2pm

... You see a beautiful girl without a boyfriend and think the market is not efficient...

I think your profile is pretty similar to mine (available in the Profiles & Results thread) except that I have an MA but not as many math classes. I applied to about half of the top 20 and got rejected from all of them (Wisconsin waitlist that ultimately went nowhere), my top admit (and fortunately one of the two schools that gave me fundings) was UT Austin, which is where I'll start this Fall. The reason why I said this is because while I think you do have a shot at the top 20, it honestly will be very very very tough. In the end, I think this process is pretty efficient: you (more usually than not) get what you pay for. Let's think about it: the reason you (and I) choose to stay at our undergrads is pretty much because of the money, we don't have to pay as much compared to the more prestigious institutions. Then, the tradeoff would be, comes application time your profile will be a lot noisier than applicants from top schools. They really got what they paid for in tuition money: better faculty, reputable LORs, rigorous classes that carry more signaling values. In my opinion, it is only fair that since they paid more (in monetary value, assuming ability is approximately equal), they should have an advantage in the process, and that advantage was, quite honestly, a lot bigger than I anticipated. Factoring in the applicants from overseas, and you are looking at pretty long odds in getting in the top 20. So, my advice to you, beside those already mentioned in the thread, would be to apply to as many school as possible, but NOT exclusively in the top 20. Diversifying your portfolio (I would say down to about 80ish for your safety) would probably be a good strategy because comes March and April, it really doesn't matter how much you anticipate being rejected from the top 20, it will still hurt! I hope I don't come off as a jerk :)

While I'm sad that I will lose a classmate, I'm really happy for you because I know how much you wanted to go to UMN. All the best up North :)

Woot woot dsdoodle :) Nice to see you repping 'Horns pride already! I'll see you both in August! (is Math Camp still the first week of August?)

Tex-Mex FTW!!! :D Thanks for the awesome write up. As you very well know, I was pretty apprehensive about coming to UT at first, but as I look more closely there are still a lot of positives about the department, the university and the city. Looking forward to meeting TMers there :)

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: B.B.A, Econ concentration from large state university with no PhD program Undergrad GPA: 4.0 Type of Grad: M.A. Econ, same school Grad GPA: 4.0 GRE: 790Q, 640V, 4.0AWA Math Courses: Cal I (AP test), II (Community College), III, Intro to Proofs, Matrices and Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Real Analysis I Econ Courses (master level): Macro, Micro, Metrics, International Finance, Health Econ, Time Series, Research Methods, Forecasting Econ Courses (undergrad): Intermediate Macro, Micro, Metrics, Money & Banking, Math for Economist (same class with graduate level) Other Courses: Mostly in business Letters of Recommendation: 3 econ professors , been told they are all strong Research Experience: Honors undergrad thesis & master thesis. Nothing spectacular Teaching Experience: Tutor in the Econ dept Research Interests: Applied micro Statement of purpose: Standard, did not customize Concern: (somewhat) inadequate math background. Realized I wanted to do a Ph.D. in econ too late & tried to cram as much required math courses as possible while finishing my M.A. RESULTS: Acceptances: UT Austin ($$) (attending), Houston ($$), Michigan State (no $), BU (no $), UVA (no info on $ yet) Waitlists: BC, UW-M long waitlist -> rejection Rejections: let me count the way…Yale, Berkeley, Columbia, NYU, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD, UMN, Duke, PSU, Maryland, WUSTL Pending: Ohio State (the earliest deadline, still nothing yet. Oh the irony!) What would you have done differently? Hard to say, since I know beforehand there will be lots of noise in my results anyway. Probably take more math and get 800Q in GRE? Perhaps spend more time on my SOP, although I don’t feel comfortable discussing my research goals & ideas in details since I don’t even know which field I am interested in at the time of the application process. One thing I won’t regret is not transferring. I have made some fantastic friends and built tremendous relationship w/ the faculty at my current university. Overall, I’m extremely happy. 2 years ago when I decided to go for a Ph.D. in economics I didn’t think I could even make it to a mid-rank program, so UT is definitely a step up from my expectations.

Institution: WUSTL Program: PhD Economics Decision: Rejected Funding: n/a Notification date: 04/06/2010 Notified through: E-mail Posted on GC: No Comment: Took them long enough...

I voted for Pitt since I have a sense you are not very impressed with PSU based on your visit. As you yourself, among many others, have said, go with your gut, and if it means taking a couple of spots down the rankings in exchange for more utility then I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Plus, if you are that interested in applied work, I can't see PSU being a very good fit for you. And if you are planning to return to your country then I would imagine the difference in perceived reputation between the two schools would be smaller than if you plan to find a job in the U.S. So, 1 vote Pitt!

@Walt: wow, some epic analogies you have there :) And of course we can keep the discussion civil, I don't particular enjoy posting inflammatory comments. Back to the topic, I don't think we are all that different, for one we both agree that universal coverage would be ideal for the health care system if and when it is achieved. What we disagree is to what extent is government regulation involved to achieve that goal. First, regarding the communicable disease scenario. I think the chance of one person's action to effect society on a massive scale is rather small (especially in public health). For one, it would take a lot of luck for all the right events to align, a perfect storm if you will. It seems to me there is always a large possibility in your scenario that somebody would find out about the disease and alert the community so that preventive steps could be taken. You said such scenario would be less devastating if the medical infrastructure existed, but as far as I am aware such infrastructure has already been set in place irrespective of whether a person is insured or not since there are always safety-net providers for the medically indigent . So, in my opinion, increasing government bureaucrats to insure against extreme circumstances that are unlikely to happen is inefficient. To your second point about costs to the public are exacerbated due to the lack of preventive care. I absolutely agree that it has proven to be devastating for society as it creates massive externalities, so the lesson is that universal coverage would be ideal in situations like this. But again it seems to me that there is something to be said about how strict we want government involvement in achieving it. This, of course, brings me to another point: can universal coverage be achieved more efficiently with strict government mandate or with some sort of market-based solution alongside some government guidelines? My vote is for a second scenario, as I think the government’s role should be a safety net provider rather than an involving regulator, even in the health care field. This is where we differ in our philosophies I guess :)

