bonbon

You said there aren't as many professors doing Political Economics at HBS, so if someone at the BusEc program wants to work on Political Economics, can he choose a professor at the Econ Dept as his advisor?

^ Thanks for your answer, LazyStudent. This thread is about HBS, so your answer is most appropriate and very helpful. You mentioned a little bit about 'theory' vs. 'finance'. That reminds me that I heard somewhere the BizEc is strong in Finance and Industrial Organization, compared to the normal Econ Dept? I would imagine someone who wants to do Political Economy for example would more likely to choose Econ Dept? In general, how do you compare the 2 programs, based on each field? When you said 'theory', did you mean things like Micro and Econometrics theory? How about applied Micro and applied Econometrics? Thanks much for all your inputs.

Since we are comparing the Harvard Econ dept w/ the HBS BizEc program - I would like to ask about this difference in the admissions process: the interview. I think interviews are unique to business schools and not to econ departments in general? Anyone can share what exactly is the business school interview all about? Is it for only finalists, or are there people who are admitted without an interview? What is the nature of an interview - deep? casual? technical? fit? The content? And the general ratio of admittance coming out of an interview?

By the way, you said you didn't go to a top school, yet already got recs from famous, and well-known profs. I think you should be all set then, even without further RAing?

OutOfGame asked the perfect question I think. If you want to do things related to policy and macro, the Fed might be a good option. However, if everything else the same, the top 5 RA position stands out for sure. The Fed economists are respectable, but in the academic world, the professors at a top 5 are surely more 'in the game'. People know them more, and they do work that is more similar to what you might do during grad school, and after if you stay in academia. Those things give much better signals to a potential school. I would go on to say too, that it is harder to land a top 5 RA position (especially if you come from a lower / different school) than a Fed position.

I actually have 2 questions: 1) In general, do you know if doing a full-time Research Assistant position, say for a professor under some grant, or in a program like NBER is ok for international people who need H1-B sponsorship? 2) If you are already on H1-b at a cooperation, is it ok to move to a lower paid RA position and transfer the H1-b?

Hi John, if you are still around - do you happen to have similar openings this year?

Bumping this thread. It was so great to have John List around here... I hope he'd still come back.

You can always submit everything first, then submit the updated transcript when you get it, right? It'll help but probably only marginally, so you still want to be early if possible, shouldn't hurt.

I think your school range is good. Within the range, I guess you'll have to decide to apply to how many schools, which ones... Maybe on location? Environment factors? Also, of course application fees as well... If you can tell your story to others, I think they'll listen. It's not like once something goes wrong you can never fix it. You have indicated that you have tried hard and are doing just fine, and it's meaningful.

If you are interested in derivatives and hedging, would you consider a Master in Finance too? I feel like PhD is a bit broader and less... practical than your topics of choice, most of the time.

On the other hand, a lot of CS departments (top ones, too, if that's what you are concerned about) do application works, and a lot of the applications are in business. That is probably more likely to be a good fit.

I think you answered your own question - it's a matter of match, too and not just ranking. If the top schools you apply for don't have anyone who shares your research interest then it's hard for them to admit you, and it'll be hard for you to choose the school later too.

May I ask why you went to a Stats Master after undergrad instead of applying straight to Finance/Econ? You were already a Math major in undergrad, so I assumed you were already well-prepared there. And Stats isn't exactly related to Finance / Econ unless you want to do Econometrics. A master takes time, and most likely costs money.

I thought Game Theory is more pure Econ than Finance? And what is IO?

Unless there's a program that you'd definitely want to apply to, and *requires* GMAT (no GRE accepted), then you might want to consider doing the GMAT too. As you already studied for the GRE it wouldn't too hard. I think the GMAT Math can be trickier, but the Verbal part can be easier depending on your background. However, if there is no such requirement, I don't think it really matters. Even if programs say they prefer one over another, in the end, test score is only a small part of your application and if you do well in either of them it is just fine.

Nobody cares about your freshman grades. If anything, it makes a good story and how you've improved... drastically and that you do not take things for granted. Everyone deserves a second chance, no worries. Btw, I think your profile is good. It depends on whether your coursework level is similar to US courses, and if your professors are familiar with the US system enough to make a good case about you. Have people from your school(s) gone to Berkeley and other good schools in the US before? If yes, it'll help.

Given the courses you listed, it seems like you already have all the prerequisites like santacanyon mentioned? For asset pricing, you might want course4: Theory of Probability and stochastic processes course6: Time Series Analysis might help with running Econometrics models in Finance. The other courses are nice to have, but they have much broader applications, mainly in Engineering rather than just Finance alone. If you can take 4 out of these, you don't need to worry much which one to take, just take the ones you like.

Well... even if you are the 'victim' of politics in admissions, how would you know? No matter how brilliant you are, it's fair to say, chances are that there are people just as good or better out there, who knows? And each school takes so few people, so when there are multiple that are good, the rest has to be luck and you can't do anything about it.

I have one comment about this statement. When they choose median instead of mean, it doesn't necessarily mean that mean Also, you don't know if they are talking about just average of every year, or average throughout all classes. Over time, of course there are exceptions, and standard might be going up? Who knows? I do agree of course, that GMAT is just 1 piece of the puzzle. But just a warning against using statistics alone :).

You might want to ask the question about SOP - how specific exactly does it have to be - in a separate thread. I'd be interested in that discussion, too.

I think we can assume that the OP's test score will be high enough. With everything else that needs a long time to build up, test score is a short term plan. By the way, are you applying for 2011 or later?

The Econ forum just has a topic w/ multiple guides too: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/120269-post-your-favorite-grad-school-advice-articles.html The Econ forum always seems very active. Even though Business and Economics might be different, they share a lot and I wish the 2 forums can learn/interact more. Or more like they should check out our forum and help contribute too :D.

I'm surprised this thread/guide doesn't get more attention. Our forum has been pretty quiet lately anyway - 2010 people are done, and 2011 people haven't joined yet. I find the essay itself very well-written, very informative in what it tries to convey - the business graduate school big picture. It's a good read even for those who are already aware of the field and definitely for those who are brand new. However, having said that, I think most people who come to this forum are aware of their objectives to pursue a PhD. Their objectives might vary, and might not all be "ideal". But when they seek a "guide" like this one, they would hope for a guide from the perspective of a previously successful candidate and not just a general big picture of the process. What did the writer, as a former graduate school candidate learn about the different programs, the different schools? Granted everyone should do their own research here but the writer's research can also be shared. The links to the rankings are helpful, but candid statements like "I think program A is strong in x, y, z, with professors a, b, c working in..." or details like that might be helpful. The writer's feelings about each campus when he visited might be more helpful than "you should always visit the campus to find out for yourself" (even though this is very true regardless). I know each person's perspective is different, but I was hoping to learn more from the writer's particular take and experience. Probably that would make the essay more personal than what the writer was aiming more, but it would make the reader feel like having a very down-to-earth conversation with someone similar (in terms of age, goals, in general), yet with a lot more experience.

alwaysthinking, Thank you...so much!!