discreetcharm

1. People keep using the framework, neuroeconomics vs regular economics. Not sure why. 2. I'm not sure how neuroeconomics is different from psychology. Indeed, the tools are taken straight from pyschology. 3. If you want to do pyschology, which I know nothing about, then do it. Not only has neuroeconomics not produced anything, it's not clear how neuroeconomics could influence the creation of models in human behavior in any way.

There is a widespread belief females are favored at every point throughout their career (except peer review). But empirical work could look at this. Hard to comment on whether this is efficient or not. I don't really have an opinion either way.

It seems more helpful to focus on math courses to signal abilities instead of attempting to arbitrage hypothetical pedigree biases. I don't think state school students are the only ones being rejected from the top 10.

You look great. Do well in RA and you have a shot at top 20s. U of T and UBC is looking better these days.

You haven't described your interested in the OP (havent read the rest of the thread). It is just not possible to rank some of these departments, they are all good, but my guess is that NU and yale are slightly better than the rest. Princeton does not seem to coddle its students. Many other things to consider though.

I understand what is being done in game theory, information theory, but I do not understand decision theory, even after reading alot of abstracts. Can someone explain the general direction the field is going, what problems it is trying to solve, and some real achievements? Does decision theory inform any other field of economics?

It seems like you are making your choice between disciplines based on geographic preferences?! Economics seems radically different than political science. In economics, you will be asked to do rigorous mathematical proofs. Applied micro and empirical work is really sort of impressionistic and not general, but can be very interesting.

ive heard lots of PhDs have left and gotten good careers in the private sector...not sure why this would be worse than someone with just an undergrad other than the lost of working experience

if you are looking for a hardcore, objective factual list, forget about it. a lot of economics is like art, you will find now about rankings, so the least disputable rankings are the ones with the fewest schools...top 6 = harvard, mit, chicago, princeton, yale, stanford. Even here penn, NYU, northwestern, have claims. there are basically 15-20 schools in the top 10 and 30-40 schools in the top 20. coming from a person who uses rankings all the time, think about rankings like a crutch for those who don't have much vision about what the profession is really about

your ranking is not adjusted for class size? ?!

there may be HUGE benefits to have a well rounded department, even if your interests dont change, many people dont find doing theory in isolation very attractive...harvard will have the best groups in EVERY field. i think this could be conducive to some interesting work in the long run

i agree, but recognize that some top 20 specialize in areas that can match the departments in top 6. i think your point is good for schools outside the top 20, (ie 30-40 departments in the top 20). these students have severe disadvantages to get an academic job

where is your math? Real analysis, topology, etc, could boost a profile with a low GPA. I don't see how much of RA work in universities is different from what you are describing: cleaning up data and writing a bit. So schools can discriminate now based on you being Chinese? lol

you think such schools place reasonably well? what is your game plan here? teaching or industry?

more than that, one could argue that undergraduate "publication" is inversely correlated with academic success, a apparently strange statement but worth thinking about (not including theory)