santacanyon

At cal, real analysis will be really hard. there is a reason why some math majors try to include stats majors along humanities majors as a part of their jokes. i advise you to take a lighter load with math 104.

i meant debreau's proof on existence of continuous utility representation... sorry for the confusion.

Hello everybody, I am a junior who is taking phd micro theory and metrics at top 5. Metrics is not difficult. In fact, I found my UG probability and stats courses more difficult, but this may not be true at other places because our UG stats is known to be quite rigorous. But micro theory... Please take as much math as possible. Trying to write an analysis proof for Debreau was a murder. But the topological proof only lasted 7 or 8 lines. I wish I had taken grad topology before taking micro theory. Just some reflections.

It seems you have your eyes set on Tier 1. One advise then: more math (real analysis, probability theory, math stats, game theory, optimization theory, stochastic processes, measure theory, etc).

With due respect, I would say your profile is probably on the weaker side of spectrum in "Tier 1" schools. In my opinion, you should apply a very few places in this ultra-elite group to maximize your expected return.

For good programs, letters of rec matter a lot. It is not surprising then that being an RA with a good researcher will get you far. With that said, I don't think your independent course will count towards much unless it was published at a reasonable journal (which is very rare).

with pure theory getting more obscure and unpopular, the dominance of math in economics is getting weaker.

That is weird. It is hard to imagine students proving the spectral theorem and memorizing the definition of Jordan canonical form before computing eigenvalues...

Your grades are, as pointed out above, weak. But what about your research? It seems you are really passionate about it. Why don't you get a job at a research institution, try to shine by your hard work and passion, and reapply? I know this will take many years and energy. But if you are truly passionate, you may pull this. If this is too risky, why not take math classes at a good school nearby you for a couple years? If you dedicate a couple years to math courses, you may be able to squeeze grad real analysis in. That will help your profile a lot. Either way, it will be quite time consuming to make up.

I wouldn't worry about no TA. But when you apply to top schools, no research experience can hurt you both directly and indirectly (by letters of rec and such).

By the way, schools probably know whether your linear algebra was theoretical or not. Generally, the 1st course in linear algebra is computational and the 2nd, abstract.

Actually it is possible to get access to full time faculty at UC. You need to take their courses, do well and ask lots of good questions, and try to make an office hour appointment. This comes from a personal experience.

It's hard to say at this point because your grades in hard math courses and the strength of your letters of rec are not available.

It seems the faculty strength is similar in the top 5. However, it seems H and MIT seem to place their students much better than other top 5 schools. Why does this happen? I was thinking maybe the top 2 students are generally stronger than other top 5 students.

it seems that theory students are more likely to publish in grad schools than applied folks.