bobloblaw

Well, time to throw my hat in the ring. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Flagship State School with a well known (albeit less than mainstream) phd program Undergrad GPA: 3.99/4.0 (I received an A- in a geology class my freshman year, otherwise I have all A's). Type of Grad: N/A Grad GPA: N/A GRE: Revised Score Range 750-800 quant, 700-800 verbal. Math Courses: Calc I , II, III, Linear Algebra, Intro to Proofs, Intro to Real Analysis, Calculus based statistics, ODEs, Non-linear Dynamics, Abstract Algebra. Econ Courses (grad-level): Micro Theory I, Game Theory (in progress). Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Intro to Micro/Macro, Intermediate Micro/Macro, Independent Study on human capital theory, Thesis (in progress) Other Courses: Some courses in logic, chinese, not much else that's relevant. Letters of Recommendation: 1) Alumni of current school who is very well known, albeit for non-mainstream research. 2) University of Minnesota alumn who taught grad Micro - several AER's, QJE's, and other prominent publications (in the 80's), but I wouldn't exactly describe this one as "well known" 3) Either a Math Teacher who I TA'd for or (hopefully) the prof I am currently taking grad micro with who is a very well known economist. Research Experience: Independent Study and the senior thesis that is currently in progress. Teaching Experience: Spent a year TA'ing Calculus for the math department. Research Interests: Education, labor, behavioral, experimental, game theory. SOP: Haven't written yet, but I don't plan to rock the boat. I plan to talk vaguely about my research interests, etc. etc. blah blah blah. Concerns: My school is not an Ivy. Unless I get the prof who I am currently taking game theory with to write me a letter, I'm not sure how much weight my current LOR's will carry. No econometrics. I'm a little older (25). I was in the Army for four years before coming to college. Other: Phi Beta Kappa. Departmental Academic Achievement award. Several scholarships. Applying to: (in rough order of preference) MIT, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Columbia, BU, NYU, BC, UVA, Rutgers, Tufts (masters program).

This post has ejmr written all over it.

I think this has changed. From the GRE website: "You can take the GRE revised General Test (computer-based and paper-based) only once every 60 days, and no more than five times within any continuous rolling 12-month period. This applies even if you canceled your scores on a test taken previously. If you take only the paper-based GRE revised General Test, you can take it as often as it is offered." Link: GRE Revised General Test: Register for the Test

This is the real (internet) world, not a micro model. Perhaps the human tendency towards reciprocity and altruism would be stronger than the incentives towards non-cooperation. I mean, what possible incentive do grad-students have to come to this board and evaluate the profiles of undergrads trying to get into PHD programs? I am applying this cycle, and I wouldn't hesitate to put up any funding opportunities I find out about in this thread. It just seems like something useful I could contribute to the community after receiving so much valuable information here over the past couple years.

I don't want to say this is not the way to go to address a problem like this (since I really don't have any inside information as to how adcoms view this sort of stuff in an SOP), but my first instinct is to wonder why you would want to draw attention to the bad grades by mentioning it in the SOP? If the people reviewing your application are at the stage where they are reading the SOP, then my guess is they already think the rest of your profile is up to par with the admissions requirements of the school. Why remind them that you didn't get a 4.0 as an undergrad (for whatever legitimate reason you may have) when you could be blowing them away talking about all the interesting research you want to do in the future?

I've recommended this in previous threads, but some combination of Rudin and a text with a little more exposition (I'm a big fan of Ross myself) is probably a good bet. Also check out these threads: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/114482-real-analysis-textbooks.html http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/119388-introductory-analysis-books.html

Has anyone with inside information (i.e. spoken with a professor involved in the admissions process) verified this? I had sort of assumed this was how schools will be handling the new GRE scores, but that was just an assumption on my part. Also, even if they are only comparing percentiles, since the adcoms will likely be comparing percentiles from the old GRE to the percentiles on the new, is it possible that there will be different percentile cutoffs for students taking the new test? I mean, if the old test saw a significant number of people scoring 780-800, (and assuming the the new test has a quant score distribution more similar to the old GRE verbal) wouldn't cross comparing these percentiles be kind of like looking at apples and oranges?

FYI, from the GRE website: "Will I see my scores at the test center when I take the GRE revised General Test? After completing the revised General Test, you will receive preliminary scores at the test center. If you test between August and November 2011, you will see score ranges for the Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning measures that are based on the previous 200 – 800 GRE General Test reporting scales. The score ranges provided are intended to give you a sense of your performance on the two measures. Beginning in November 2011, you will see your unofficial scores for the Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning measures that are based on the new 130 – 170 score scales. Because of the Analytical Writing essay scoring process, you will not be able to view your Analytical Writing score at the testing center." Link: GRE Revised General Test: Frequently Asked Questions

Just my 2 cents, but I think all the really conceptually challenging stuff in calculus comes in differential and integral calculus. Personally, I thought mulitivariable was way easier than the first two classes because it's basically just straight forward extensions of what you've already learned in calc 1 and 2. I second Charis. Take both of them. At best, you get both on your transcript for grad-school. At worst, you realize that math is tough/not your thing, in which case you might want to reconsider an econ PHD (or at least try to find some of the less mathematical / more qualitative programs to apply to).

if you want to be an economist, don't let anyone on this board make you think you can't accomplish that goal. In the end, it all comes down to what quality of research you do. You may not get into the highest ranked programs but who cares? If you love the field, and you have have something original and interesting to contribute, it really doesn't matter what background you have or where your are trained. Just how hard you are willing to work, and how original and innovative your ideas are. If you love it go for it. And don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Nothing you posted makes any sense. I just read what you wrote, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

So I've been working extremely hard the last few years to get myself ready to apply for PHD econ programs. Econ/Math double major, 3.99 GPA, 790 GRE quant, Grad Micro, Real Analysis, honors thesis, decent letters of recommendation. I've really put myself in the best position I possibly could given the school from which I will be graduating. But as application time approaches I find myself doubting... Any of the older and wiser members of this board find themselves in this place as application time approached? What made you decide to stick it out? Any regrets? Or was it the best decision you ever made?

When you reason like that you assume that interpersonal utility comparisons are possible, that utility is a cardinal measure, and that we have some objective theoretical way to determine by "how much" someone's happiness changes relative to another. Otherwise, your assertion about equally happy people wouldn't make sense. I'm not stating your line of reasoning is wrong; just that its a strong assumption. I see no reason to conclude that we have any way of comparing something as subjective as happiness across individuals. What exactly would it mean to say that person A is happier than person B by 50 utility?

I read your post, and it reminded me of the G.H. Hardy essay "A Mathematician's Apology": http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.ualberta.ca%2F~mss%2Fmisc%2FA%2520Mathematician%2527s%2520Apology.pdf&rct=j&q=a%20mathematician%27s%20apology%20G.H.%20Hardy&ei=W_PfTYupM4_pgAfqwMHhCg&usg=AFQjCNFK97AKQxY13G91_bxREEPYCnmozA&cad=rja While I agree with your overall sentiment, I also feel obliged to point out that you are making some huge assumptions (and maybe not the best ones) about the nature of happiness and utility when you say things like, "Obviously, the utility of that billion persons is a billion times more important"

Also this forum might be useful: Economics Questions