winner713

Another doubt, how much better is Chicago relative to UCLA in Macro Theory?

What about UCLA and their policies towards students? Do they help them with placements? Do they get them a professor to work with early in the program? How different is Chicago from UCLA in these dimensions?

I completely agree, it is quite limiting and it is not an ideal option for me at all. My point is that the unfunded offers of UChicago to students from my country may not need to be related with being at the bottom of the distribution of the quality of admitted applicants.

In fact, I've just talked with a countryman graduate student at UChicago and he said that practically all applicants from my country receive unfunded admission offers as my national government guarantees funding if this happens, because of a special agreement between UChicago and my national government. In this way, more of my countrymen are admitted than normal.

How would you rank UChicago and UCLA? UChicago top-5 and UCLA top-15? (or top-10, I don't know). My fear is that by choosing UCLA I could be missing a leap in ranking and pedigree of the institution that could be useful in any dimension that might compensate for the costs associated with being unfunded. Some of you have said that, according to my kind of offers, my placement in expectation should be approximately equal after studying in any of these institutions, but until what extent the pedigree of the institution could play a role in my long term performance? Shouldn't be different in average the value added by UChicago and UCLA? Rankings almost always place UChicago ahead UCLA, so I think that should say something about the general quality of the program, keeping constant the quality of the students.

I understand. Thanks for all your comments guys. Well, I have the chance of being funded at UChicago but not by the university. My national government (btw, I'm an international student) have scholarships for students that plan to follow graduate studies abroad, which pay for the entire cost of tuition + fees and deliver a stipend for living expenses. The problem with this source of funding is that it demands the return of the beneficiary within two years after the completion of the program. Clearly, this limits further the possibilities of having a good placement. I don't know if you can negotiate funding with UChicago using the UCLA offer. Although after what you have told me it is not clear to me whether it is worth. How about the recent plans of UChicago of reducing the number of incoming students? Shouldn't that enhance the possibilities of being considered by a good professor despite being below median? How important is the tradition or the "brand" of the university in itself when you go out to the job market? Does it really make a substantive difference?

Wow, I wouldn't have thought that the decision is so clear. But what about the difference in placements and prestige of the departments? Is not that large? I mean, many of UCLA faculty are UChicago alumni, maybe that reflects something

Hi everyone! I've got an admission to UChicago without any kind of funding and an admission to UCLA with full funding and 30K of stipend. My research interests are Macro Theory topics. I don't know which option would be more convenient. Help!

I'm applying to Econ PhD for Fall 2015 and I am considering these universities. My interests are Macro Theory and Public Finance. I'd like to know how these universities compare each other in these fields. Thanks for your answers.