whoisdg

Probably this: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/zombies.pdf

Agree with zurich. Admissions and school assignment at any level, pre-K to PhD, is just a sorting/matching problem, and an efficient match is really hampered by bad information about ability and preferences. Econ candidates are already becoming increasingly indistinguishable on paper due to standardization of pre-PhD undergrad curricula, grade inflation (perceived or actual), etc - making the SOP a little more valuable on the margin. It would be a shame for the process to get even more obfuscated by making the candidate pool even more homogeneous. Really, though, the best thing would be for these schools to coordinate on their offers. Of all people, Econ adcoms should know how to solicit preference revelation or arrange a better match via a clearinghouse :)

I’ll add my impressions... I pretty much echo what zurich_econ said, plus some. Here goes. The flyout seemed a little less organized than some others I’ve attended (e.g., in stark contrast, I felt Penn’s was very well-organized). It spanned two days – day one consisted of a casual campus tour and Q&A with a couple of students, some downtime to get to know visiting admits and other current grads, and then a group dinner for current grads and admits. Day two started with an informal presentation and Q&A by Miguel and Janssen, a panel of current students spanning all stages of the program, one-on-one faculty meetings, and a closing reception for the entire department, again with some downtime in between activities. You get the sense that Berkeley Econ is a relatively laid back program. The coursework is intense by any measure – we’re talking a Top 5 program here – but given the lack of prelims the peer group seems far more cooperative than competitive. This dynamic has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it makes for an overall positive environment and possibly more opportunities to learn from peers, but on the other hand, not having prelims may sap some folks’ energy and motivation in the first year. That same quality seems to extend into later years. At any program, years 2-3 are the critical transition from coursework to research, from consuming to producing. Berkeley has an empirical paper requirement in second year that is supposedly “not hard” to fulfill, and I think that was the extent of the second year research requirement. Then the third year is pretty unstructured – you’re basically given the reins and told to have a go at it. There’s a good argument to be made for doing this: if you can figure it out on your own, then you’ve developed a critical skill that you’ll call on for the rest of your research career. This process is bounded by orals at the end of the third year, in which each student has to argue a research topic in front of a panel, with at least preliminary investigation and results. It doesn’t have to be your dissertation or job market paper topic, though in many cases it will be. For comparison, some other programs are known to hold your hand a bit more and possibly even feed students research ideas. (It seems like UCB will intervene mid-third year if you’re really struggling to develop an idea.) Current students ran or accompanied most of the visit. They were all really friendly, and they left the impression that Berkeley is just a good place to work. Faculty were also great, for the most part very accessible and supportive of students. The ranks at first seemed thin, but eventually I figured out why – I think a few profs were traveling, and some half dozen senior folks are currently serving in the Obama administration. Crazy! The appointments are temporary – the Romers, Shapiro, Farrell, and Rothstein should return soon, assuming they don’t get poached. Yellen, if nominated, is probably gone for good. The other visiting admits were friendly, bright, creative, and many already had their research wheels spinning (shout out to zurich_econ). To me, that’s exciting. Of the 20 or so visitors that day, roughly 80% of them claimed to be interested in labor, though it’s pretty common for interests to change once you actually learn what “research” in a particular field comprises. David Card and Pat Kline later told me that they’ve recently been raising the bar on the labor field exam to produce better researchers and discourage overcrowding. IMO, Berkeley is unique from all other programs in a few ways. It has faculty pushing the frontiers of economics in unconventional directions, such as behavioral econ, much like MIT and field experiments. The university also offers more interdisciplinary resources than you’ll find anywhere except maybe Harvard. The availability of top ranked statistics, policy, business, and law programs and Yahoo! Research is unbeatable. I personally think a lot of interesting questions can be found at the intersection of different disciplines, so this is a big plus. As for research areas, Berkeley is strong pretty much across the board. Its breadth and depth is reflected in the faculty, weekly seminar offerings, etc. Though one professor actually told me “if you want to do micro theory, you probably shouldn’t come here.” Regarding the visit itself, as feedback for the next one: I was a little surprised by the balance of time spent with students vs. faculty. It would have been cool to spend more time with faculty (e.g., other programs have sent faculty reps from the various research groups to present on the members of each group and their current research interests). That would’ve been helpful. Hope this helps! I'll add the obvious caveat that I'm only one observation - not necessarily representative. If you have any other questions, feel free to PM me. Good luck w/ final decisions y'all.

