yankeefan

If you haven't taken an econometrics class as yet it is going to be hard to convince anyone to take you on as a RA. How are your MATLAB skills (assuming as an applied math major you must have taken a numerical methods/analysis class)? You probably could find a macro person (or a really esoteric econometrician) who needs basic MATLAB coding done. The key is not to ask, but to sell. Highlight whatever hard skills you have and talk to the undergrad adviser face-to-face and let him know you're interested and you need help.

Could be an issue when it comes to apartment hunting: most landlords will run a credit check before letting you sign a lease. Its not the end of the world though, you could just rent a room on craigslist without any formalities.

I've been trying to get my coauthor to get on board with using Git, but to no avail. The learning curve is brutal, especially for someone who isn't tech savvy to begin with, but its so worth the struggle.

I'd say grad classes are the most useful option, unless you have a genuine interest in computing. Undergrad stat electives tend to be very weak on causal inference methods and (conditional on having a full math major) are of minimal value even to an aspiring econometrician. Focus on getting really good with one statistical package (Stata) instead of trying to be a jack of all trades and master of none. You'll only ever use SAS if you have to query a rdbms, in which case all you need to is google a few commands to extract the data and export it to stata. I also wouldn't worry about trying to learn general purpose programming languages until you figure out what subfield you'll be doing research in since different subfield have different needs, e.g., spend all your time learning C++ only to discover you have no interest in the two fields that uses it (structural IO & macro)

EJMR should be slightly more useful in the coming months since actual economists will use it to speculate about job openings and big moves on the market, and unfortunately slander a few star graduate students along the way. I wouldn't take it as indicative of professional interactions between economists though.

A friend of mine did it last summer. Pretty much accelerated classes and mediocre projects, but the real benefit is the networking opportunities and the chance to impress prominent (or not so prominent) scholars. He (my friend) said he got a T30 admit directly as a result of the program via networking with a professor who was working in his field of interest, but I'm not sure this is typical for most people and he probably would have been admitted to that school even if he had not done the AEA program. If you have nothing better to do with your summer it can't hurt, but I wouldn't forgo the RA opportunity for it.

The fact that you have to pay the full sticker price with practically zero chance of funding of any sort, it makes it a rather uninteresting program for someone who's goal is primarily a PhD.

You probably won't be admitted to an MBA program even if you tried. Work experience and letters from senior managers are what gets you into those programs, conditional on not being a legacy admit. Write the thesis, take a PhD level course and a vow of celibacy. If you like the experience then Econ grad school may be the right choice for you.

I may have jumped the gun a bit. The thing is that you got rejected from Poli Sci programs, and that sends a pretty strong message about your profile, something chateauheart was hinting at. The top Poli Sci programs often view an economics major as the ideal preparation (kinda like how econ departments view a math major as the ideal preparation) for their program, so for you - a summa cum laude economics major from a T15 school - to get rejected means something went really wrong on the SOP/Writing sample or even the LOR. Even if you weren't overt about your heterodox interests your SOP probably didn't demonstrate enough of an understanding of current political economy research, which is why I suggested you read a bit more. Or maybe you do have well defined interests that aren't a match for Poli Sci departments. If that's the case, then you likely won't find a match in an econ dept. Again, reading more and understanding where your interests fit in the grand of scheme of things is important here so you don't end up with another shut out or even worse, accepted and enrolled in a program that is a poor fit for you.

Idk chateau, OP got a B+ in Calc III. For Poli Sci admissions that's almost the equivalent of a B+ in Real Analysis: it'd send anybody to the auto-reject pile. Jokes aside I agree with chateau. If you were rejected from Poli Sci programs it means you probably didn't come across as being capable of doing political economy research, likely due to your lack of understanding of what academic research entails: its very different from the Steve Keen or whatever you've read up until now. Unless you have cash to splurge, delay the MA for now and take a math class as a non-degree student. Spend that time getting acquainted with academic research (published in peer-reviewed journals) in political economy, and try not to limit yourself to purely heterodox perspectives. You can try poli sci programs again if you think they match your interests or just apply solely to heterodox departments, which have substantially less stringent math requirements (and less career opportunities!).

I don't want to overreach here (given how little I'm working with), but it seems like you misunderstand the chain of causality. It sounds like the DGS was saying that your research experience in the subfield, in conjunction with your coursework (which obviously influenced your stated research interests) were key components in getting you admitted. Stated research interests conditional on having actual research/coursework experience in the field of said interest is a big plus. It means you actually know what you're talking about because you have some first hand experience. It makes your SOP credible. Stated research interests without having actual research experience in the field is well... "I want to become a development economist even though I've never taken a seminar on development or done any real research related to development". You can see why this might not be taken as seriously. Its great that you got admitted to a school you really wanted to attend. I wish you luck.

The above posters are indeed correct. Its a good opportunity to cultivate a relationship with the professor. Its something I've also done in the past and yielded success (bombed a midterm and still aced the class) because the professor was willing to cut me some slack after explaining my grad school ambitions. I should have suggested that earlier, but after seeing my fair share of "OMG I got a B/B+ in a class is my life over?" type threads responses tend to get a bit impersonal. In general you should be snooping around the department and letting your professors know you're interested in grad school, ask for advice, research opportunities, etc. They can't read your mind and know that you want to do a PhD, so you have to put it out there in a non-obnoxious way and they'll look out for you.

A B/B+ in any individual course will not merit an automatic rejection. It only becomes an issue when a pattern develops. Try not to slip up again.

As long as it was an anomaly and not part of a trend you'll be fine.

Masters degree, along with relevant internship and references should be enough. PhDs typically don't take analyst positions. Those types of jobs are typically hard to come by, especially since you will be pursuing your education in NYC. Students getting their degree in the DC metro area will be at a much bigger advantage. That being said, there are a lot of non-profit research and advocacy organizations in NYC that hire analysts trained in the social sciences.

