Ibid

I agree with spivakisgod. LSE seems the much more reliable choice, the Chicago MA doesn't seem particularly relevant, and I'd further add that a one-year masters is preferable to a two-year masters. That's a year of your life, remember. In my opinion: go to LSE, work hard, enjoy the year in a cool city, expect to come back and take a job that will further boost your chances 12 months later.

Hi there, sweat-pumping candidates. I hope you're hydrating appropriately. Just popping in to give some advice: nobody thinks about their high school girlfriend at their wedding, and nobody puts a rejection on their CV. You only need one job, you only need one spouse, and you only need one acceptance. This is all a big, silly, random game, so don't sweat the rejections too much. A few years on, I can't even remember the places where I was rejected from. You may think it'll all be over in a week. Really, it's only starting in a week, because then you'll have your focus. Onwards and upwards, guys.

You're better than you think. Go talk to the most famous economics professors in your university. Somebody with a 4.0 from a reputable place in Europe could do a lot better than you think... but it would greatly help if you had letters from good people. You came from a top 20. But for example let's just say it's Zurich. If Ersnt Fehr writes a letter saying "This guy graduated top of his class, and in the summer of 2016 he was my research assistant. I would rank him similar to Mr X from 5 years ago who is now at University Y", then that's very valuable to you. Every top university in Europe will have people like this. Go talk to them. If you need help identifying the right people, then PM me the specific institution I will give you some names. Good luck.

I don't dispute that "I have not demonstrated" that this conventional wisdom exists. If you don't think it exists, cool. I think it does. And I think threads popping up where students ask "should I take group theory?" is indicative of a considerable over-emphasis on what admissions committees are looking for. This is also false. PS okay really over and out; probably shouldn't have responded.

I'd consider using the phrase "to muzzle you", something used to shut up animals, as considerably more degrading/taunting/flaming than anything I've posted. I fail to see any ad hominem attack in the post you quoted. Anyway I think the point is made, and I think my post has been reasonably well received so I find the condescension from you counterproductive and entirely unnecessary. Interested parties welcome to PM me if they need more advice. Over and out.

Bingo. If the department is heavy on econometrics or micro theory, or indeed some other fields, then of course math matters more. But read my OP. I guess that 60% of economists do applied micro (broadly defined to include labor/public/development/health/environmental etc.) and this does not use all that much math. Consider Esther Duflo and the JPAL crowd, an increasing little revolution within the profession. Their math extends to "are the treatment and control groups balanced?" (That's of course a simplification but I'm not saying it dismissively; they just don't need/use much math.) Why on earth would Esther Duflo-type people require graduate functional analysis? They wouldn't, and they don't. The same is true is a very sizable portion of the profession. Go look at Berkeley's JMCs from this year and see the break-down of applied micro versus econometric theory. So the fetishization of math (beyond RA, multivariate calculus, and linear algebra) is in my experience deeply misguided. (This is not controversial within the profession.) Yeh, whatever you say yourself, good man.

"Absolutely false"? "Nonsense"? Get a f*cking grip. The groupthink is even more endemic than I thought. You're an undergrad. Until you have actually waded through dozens of applications, you are not in a position to tell me how graduate admissions work.

The conventional wisdom is largely correct: GPA, letters from people we can trust, adequate technical skills, reputation of alma mater, research experience/potential, etc. If you don't like your job and have an offer from a top 5, I would encourage you to take it. I was focusing more on people who get into a program but refuse to switch back out when it becomes apparent that they don't like it. There's an irrational stigma that's really just a sunk cost fallacy operating there. By backward induction, people shouldn't feel too bad if admissions aren't going great. I know it hurts and nobody likes rejection, that's well understood. But what's less well understood is that academia is not the utility maximizing path for a large number of people, and perhaps this idealistic notion of academia is perpetuated by biased-sample incumbent professors. In truth, it's just another industry.

