bluebucket

I am a current student at Chicago, who is currently procrastinating by reading this forum. The whole thing about Chicago profs only giving attention to top students is misleading. Profs give attention to students who have good ideas, are enthusiastic, and seek attention. No one is going to hold your hand, so it's easy to fall through the cracks. But you also don't have to get straight A's or get the top score on the Core exam. This goes for the Econ dept and Booth. I'm in the Econ dept, but I talk to Booth profs all the time; they don't discriminate. So even if you don't go for the joint program you can still work with the Booth faculty.

I got a 4.0 and did just fine. Originally I had the same concerns you did. I went through the profiles and results and realized there were others with 4.0 or less who got in to top ten schools, so I decided not to worry about it. Besides, there are so many other things to worry about when it comes to admissions.

I attribute much of my success on the gre (790Q) to this website: It's free and it's perfect for studying while at work. When I had an internship at an investment bank last summer I had hours and hours of time sitting around doing nothing which I covertly spent at this website.

Get an A in measure theory and the real analysis grade will be forgiven

If you are interested in economics of education tfa could be really valuable. It might inspire a topic for your thesis for instance. Adcoms are people too, and I'm sure after reading hundreds of sops (assuming they read them at all) your sop might stand out. Obviously grades, gre, and recommendations will matter more, but in my opinion tfa will help not hurt. tfa is a huge commitment in time and opportunity cost, but if you want to do it, go for it.

Really Paul Krugman, Really? Seems like he is more interested in furthering his celebrity than economics these days. Or can you do both? Is anyone out there pursuing a PhD in Econ because you want to be in movies?

Institution: UC Berkeley Program: PhD, Economics Funding: $25th x 4 years Declination date: 04/11/10 (via email and on website) Reason & Comments: I felt like I fitted in better at Chicago.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Top 2 Econ PhD program Undergrad GPA: 4.4/5 Type of Grad: NA Grad GPA: NA GRE: 790Q, 630V, 4.0AWA Math Courses: multi-var calc, diff eq, linear alg, real analysis Econ Courses: I was an econ major so alot Letters of Recommendation: 1 very well known, 1 known within field, 1 senior lecturer, 1 math prof Research Experience: interned at regional fed statement of purpose: explained why I want a phd in econ, what my research interests are, and more in depth description of research and other experience Concerns: grades RESULTS: Acceptances: Berkeley ($), U Chicago($) Waitlists: none Rejections: Michigan, Brown, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Brown Attending: U Chicago What would you have done differently? Applied to schools where more of my letter writers would be recognized. I didn't apply to Stanford and one of my letter writers got his phd there. But I probably would have chosen Chicago regardless.

honorable mention for me too: EE, EVG, VGE Would have been nice to have 30k, but I can't complain since I have the max offers from 2 great schools already. I definitely plan on applying again.

Also funding affects yield. I suspect that MIT's yield will go down this year, as many of their unfunded admits will choose to go elsewhere, once they receive bad news from NSF. But their Waitlist yield will go up, as some on the waitlist will receive good news from NSF

Well unfortunately, I didn't get into MIT

Well I guess it's just a matter of preferences. I don't want to spend 5 years of my life getting an Econ PhD, if I don't have the ability to be a great economist. I'd rather find out sooner than later. And at Chicago I would find out sooner.

I will probably run into you at the Berkeley flyout, but I will give you my 2 cents now. I was surprised by how much I liked Chicago. All of the professors I spoke with were very friendly (List, Levitt, Alvarez, Becker, Myerson) and they were also very honest. They admitted that Chicago is a very tough program, and not everyone makes it. According to them, in order to be succesful at Chicago you have to be self motivated, because no one is going to hold your hand, but in the end their graduates are stronger because of it. One thing I learned on the flyout that I did not know before, is that no one gets kicked out if they fail their quals, you simply have to retake whichever course you failed. This happens to a few students, but overall it's not that large of a setback. It's like failing kindergarten. When you get to your last year, no one is going to care that you retook your first year. The graduate students I met were more sociable and outgoing than I expected. Hyde Park is a shitty area, but most people move to Lincoln park or another area of Chicago after their second year. Let me know if there is anything I didn't mention that you would like to know more about.

The only schools I got into were Berkeley and Chicago. Those were also the only two schools I sent writing samples to, and they weren't even the same paper.

Just an update. I loved Chicago. I really felt like I fit in well with the other grad students, and the faculty. All the faculty I met were incredibly friendly, and all of their advice regarding my decision was honest, they only had good things to say about Berkeley. I visit Berkeley on Tuesday.