@Walt: I deliberately sidestepped the health care topic since it's not the main point of discussion and it seems to evoke even more emotions than the current state of economics :) My point is that if Gary Becker, who knows more about economics than a lot of us, remains optimistic about the profession, then we shouldn't mind these aforementioned popular 'journalists' trashing it since they don't know what they are talking about anyway ... About health care, I definitely agree with you on a lot of points, especially this This is precisely what I'm working on at the moment: the local uninsurance rate has a negative effect on the quality of health care received by the insured. That is, uninsurance has a negative spillover effect such that there are incentives for the insured to take care of the uninsured beside the humanitarian viewpoint. There has been some research done on this topic, and the preliminary conclusion is that the effect is there, and it's statistically significant. With that said, I'm gonna play the role of the devil's advocate and go all Chicago school on you :D I would disagree. If we are talking about children insurance, then yes it is necessary that we cover those, but we have SCHIP for that. For the elderly, there's Medicare available. Then, for the adults, strictly speaking, why do I care if the other guys don't have insurance (wow I sound Chicago-ish already :D). I think there is an argument to be made for universal coverage, but one that could effectively be made by arguing from an efficiency viewpoint rather than an equity one, as you have previously touched on (i.e. universal coverage ensures that nobody gets a free ride by using the ER so it prevents negative externalities, and as noted above the insured have incentives to reduce the # of the uninsured out of worries about his/her own health care quality). My point is that heavy government regulation is a can of worms so we should be very careful about when and how we should put it into use...

There is an article about Gary Becker and the health care reform today in the WSJ that is well worth reading because he touched on a number of topics about the economics discipline: Gary Becker: "Basically an optimist." Of particular relevance to this thread: Personally, I disagree quite a bit with the Chicago school of thought, but I have enormous respect for Becker!

So WUSTL econ's new website is up, and there is detailed information about their placement history (at least compared to the old website). WUSTL econ placement I have to say, for a school that has been on the rise for quite a while, I think their placement hasn't been very quick to catch up with their reputation . Any thoughts?

This article infuriates me :mad: Lots of hand waving and empty criticism. There is a vast difference between people who know what they are talking about (i.e. Krugman, even if not all economists share his views at least they understand where he's coming from) and 'writers' such as this person. And I meet people like this on a daily basis, too (non economics major). You mention you're into economics and first thing you hear is "So you want to be the guys on Wall Street who ruin America?". Do I waste 30 minutes explain to them what economics is, or do I just shrug? Efficiently, I shrugged :D

Institution: UVA Program: Economics PhD Decision: Admit Funding: No information on the letter Notification date: 03/24 Notified through: randomly checked website Comments: Happy :)

Thank you so much for a great response!!! This just made my day knowing that it's not all gloom and doom at UT :) Coincidentally, I also just found out about Sandy Black, great news for those of us who are interested in applied micro.

Institution: Boston University Program: PhD Economics Decision: Admit Funding: nada Notification date: 3/24/10 Notified through: Email Comments: a strong ego-boost. But will probably decline since there is little chance I'm getting financial aid

Institution: UCSD Program: PhD Economics Decision: Rejected Funding: NA Notification date: 3/23/2010 Notified through: email Posted on GC: No

Institution: Michigan State Program: PhD Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: no first year $ Notification date: 3/22 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: unlikely to attend w/out funding

Institution: Maryland Program: PhD Economics Decision: Reject Notification date: 03/19/10 Notified through: Randomly check Testudo website Posted on GC: No Comments: bleh...

Unless there have been significant changes to the two programs at UVA and MSU since econphd.net came out, UVA was ranked about 20 spots lower than MSU, so I think you made the right decision not bothering with UVA anymore (and for that matter, if I were you I would do the same and only take funded offers from CMU and WUSTL over MSU) :)

Institution: NYU Program: PhD Economics Decision: Rejected Funding: NA Notification date: 3/19/2010 Notified through: E-mail Comment: expected...

Institution: Wisconsin Program: Ph.D. Economics Decision: long waitlist -> Rejection Notification date: 03/17/10 Notified through: Email from John Kennan Posted on GF: No Comments: The subject of the email is 'Wisconsin, bad news." I appreciate them being straightforward with me :)

I just realized this point, but if the process is trending up, then isn't it true that every next year will be the toughest year ever??? Conflict resolved ! This is a dual-primal problem :D

Ok, for what it's worth, this is my opinion: Location: BC dominates. Austin is a fun city, but there is an enormous advantage in studying close to MIT, Harvard, BU and the NBER as dsdoodle has said. Advantage: BC Attrition rate: I have no idea about Rochester and BC, but I can't imagine they are any worse than UT. Disadvantage: UT Interest: I think Rochester and UT are somewhat inferior if you are not sure about your interests (UT: no macro, Rochester: only macro Funding: this is where it gets tricky. If you are funded at BC, and if I remember correctly it was 16k a year, you will have a hard time living in Boston. Provided you get off the waitlist at UT, then it's Rochester > UT > BC. Conclusion: if you can afford living in Boston, I think it would be the place that best suit your needs. But screw this, let's all meet in Austin and get drunk :D

How is your funding situation? I remember you are waitlisted at Texas for funding, but how about BC and Rochester? I think it is an important factor to consider...