1. Congratulations on your offers! I would say go to Michigan unless you're particularly averse to snow. But I agree with fantinity that you can't go wrong with either. 2. I agree with samtheham when he/she says don't base your grad school choice on projected improvements. It is extremely unlikely that any institution's ranking will change much within 5 years. 3. I agree with anothereconguy that you should discount Michigan's placement this year. Firstly, it's only one data point. Secondly, the median placement will not be Top 30. That will be the 75th percentile placement, not the 50th. The median will be more like Top 100. An excellent year, but not quite that good.

Hi folks, I'm about to graduate from a good department. I'm thrilled with my placement (tenure track at a flagship state university). So when you read below and it sounds disgruntled, remember that I'm one of the happy ones. Looking through this forum, and at the advice that has become the conventional wisdom here, I think some things should be said to you nice people. I think the group-think here is incorrect in a few important ways. For example, I know the adcom process very well, and some of the advice that is given here is terrible advice. So here's a few pointers that I think you'd benefit from. 1. This is an industry. Getting a job as an academic is not much more romantic than being an accountant. Firms evaluate your work, the reference letter from your HR department matters more than it should, workplace politics is rampant, and ultimately none of it is personal. It's not about blue sky research and solving America's income inequality problem. It's about working hard, producing what the industry wants, and getting a raise. It's beneficial that academic output is usually more important than doing annual reports for PWC, but the process is similar. Be forewarned. 2. This applies to your applications to grad school. Grad students admissions are very similar to graduate recruiting in a company. Sure, all firms like hiring new talent. But ultimately it's just another part of some guy's job to evaluate the applications, and nobody within PWC really cares about the fresh meat that they hire every year. This will be hard for some of you to hear, maybe: with 800 applicants, it's unlikely you're given due attention and respect. I served on an adcom. I was given 100 profiles to evaluate and because of other commitments I had to get through about 10 per day. It's unfortunate, but true, that a school will likely only spend 15 minutes on your profile. (This feeling doesn't get better when you eventually reach the job market and the same crap applies.) 3. There is a ton of randomness in the process, at every stage. 4. Math does not matter as much as you think. If you do micro theory or econometrics, then math is everything. But perhaps 60% of people will end up doing what could be called applied micro, and the vast majority of applied micro does not require math beyond calculus and linear algebra. 5. Math does not matter as much as you think. We will reject people who got an A+ in graduate functional analysis if they haven't taken undergraduate labor economics. This statement should not surprise you: undergraduate field courses in economics are much more relevant to economics than anything offered by the math department 6. Math does not matter as much as you think. It feels appropriate the say it three times. 7. Stop trying to completely fine-tune the application process. Don't bother worrying about whether departments with a higher fail rate will train you better. Things are random, and things change. Roughly speaking: go to the best department that funds you. 8. Go to the best department that funds you subject to field strength (PS you may very well change your mind, trust me), how well you like the department, and any other personal reasons (e.g. if your husband lives in Urbana, IL). 9. The big one: this isn't for everyone, and that may include you. It's a harsh, competitive industry that requires you to give up a large chunk of your 20s to. Lots of people make the very sensible decision to get the hell out and do jobs they enjoy with colleagues they like in cities that are fun. Lots of people who went before you made the mistake of going to grad school. Lots of people before you dodged a bullet by not going to grad school. Lots of extremely talented people really struggle on the job market. If things are not working out for you this admissions season, I promise it's not the end of the world.

In the six years I've been at one of those schools, approximately one person per cohort of ~25 didn't continue. In my opinion, with the exception of a couple of places that deserve their bad reputation, attrition should not be a very important factor in your decision on where to go to grad school.

Because they don't give a crap.

Three month internship working for the government. Never again.

I say this every year: go go team Dixit.

This is true. I would first respond that I did not suggest a formal proof in my signature - rather I urged people to simply think about the possible general equilibrium effects. The prevailing wisdom is accepted far too blithely for such an important policy issue. However more befitting my preference for late nights and long lie-ons, and more to the point: by your over-lapping time hypothesis, the first-best outcome for a worm here is to sleep 'til noon :D