paglajogai

you tried doing experimental, but it did not work out you realized experimental econ is a bad way of doing econ :) I guess experimental economics is still evolving as a profession, and there is scope for both criticism and patience. Maybe the same is true for most sub-disciplines in economics?

@Andronicus Thanks for the detailed reply, clearly you know experimental economics in some detail. (Actually durham business school + osu -> I think I know who you are :) ) @tm_member Thanks! I see your point. Though, it seems with clever design there might be a way to do it.

Hey aecon, thanks for your reply! I knew about this paper actually. But I am looking for "local" public good games instead of the general public goods experiments, something like what Tiebout suggested. Local Public Goods Let me know if you have any further insights.

Do you guys know of any experiments which have local public good games or leader/ follower games (Stackelberg) alongside communication (cheap talk)? I have been doing a literature survey, and a detailed google search left me empty handed. Thanks in advance.

You guys must already be aware about the Rogoff-Reinhard mistake Forget Excel: This Was Reinhart and Rogoff's Biggest Mistake - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic I was wondering is there a general guideline about what to do if you find a significant mistake in a major journal publication. Do you write to the authors, or do you write to the editor of the journal? Or does your supervisor do these things for you? Or do you just let it pass? Do you guys have had any experience of being in these situations?

Firstly, congratulations to Howcanifly secondly, vancouver is the nicest place to be in, the summers are beautiful, there is the winters are not so harsh as the rest of canada, the salsa-bachata circuit is super active, these days we are also seeing the arrival of kizomba to scenario, a lot of international students on the campus, hence, a very amiable and friendly place to be in, the only con is the city is pretty costly, on campus housing options are generally preferred in the years of course work About the program, micro is a tad weak, labor, macro, development are pretty good, kevin milligan is a star in canadian policy, I guess Trebby works in P. economics, quite a big group working in macro, mike devereux is pretty well known in international economics the department seems to be steadily rising, last year they placed a guy( working in labor and political economics) in princeton, no doubt an outlier, but still proves that outstanding guys can make it big from here department is also eager to hire new faculty this year in IO, health, the business department at sauder which is fairly good overall and very good in international finance is also accessible for choosing courses or supervisors The theoritical econometrics hires last year were pretty high calibre stuff( one a faculty from Upenn, one a grad from MIT), the former, Paul Schrimpf was rumored to be the top grad candidate last year, I guess we can infer that the department has appreciable hiring capabilities The attrition rate is low, though from the first year this term one student got his funding cancelled due to unsatisfactory result There are no field comps , but there is a summer paper requirement at the end of 2nd year, and 1st year end comps are based on only micro and macro

The act of getting through into a top 10 dept is extremely hard. Being bright is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving this. I have seen people having brilliant profiles(Even GOD profiles!) applying to a balanced port folio of schools as there can be no certainty of a top 10 admit. Look around the forum and you will see for yourself. Sorry if I sound preachy.

I completely agree with Working hard. There could be no better way of saying those words. Spiderpig: The main concern I have with your plans is I am not sure if you have an idea of how involved-taxing-excruciating a top 10 grad eco program can be. One needs more than intelligence and the urge to be in a top 10 place to survive those 5 years of hardship. To put it in other words, don't be in a rush into an ambitious application process. Take your time. All said, if you think you have it in you, go for it! Your favorable funding situation and strong maths back-ground will surely come more than handy. Doing good in a few advanced courses would serve you better than blaming your grades on your relationship in your SOP. ( By he way, I am 100% sure that these things take a toll but I can't guarantee for the adcoms :D ) I also agree to the advice given by the previous 3-4 posts about applying to a MFE or Master of Finance program. If you are interested in what Rthunder has adviced google for the Queens, CEMFI masters programs. They would help you get strong LORs if you do not have already. A finishing word as a friend: Maybe your post gave an impression that you are desperate to get into a top 10 grad econ prog at any cost without looking thoroughly into the pros and cons.

advanced courses! Any suggestions! Evaluate my profile! waitlisted! Has anybody heard from..! X vs Y !

Look at Epstein's CV ! He belongs to a select few people who have become institutions by successfully supervising students who have went on to have very good careers. [Look at William Thompson at Rochester for another such example. In my opinion Thompson is better than larry.] Larry Epstein have a look at at his list of publications and supervised students in his CV. As for the disparity in rankings, I personally feel that you can get excellent classmates and brilliant professors anywhere in the top 30. If you are a star, you sure have a bright career once you graduate from these places. Don't discount the funding amounts and the location effect for the sake of small ranking disparities. UCLA seems to have lost a few people in the recent years. GO to the flyouts- that's something one and all would be telling you. Follow your heart! May you make a wise decision!

@mariusklek Stop worrying man, grab a beer and celebrate your admission into a department of your choice!! [clap]

UW seattle has untitled ! Go to UW!! :tup:

Go to Texas man! *the weather is waaay better, stinchcombe rocks, so do the computational macro guys. **plus the state of texas looks economically strong->good funding for the department->expected good hires in following years [i am infact pretty sure that your Ut Austin offer is the one with the highest monetary funding(fellowship+waivers etc)] Texas is a allround good university with very good engg departments. ***Check out a recent post called "most collegial department"-> there were people who went gaga about how friendly-congenial the atmosphere was at texas. ****Only caveat is you are interested in dev or macro, then go to boston or cornell. if micro is your poison, go to texas! that place in brimming with good microeconomists. regarding cornell, I agree with gunners that there is a buzz that cornell is trying to buck up, but I believe in the "persistence" literature, and don't feel that changes take place that easily. Plus I doubt if you will be allowed to work in computational game theory with comp sc faculty. [ BTW, computational game theory is upcoming and sexy stuff if you like game theory]-> you may write to the graduate chair if you are interested and test the waters. May you make a wise decision! :)

I think UC schools do put some emphasis on AWA scores. At least that is what their websites say. I just checked UCSD for instance. I think same goes true for UIowa. But I would suggest you to double check.

I don't think that UCLA stochastically dominates the other two, specially Boston. They have a few brilliant people in development and macro. Check out Larry Epstein in Micro, shifted from Rochester to Boston, has placed his students to top places. A big shot surely. I am not that sure about JHU, search the forum with "JHU". As far as I can remember, there were a couple of people who had raised doubts about their graduate program in a post.