Tenhik

Do you think it would be a good idea to take the first year core (or at least Micro I/II) as a non-degree student, then apply to UMCP? Their program is my first choice by far, but apparently if you apply to a program at College Park and get rejected, you can't take courses in the department as non-degree. I assume that if I get admitted after taking the core, I could just keep progressing in the coursework without having to take the classes again as a PhD student.

I took Calculus I and II at Northern VA Community College, and then again at William and Mary (because I forgot to get approval to transfer the classes beforehand and needed them for a prerequisite) and really, I thought the courses I took at NVCC were harder and more rigorous than what I ended up taking at W&M. The only reason I didn't ace the W&M versions was because of William and Mary's famous grade deflation, but whatever. I'm taking Linear Algebra and Vector Calculus at NVCC this summer, and plan on taking DiffEQ this Fall. At that point, I've run out of classes and will have to switch to GMU or one of the other universities in the area. For those basic classes that everyone has to take, I don't think there's a problem with taking them at a community college, particularly one like NVCC which is well known. My advisor took several math courses at NVCC while he was an RA in DC, and didn't have a problem getting into top 20 schools (admittedly, this was 10 years ago). Your grade might not convey much to admissions committees, because of grade inflation, but since you'll still probably have to take additional courses at a four year university, your performance in those courses will give the adcoms perspective on your earlier grades.

In so far as I know, nobody in the program last year was admitted off the waitlist. But I also didn't even know there was a waitlist, so it may be that some people did in fact come off a list. It was never really talked about; the only information we really heard about admissions standards was that over 100 people applied and only about a quarter of that were actually admitted. That's for the two levels combined; I have no idea how it breaks down across levels. However, their admissions for Advanced vs. Foundation were strange; there were a few people in Foundations who, by comparison of previous work, should probably have been in Advanced and a few in Advanced who should have been in Foundations. They never really gave us a straight answer on that... I wouldn't feel bad though, especially if you were applying for Advanced. Some of the people there were just absolutely stellar students, and I often wondered how I got in. Also, the budget situation in CA is really bad, and I think UCSB was having problems even coming up with the money for this year, even with the majority of the program paid for by the AEA and other organizations. I do know that this will be the last year the program will be at UCSB, though. Anyways, good luck! I did Foundations last year and it was really helpful to my overall training, and from what I heard from the Advanced kids, Advanced was essentially PhD boot camp. I didn't apply for this year, but hopefully I'll get to do the 2nd part in a few years.

Whcih is why I'm thinking of doing the GWU MA part-time. :)

Found the website for the Tokyo program: University of Tokyo, International Program in Economics

I would totally consider doing that. I lived in Tokyo for a year while I studied Japanese at Keio U., and assuming the program is taught in the Western-style (as opposed to the Eastern method of "shut the hell up and repeat what I said", which I had to do at Keio, driving me crazy), I'd be up for getting an MA from Tokyo U.

On a semester system. 17 in Economics (13 at W&M, 4 at UCSB) 6 in Finance 5 in Math (However, 4 of my Econ classes were basically math courses) I need more math classes. >

That's essentially why I'm avoiding it. He covers all the essential macro at that level, but in a way that uses far too little math. Preferably, I'd be interested in something along the lines of Nicholson and Snyder's "Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions" in terms of mathematical rigor, but obviously for macro. Above the level of Mankiw's "Macroeconomics", about the level of Blanchard's "Macroeconomics" (but with calculus), and below the level of Romer's "Advanced Macroeconomics" (which isn't an intermediate text). I define "intermediate" as covering IS-LM, AS-AD, Solow, and Mundell-Fleming, and using differential and integral calculus but not linear algebra. I'm taking a course in New Keynesian Macro next Spring, using Gali's New Keynesian Framework book, and really need to revamp my intermediate macro beforehand to a mathematically rigorous level, as I learned it using only algebra. Carlin's book looks very good, but it's more in line with Romer's book, in that it covers New Keynesian models. Williamson's and Bernanke's books look pretty good, but I don't know if they use calculus; does anyone have much experience with those?