Just to be clear here, I'm saying that a PhD from CUNY probably won't get you a job at the Fed as a Research Economist. The masters program from Hunter should be fine if you're trying to get an analyst job at the Fed. I think Hunter is your best option here; you'll gain some exposure to doing economics research while still retaining your outside options.

CUNY doesn't place well in research organizations, so getting a job with the Fed will be an uphill battle. Working in a central bank overseas usually requires citizenship (or at the bare minimum, authorization to work) in that country. If you don't already have this then getting PhD will not open that door for you. You don't need an economics PhD (or any PhD) to work in a financial role for a professional sports team, nor will getting a PhD help you achieve that goal. Its certainly not my area of expertise, but I assume a masters degree/MBA in accounting (or something business related) + the right connections would be the best way to maximize the probability of that outcome. Masters degree might not even be required. You have two very divergent set of career interests, which is typically a sign that a PhD is not right for you. Those who enroll (and eventually become successful) in a PhD program tend to have a very singular mindset: they may not necessarily be interested in academia, but the vast majority of them are only interested in research careers. I implore you to do some more thinking, especially since you have such binding geographical constraints. Geographic mobility is very important in the early stages of a PhD career, either for enrollment or for the job market. I should add, it is very much possible to work in a central bank with just a master's degree. You won't be doing your own research, but you'll get to assist with the forecasting and data work going on there. I really think a professional masters degree should your goal.

On the bright side, at least you won't be going to grad school a virgin like most of your classmates.

Krugman's contract with CUNY doesn't require him to teach or even supervise grad students, which is exactly why he left Princeton. Krugman isn't interested in being an academic economist anymore: not that he lacks the ability, but rather he thinks his time is better spent engaging the public and influencing policy. Getting into the Grad Center from Hunter is pretty much doable, but Macro isn't one of their specialties (the Grad Center). What are your career goals? Academia? As you said in your OP the New School is heterodox, which pretty much kills their credibility.

Statistical inference seems like the better bang for buck given your constraints. I just took a look at the textbook (the pdf shows up in a google search) and it doesn't look like a watered down condensed prob theory + math stats but rather an accelerated one. If you do decide to take this class bear in mind that it will likely be rather difficult and you cannot afford to get a bad grade, so choose your schedule wisely.

Statistical Inference sounds like a condensed probability+math stats course. It seems like a lot more practical class but I'd opt for taking Probability and Math stats as separate classes. You're at a very good school you should discuss this with undergraduate advisers in the economics department. Be sure to let them know you intend on committing to a life of celibacy and dementia (commonly understood to mean "I want to do a PhD in Economics").

Textbooks used? I read statistical inference as mathematical statistics, which would require probability theory as a prereq. The fact that it doesn't likely means statistical inference isn't calc-based. Textbook would clarify the situation.

Columbia seems to be the best out of the lot, though it will likely cost an arm and a leg given that they do not fund their masters students and you are required to be full-time. I'd advise against it unless you have some serious trust fund money. If you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone in the economics profession avoid The New School. Hunter is decent enough considering what you're paying, but macro is pretty non-existent there. Given that you list your interests as "Keynesian school of thought" reveals that you know very little about modern macroeconomic research. Its not an indictment on your intelligence, but you really should do a bit more research and understand what you're getting yourself into. Quite briefly, there is no longer a distinctive Keynesian approach (school of thought) to contemporary macroeconomics; a handful of "Keynesian" models are taught in conjunction with DSGE models mainly as a unified macroeconomic theory (with an emphasis on microfoundations). Those who use the term "Keynesian school of thought" are usually non-economists who want to justify their left wing policies (e.g. Krugman). I wish I could point in the right direction, but I'm not much of a macro person. What math classes have you taken and what grades did you get? You need multivariate calculus and a course in linear algebra to be admitted at Hunter or Columbia. Given that you applied to these programs I assume you must already have taken these classes.

For the most part, post-docs are usually the fallback when someone cannot find a permanent position that they are interested in. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person wasn't able to find a permanent job, but possibly the jobs that landed weren't particularly interesting and want to re-enter the market without having to commit to anywhere. I've also heard of occasions where students who could have otherwise done better end up accepting a post-doc due to a two-body problem: usually they have a spouse who is a year or two away from completion and they want to go on the market simultaneously.

Fellow inter-disciplinarian here (poli sci & econ), the first question you have to ask yourself is whether you want to be an economist or a marketing professor. This means understanding the culture in the two departments and how your role as an academic researcher will differ: the most obvious example of this is being a business professor means teaching business instead of economics, despite how econ heavy your research may/will be. There are other differences as well, such as receiving odd looks when you make a Real Analysis joke and "would plow" is not considered a standard part of the vernacular when an attractive ugrad/secretary walks past. Receiving training in economics is a non-issue, as you can easily take as much economics classes (in the econ dept) as you want in a business program provided you can demonstrate they will add value to your research. The same is true for political science, or any other allied disciplines. What do you mean by restricting your options for econ research later on? Receiving training in economics doesn't make one an economist: becoming an economist is a very complex process that involves years of social conditioning, poor dieting and involuntary celibacy. Receiving training in economics while enrolled in another doctoral program makes you qualified to apply the methodology of economics (which has become the de facto methodology in most areas of positive social science) to substantive questions in your discipline; trying to publish in econ journals or do econ research will be a pointless endeavor, unless you co-author with an actual economist. You should read the journals of the disciplines you're considering and see what type of substantive questions they attempt to answer and ask whether you see yourself studying these types of questions for the rest of your career. But yes, enrolling in any program other than an economics PhD will restrict your options of doing econ research later on, which is tautological.