient.

Sure, you weren't the star student, but these grades all clearly indicate that you are capable of handling the material, and since you're going to be taking it again, you'll have a clear leg up in the program over most students. Believe it or not, PhD programs are not in the business of trying to select "future exceptional first-year students," they are selecting future exceptional economists. Maybe these grades will hurt you in the Top 5, but anywhere else, more information is almost always better. Also, grading in PhD program courses is a lot more idiosyncratic than you might think across schools, and schools will generally be aware of this. I got a B+ in PhD micro, a B in (undergrad) real analysis, and got into a place that was similarly-ranked to where I did my micro course. In short, it would be silly not to send this transcript.

No. -Guy who got a B in real analysis (and who did not take any higher math)

I believe that the MAPE (as opposed to the MA) is only offered to students who have completed the course requirements for the PhD. If you failed PhD qualifiers, you would still probably manage to get an "MA Pass" on one exam, in which case all you would need to do is ensure that you had taken 8 courses. Most students intending to complete the PhD take only 7 courses in their first year, so if they decide to leave, they either end up taking an MA-level summer course to complete the MA, or taking one course in the fall. If you did not manage to get an "MA Pass" on either qualifier exam, then I think that you would be able to transfer to the MA program and take the MA comprehensive exam offered in January. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that no matter which box you check, your admission will be to the PhD-only program if you already have an MA. (I could be wrong about this though).

They are the same program. Basically, if you don't have a master's degree, then the university will give you the MAPE upon completion of 8 courses and passing of the MA comprehensive exam or an equivalent. Notably, even most students who fail qualifiers get an "MA Pass" on one or both exams, which is to say that the condition to get the MAPE is is more or less always satisfied. As a university requirement, you must take a total of 16 courses to get the combined MAPE/PhD, and if you don't already have an MA, you must be enrolled in this program. On the other hand, if you already have an MA, then the PhD-only program requires only 13 or 14 courses. There is no difference between students in the MAPE/PhD program and the PhD-only program other than the number of courses they must take. If you already have a Master's degree, then there is no reason for you to apply for the MAPE/PhD program. If you decided to leave the PhD program, but you still want an MA to prove that you did something, then it is very easy to "transfer" to BU's MA in Economics program. If you complete the PhD, then the value-added of the MAPE is essentially 0.

I agree with fp3690. For microeconometrics, Matlab is just much much more work than it's worth. If you need to do something that is computationally intensive, using Mata (the compiled matrix language underlying Stata) will allow you to do it with similar runtime speed to Matlab in most cases, with similar syntax, and with an easy interface to Stata. Also, all the ado files for most major Stata commands are open source (and all user-written commands are), which means that you can easily modify things to suit your needs.

Harvard (indirectly) selects for neurotic people. Harvard is also very old and pretty. Ergo, there are no inexpensive studios right next to Harvard. :pirate: Seriously, though, the premium that you pay for living alone in Boston is steep. Cambridge has relatively few apartment complexes, but lots of "triple-deckers" (3 unit woodframe houses). It's certainly possible to live alone in Harvard Square, but unless Harvard has grad student housing that I don't know about, I question whether it can be done on a grad student budget. I only know one grad student in this town who lives alone in privately-owned housing, but even then it's only with a substantial parental subsidy. I suggest trying to find somethng like a 2br/2ba or a 3br/2ba, where you pay extra for the right to have a bathroom to yourself. You may find something like this in an apartment complex, but it will be more expensive than in a house (partly because private landlords can easily opt not to rent to undergrads). If you're patient but diligent, you can find some great deals in private houses (as I did). Also, this may be less of an issue in Cambridge than in Boston, but there are many apartment buildings that rent almost exclusively to undergrads, and that are known to be sort of loud, glorified frat houses. You do not want to live in one of these, so if you find a really inexpensive apartment building, make sure that this isn't what you're signing up for.

My grades were not great, and I did not pass either qualifier the first time. If my math is correct, 8/31 students who remained in the program ended up in this position. Unfortunately, five of those students ended up leaving the program (some of them nominally by choice). I passed both exams on the second attempt, and so although I am unfunded this semester, I am guaranteed funding beginning next semester. For the most part, this semester is going well. Frankly, my professors don't seem to care about my mediocre first year performance (I doubt that they even know about it). People are much more interested in knowing what ideas you have than in performance evaluations, in any case. In short, B's do get degrees. ;-)

Unless you have a specific field or person in mind, then I would say that your concerns are overblown. The department is generally pretty well-functioning, and to my knowledge there are no major departures on the horizon. There aren't any factional politics (that I know of) of the sort that would lead to mass departures. Obviously, BU does admit a significant portion of its incoming class without funding. That is something to consider, but I don't think that it should dissuade anyone from applying. The treatment of grad students is completely uncorrelated to their funding status. If you have any more specific concern, feel free to PM me.

Rational expectations is a couples' costume with arrows pointing at each other, right?

BU's attrition was about 1/3 this year. I think that's slightly higher than average, but not that unusual. You'll have a hard time convincing me that it's more stressful in the first year to be at a program with low attrition. I tend to believe that programs with high attrition do lose some students who could turn out to be fine economists. But, conditional on getting through, being at a program with high attrition can be fairly advantageous. In my experience, high attrition does not make people cutthroat in the first year, and it definitely does not make them so in subsequent years. So, attrition is just a risk you take.

Allow me to disagree with OneArmedEcon. I can tell you that on average, I work about as much in the second year as I worked in the first year. I still feel most of the time like I'm drowning in information. However, my stress level is MUCH lower. I feel free to think about the limitations and benefits of the various models I see, or to delve into the literature when an idea interests me. I allow myself to spend some time learning tools and techniques that will help me in the long run, rather than just worrying about stuffing the core material into my head as fast as possible. I'm no longer afraid of failing out. I still do problem sets, but they're less frequent, and they're generally less painful because I have developed some intuition that I lacked in the first year. Almost all of the material I see is at least tangenially related to my research interests. Not to mention, I have a more well-established social life both in out of my program, and I've gotten comfortable and happy in the city I'm studying in. So, yeah, the second year is a LOT better than the first.