Type of Undergrad: B.A. Math and Economics, Tufts U Undergrad GPA: 3.8 Math, 4.0 Econ (Summa/PBK) GRE: 800Q 780V 5.0 AWA Math Courses (UG): Standard lower level curriculum, all A/A+; Real Analysis (A); Abstract Alg (B+); Complex Variables (A-); Probability (B – explained in SOP); Math Stats (A) Econ Courses (UG): Principles of Economics (A), Intermediate Micro (A), Quant. Intermediate Macro (A), Advanced Econometrics (A), Financial Economics (A), International Trade (A), Quant. International Finance (A), State and Local Public Finance (A) Letters of Recommendation: Michigan PhD, Stanford PhD, Duke Math PhD (two were advisors, both of whom know me very well; none are especially well known) Research Experience: Theoretical-Empirical term paper in international trade; RA at policy research organization. **No THESIS. No academic RA.** Research Interests: Diverse. Mostly applied micro. Statement of purpose: Don’t have any standard for comparison...but I actually think it mattered, contrary to popular opinion. More on that below. Other: Worked in management consulting for six months after college; a couple of national scholarships in college (e.g. NMSP); solid programming background. RESULTS: Acceptances: Berkeley ($$), Michigan ($$), Penn (Waitlisted “very high” for $$), UCSD ($$), Wisconsin (withdrew before funding offer made), UT (withdrew before funding offer made) Waitlists: MIT, awaiting rejection Rejections: Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Chicago, Yale, NWU NSF: Honorable mention (Intellectual Merit: 2 Excellent, 1 Good; Broader Impacts: 2 Excellent, 1 Very Good. Argh!) What would you have done differently? Lots to say here. First of all, a THESIS. The one reviewer that submarined my NSF proposal clearly wanted to see more independent research experience. I’m pretty sure that was the deal breaker. Even though undergraduate theses (or “first papers”, more generally) are usually pretty bad, they are (1) an important signal of interest in and ability to do independent research, and (2) a significant learning experience. It might have been useful to take grad-level core courses, but I don’t think they’re necessary – the math courses convey the necessary skill set. Similarly, it might have been useful to RA as an undergrad, but again, from what I understand those roles are usually menial unless you have good programming/data skills. I've also spent two years in the working world. For me, this experience was incredibly valuable. It's not for everyone, but I think it has a lot to offer - exposure to lots of interesting situations and questions, confirmation of your interest in research career, personal growth, big dollar. Important note: I think the adcoms took the SOP more seriously than I had anticipated. Several possible explanations for this observation. The increase in applications probably leaves marginally admissible candidates indistinguishable from one another, and the statement might therefore be used as a second- or third-order criterion. Or maybe they really do sort applicants according to fit. Or maybe I’m just imagining things! In any case – I called out my interests in applied fields more than theory, and in some more specific topics that interest me (e.g. tournaments, peer effects, evaluation), and the decisions I got seemed to sort themselves accordingly. If I could change anything, I'd probably shift a little weight from applied to theoretical micro. Overall, I’m thrilled with Berkeley. Ex-post,it’s my third-most desired program, behind the Cambridge contingent. My only disappointment is NSF – I really thought I could snag it. In any case, I now have a well-developed idea to embark upon this summer, so the process is valuable in and of itself. Good luck to all future applicants. I hope this information is helpful!

Congrats to winners. I got an honorable mention. For those pondering the line between HM and award, my ratings were: 1: Excellent, Excellent 2: Excellent, Excellent 3: Good, Very Good Can't help but feel like I got sunk by an outlier. Pretty crushing. Oh well. Peace out MIT; helloooo, Berkeley! Woot.

Check your inbox... Game on. EDIT: Looking at this again, I can't tell if the sched was sent to everyone. I had asked her about it a couple days ago. If you didn't get a schedule, might want to email Mary to get a copy.

From my observation (somewhat distanced, based on occasional seminar attendance), DC metro area schools interact frequently with think tanks and possibly the FRB. This activity is more concentrated around policy-relevant questions. For example, I've spoken after seminars with folks who have joint appointments. Seems like a nice resource to have nearby. Someone working at one of the latter could speak more to that question.

I don't think a gap year is as uncommon as TM might make it seem, nor do I think it gets the credit it deserves. Speaking as someone who is two years removed from college -- my "real world" experience may not count for much on a TM profile, but in terms of feeding my creativity and an eye for interesting questions, it has been invaluable. You'd be amazed how many economic problems you observe in day-to-day interactions, transactions, and current events. There's a certain diversity to the kinds of experiences you get off-campus that I think make for a compelling reason to take a year off. It also helps you confirm whether academic research is a career you're ready to commit to for a very long time. You of course also want to give yourself the greatest advantage possible in future admissions. To this point, I think your options are pretty well documented on TM: RA for a prof, RA at FRB/Reg Fed/other CB, RA at World Bank/IMF/IDB, RA at a think tank or social policy research company if you're interested in applied topics, etc. In other words, do research, and if your proof-based coursework is deficient take something to show you can handle abstraction to proofs.

Retracted: My last post. Friday was the most anticlimactic moment of the admissions season. Fortunately, Monday's just around the corner.

This moment is priceless man. You have to believe that hundreds of of kids are doing the same thing at this very moment. Talk about a climactic ending - what a way to close out the core 3 weeks of a very competitive season.

I don't normally chime in much, but I'll throw in my two cents. Re: Q2, I imagine coming at them with any self-support will move you up in waitlist priority and/or make it more likely that they'll admit off the waitlist. As per S. Athey's page, it's pretty clear they consider financial need when making admits on the margin, prob more so than other programs. The harder question is how much are you willing to cough up? You'll need an insider for Q1 though...

MorgieLilly, have you heard back from Mary on whether we can take two nights at the hotel? I emailed her the same question but haven't heard back. It would be great to be able to book plane tix now.

Berkeley flyout is Apr 6-7