Yeah I was talking about normal-intermediate not MIT-intermediate. :)

I want to review my intermediate macro during the summer, and unfortunately sold my copy of Blanchard after I took the course. Does anybody have any recommendations as to the best book to use? I don't remember a lot from my macro class, so I'd basically be using the book for self-studying the same material I learned before. I want something more mathematically rigorous than Mankiw's book.

I'm strongly considering attending one of the European M.Phil programs after I graduate from W&M, but I was wondering if I should take more advanced math courses beforehand, or if I should just go straight out of undergrad. Once I graduate from W&M, I'll have taken a pretty rigorous economics courseload, with graduate-level cross section and time series, along with New Keynesian Macro and Advanced Micro, and I will have taken math courses up to Differential Equations. However, I won't have any real analysis or probability theory/math statistics courses, which I would take at GMU after graduation if I don't go directly to a MA program. Since the European masters programs are essentially the coursework for the PhD programs, I assume they're pretty rigorous and I should possibly have more math before I attend. However, I also am graduating pretty late at 25 (I left college and lived in Japan for a while), so I'm really hesitant on pushing back graduate school even more. What do you guys think?

Are you talking about the MA in Applied Economics at JHU? Well, first of all, it's not an academic program what so ever. It's meant strictly for professional training, and is actually a professional degree program. Second, the Applied Economics MA is actually not offered by the JHU Economics department, but rather an applied econ department that's part of the school of professional studies (continuing education). The professors who teach the Applied Econ programs are only instructive faculty (except for maybe the director) who work at policy institutions and think tanks in the DC area. Not to say it's a bad program; not at all. The faculty is apparently excellent, with PhDs from the better schools out there. Also, the amount of hands on exposure to practical uses of economics is apparently excellent, downplaying the theory in favor of real world application. It's apparently looked at very well by employers in the DC area, as well. However, they make no real claims to being and you shouldn't think of it as an academic program whatsoever. Why it doesn't have some of the stricter admissions policies of the other terminal MA programs, it just may be because of its continuing studies nature, but apparently it doesn't do much to hinder the program. However, if you already have advanced undergraduate training in economics, I don't think it's a good place to go to, unless you're strictly looking at developing your technical skills, of which it has a good amount of courses in metrics to take. I thought about applying there for a while, before I decided to kick my undergraduate training in high gear, but I'll likely choose another program for my MA. Also, not apparently "everybody" can get in. I talked to the admissions guy when he came to W&M, and apparently their average GPA hovers around a 3.4. While easy to enter for most here, I don't buy that argument. Many of the MA programs, besides the most competitive to enter like Duke or NYU, have comparable standards.

Really? I could have sworn I've heard of int'l students attending. Admittedly, they had to pay for themselves, because the fellowship is only for citizens and permanent residents, but maybe they changed it when it moved from Duke to UCSB. I know there's other programs though. There's a similar program at Miami and there's a research program at Maryland. I don't know the specifics, but I'm sure a Google search would find them pretty easily.

That's the issue I ran up against, but I figured the marginal benefit of attending outweighed the costs of not taking the classes. I could have only taken two classes over the summer, and both of those could be done during my senior year, at a better school that where I would have taken them. Also, attending the foundations level probably puts me in a better position for the Advanced level next summer. Finally, while part of the foundations level is really just a review of what I've already done at W&M (Intermediate Micro and Econometrics), the level of mathematical rigor is higher than that of W&M, because our program is more policy-based that technical and those two courses at W&M only used calculus sparingly. That, and I get the chance to do an Mathematics for Economics course at UCSB (which won't be offered at W&M next year), and more research experience always helps! And really, I didn't want to spend my summer in Northern VA just taking math courses. Have you seen the UCSB campus?! Even though I'll be working all the time, I'll at least have a pretty view of the Pacific. :)

Foundations. I'm takingthe math for the advanced level next year.