kevinp123

Also, I don't think Sargent explained very well the claim the the financial crises caught macro economics by surprise. For one, it didn't; The Man Who Called The Credit Crunch - The Daily Beast. For the macroeconomists who study housing markets (Robert Shiller), they saw it coming, but they are not always in a position to do anything about it. Do you realize how huge any economy is? It is unrealistic to expect a macroeconomist to study every aspect of an economy so that he can predict which aspect of it is going to cause the next crisis. That is not their job. Macroeconomist specialize in some aspect of an economy and focus on that. For the ones that were paying attention to housing, I think many realized that something bad was eventually going to happen.

Macroeconomic theories are also falsifiable, but testing them have much more serious consequences than testing a theory in physics. Say some physicist wants to test the behavior of a particle and it doesn't behave the way he wants. Who cares? Nobody got hurt; move on to the next theory. Now pretend the Fed wants to see what happens if it targets an interest rate of say 5% instead of 0.25%? Unemployment shoots to say 25% and a quarter of Americans are out of work. It is not that these theories can't be tested in principle, it is simply a fact that we can't really test them because of the consequences. Therefore, we have to rely on historical data to infer what is happening and hope that the next economic shock will provide us with a better way of preparing for the next one. The problem is that there just isn't that much data available. Really reliable records have only been kept for maybe 100 years or so, and that just isn't long enough to settle all of the current debates in macro. It sounds to me that you are losing faith in economics because it is too difficult. Just because something is difficult doesn't make it any less of a science. If anything this should encourage you to pursue it and come up with your own explanations for the data, not abandon it for something that is more tractable.

Maybe you should focus on more applied work than theoretical mathematical modeling. I can understand you're feelings toward some of the particularly esoteric models that are developed, and particularly against economists who seem to have no grasp of the real world, but to say that economics isn't a science and doesn't work is just incorrect. I've worked in pricing consulting, estimated demand curves and elasticities, implemented pricing strategies based on economic theory and seen profits increase. This stuff actually works; it's not just made up. Also consider antitrust consulting. Again demand curves can be estimated and actual welfare losses can be measured in order to determine the welfare effects of a monopoly. If you are still interested in economics, instead of making sweeping generalizations about its usefulness, try to find to find areas that are better suited toward your interests.

I second the UCLA tutorials. They are very helpful. Also Wooldridge's undergrad textbook has a lot of computer exercises and the data sets for the exercises are available online if you want to work through some examples.

Another factor to consider is that its going to be very difficult to claim you "lost interest" if you drop out in the middle of the first semester. It's going to look much more like you couldn't handle the work and just quit. If you ever want to enter another graduate program in the future it would be nice to have some grades to show for it. Of course, if you actually can't handle the work and will probably get bad grades then this argument fails. But maybe it will provide you with more incentive to study for at least this one semester.

If you pretend this year never happened, then how well you did in the first year classes is irrelevant, and you are in the same position you were last year. You will therefore get approximately the same admission results except you will not be accepted into the school you are in now, which was presumably your best option because that is where you decided to go. Therefore, you will end up at a worse school.

Definitely true, but it was the first one that popped into my head with economic applications.

Rudin is good but not always the most intuitive for self-study if you've never been exposed to it before. Check out "Understanding Analysis" by Stephen Abbott. For applications to economics, check out "Real Analysis with Economic Applications" by Efe Ok.

I might be mistaken, but I believe the typical sequence is to take the first two years of the PhD, then earn the JD while you are writing your dissertation. I suppose you could alternate the first year of each with a two year period, but since the bulk of the PhD is spent writing a dissertation, it makes the most sense to get the classes out of the way first so that you can do independent research while taking law courses.

As a follow up, read Taxation and Welfare by Arnold Harberger as well. http://www.amazon.com/Taxation-Welfare-Midway-Reprint-Harberger/dp/0226315959/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1309313369&sr=8-5 It is geared more toward public finance, but I actually enjoy reading it more than Project Evaluation as it is more theoretical in focus. Especially read the first paper, "Three Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics." It is probably the single best paper on welfare analysis (in my admittedly limited experience). Actually, before you read anything else, read this paper.

Read "Project Evaluation" by Arnold Harberger. Amazon.com: Project Evaluation: Collected Papers (Midway Reprint Series) (9780226315935): Arnold C. Harberger: Books

Yes, because depending on the school, you could get through all of those courses except analysis without seeing (or at least working through) a single proof. However, I don't know of any school that has an analysis class that does not require proofs.

I would think RA I is a better signal. Typically "Math for Econ" courses aren't as rigorous as math courses, even graduate level ones. And from the list of topics being covered, it seems that this course covers the bare minimum requirements for economics.

Ahh, I think number two is the big one. I was thinking mainly in the later years so the coursework wouldn't really be an issue. Thanks.

Why is it not more common for PhD students to study "abroad," either in another country or at another institution for a semester or two. It seems that it would be beneficial for students to experience other viewpoints.

I think this was actually the third one they sent me haha.

I think your last sentence is the biggest factor in your question. While it probably helps to take formal courses in the topics that you want to research, it is much more important to have knowledgeable faculty available to answer questions and guide you in your research. If there is nobody in the department who is knowledgeable about your research topic and there are no courses offered on the subject, then I think it will be very difficult for you produce a high quality piece of research. This is mainly because there are probably going to be aspects of the topic that will not occur to you given your limited exposure to the existing literature (relative to a professor who has been researching it for much longer).

On a related note, what are people's thoughts on taking an extra course during the first semester? I got a fellowship so I have no assistantship duties, and I was thinking of taking a graduate probability course.

I think it probably depends on the paper. What paper are you reading?

Penn didn't like me..

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Summer Reading List has some good suggestions. Of those, I would suggest "Capitalism and Freedom" by Friedman and "Thinking Strategically" by Dixit and Nalebuff Also, "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan.

Type of Undergrad: BS Econ; Top 30 public, not highly ranked in econ Undergrad GPA: 3.94 Type of Grad: MA Econ, same school as undergrad Grad GPA: 3.92 GRE: 780Q, 610V, 4.5AW Math Courses: Multivar Calc (A), Math for Econ (A), Adv. Calc I (A), Lin. Algebra (A), Probability (A) Econ Courses: Intermediate Micro/Macro, Development, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Econometrics I,II, Game Theory (A), Corp. Finance (B) Grad Econ Courses: Micro I,II, Public Finance (A), IO (B) Letters of Recommendation: 1 Chicago, 1 Princeton, 1 Stanford; 1 somewhat famous Research Experience: Master's Thesis RESULTS: Acceptances: UT-Austin, Maryland Waitlists: Initially Maryland Rejections: Harvard, Chicago, UPenn, Northwestern, Yale, NYU, Stern, UCLA, Michigan, Duke, CMU-Tepper, UVA, VanderbiltWhat would you have done differently? I would have started taking math courses before my junior (and mostly senior) year, especially statistics courses. I think not having any calculus based statistics courses really hurt me (other than probability). I also would not have withdrawn from an honors research course to take and LSAT prep class.

I got a funding offer at 4:15 EST, 45 minutes before the deadline!

Going to Maryland!

It is now Monday. Has anybody heard in regards to funding?