BlueCanary

Institution: UCSD Program: Ph.D. Economics Decision: Rejected Funding: N/A Notification Date: 3/9/2012 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Not a surprise.

Institution: Pittsburgh Program: Ph.D. Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: "Decisions are still being made for financial assistance." Notification Date: February 29 Notified Through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Very cool.

Institution: California Institute of Technology Program: Ph.D. Social Science Decision: Rejected Funding: N.A. Notification Date:2/24/2012 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Not surprised

My UC-Irvine email was sent at 9 AM EST/6 AM PST. Since I doubt that staff members got up early on a Saturday morning to send the emails, they probably used some sort of scheduling program to send them out automatically.

Institution: UC Irvine Program: PhD Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: Out of State Tuition Remission + 17k TA stipend Notification date: 2/18 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: no Comments: First one! Very excited--this program is a great fit for me.

I know it's a pretty narrow subfield, but I was wondering if anyone had some suggestions of good places to apply for someone interested in transportation economics. I'm sure UC-Irvine is probably one of the top programs for transportation, and Toronto seems to be a possibility as well--are there any others I should take a look at?

This is an interesting point. I've seen several programs (particularly those with no posted minimums) claim that they complete a holistic review of each application, which probably follows exactly the practice you describe. For all other schools without this policy, I can only assume that incoming applications get a quick check of the GRE score and go into one of two piles: the "to be examined further" pile or the garbage can. If I applied to a bunch of these schools with my current profile, I'd be unlikely to do very well. There's also the group of schools that actually provide a relatively low minimum GRE score, for reasons I don't fully understand. For instance, check out Boston College's admissions FAQ: I think it'd be pretty unlikely that anyone would be accepted to BC with a 700-720 GRE; the parenthetical aside seems to imply that you need a high GRE score to be considered seriously for admission. Then why don't they just say that you should have at least a 750 (for instance) to be considered for admission? \bc

Very interesting. It seems as though these schools give GRE "minimums" that are actually far below the average or expected score of successful applicants. Unfortunately for me, GRE score seems to play a big role in funding as well. \bc

Some interesting discussion so far. While I know it's better to be safe than sorry, I want to take a closer look at the uncontroversial idea that "students with a high GRE score (say, 770 or better), tend do to better in an admissions cycle than students with a low GRE score (say, sub-770)." If this idea is indeed true, I see at least two possible explanations: i. Students with low GRE scores tend to be less qualified than students with high GRE scores. That is, the fact that students with low scores tend to do worse in admissions is simply a reflection of the ability levels of these students as compared to high score applicants. ii. There is no or little correlation between GRE score and applicant quality. If this is the case, then weak performance by low score students is likely due to an explicit or implicit GRE cutoff. That is, low score applicants simply have their applications tossed in the garbage early in the process and are never compared head-to-head to high score students. It's hard to tell which of these two theories (if any) is correct because there aren't a lot of low-score data points collected on TM. Most profiles posted here seem to have GRE scores of 780 or above with a wide range of ability levels. The few profiles with sub-770 scores tend to also include a lack of math background or lower GPAs than mine. I'd be interested to hear if the idea of the "GRE cutoff" is actually based on fact or simply evolved to explain the poorer performance of sub-770 applications. Are there schools (outside of the top-20, of course) that are conclusively known to trash applications with sub-770 scores without reading them? I'd be saddened, although not surprised, to learn that a GRE score one click under the 770-cutoff mark would cause the rest of my application and qualifications to be immediately discounted or thrown away. Thanks for your input so far. \bc

After following last year's admissions cycle on TM with great interest, I'd love to hear some opinions on my own profile. Here's my story. I'm a Math/Econ major at a US "Top 100" (maybe lower) Ph.D. granting institution that's probably known better for its heterodoxy than for anything else. After some preparation, I took the GRE in January of this year and got a 720V/750Q/5.5AWA. I felt that my Q performance was slow and sloppy (poor time management, I had to rush through the last ten questions pretty quickly), so on the advice of my advisor and others (including this board), I decided to retake the test. I took the GRE again last month. I was much more relaxed during the test and felt the math section went very well--much better than before, and I was sure I got at least a 780. I was shocked to see that my Q score wasn't much different from my shaky performance in January: 600V/760Q/5.5AWA. Whether this second score was a fluke or just an accurate assessment of my GRE skillz, I can't be sure. While I realize that my GRE scores are below the "TM cutoff," I'm not too inclined to take it again. I don't really want to pay ETS another $160 for what would only be a 10-20 point gain at the most, and since I felt that my previous retake went well while I was taking the test, I can't be sure that my score will improve at all. If I didn't get a higher Q score on another retake, three middling attempts at the GRE would send an odd signal to any adcoms. The GRE is a blemish on what otherwise might be a good profile. I have strong undergrad grades, some teaching experience, and I'm potentially working on a research project with a prof over the next semester that might end in a coauthored paper. Suppose that I'm not aiming for top-20: do I have a shot for funded offers in the 20-50 range with this profile? Here's the rest of my profile: Type of Undergrad: US "Top 100" Ph.D. granting Univ. Undergrad GPA: 3.98 (4.00 math/econ GPA) GRE: 720V/750Q/5.5AWA(1st time), 600V/760Q/5.5AWA(2nd time) Math Courses: Calc I-II (tested out w/AP), Calc III (A), Intro. Stats (A), Linear Algebra (A), Game Theory (crosslisted ECON/MATH) (A), Intro to Proofs/Foundations of Math (A), Mathematical Logic (A), Real Analysis (upcoming), Probability (upcoming), Math. Stats (upcoming, Spring 2012) Econ Courses: Intro. Macro/Micro (A), Intermediate Macro (A), Intermediate Micro (A), Econometrics (A), Mathematical Economics (A), Resource Economics (A), International Econ. Policy (A), Computational/Agent-Based Econ. (A), Senior Research Seminar (upcoming), Labor Economics (upcoming) Other Courses: Some languages, a semester of physics, probably nothing relevant Letters of Recommendation: Should be strong, two tenured econ profs and one math prof, but none particularly well-known. Research Experience: Senior thesis next semester, also in early discussions to turn an agent-based class project into a coauthored paper with a prof. Teaching Experience: Two semesters as supplemental instructor for intro. micro (gave 2x review sessions per week,) Research Interests: Game theory, Agent-based econ, Transportation econ, Behavioral econ, Decision theory SOP: Haven't written yet Other: Phi Beta Kappa (Elected junior year, if that matters) I'd also appreciate any suggestions of schools that I might want to consider. I think that UC-Irvine, Pittsburgh, UCSD, BC, and Arizona might be good matches for my interests and profile, but I'd be curious what other schools you all might be able to suggest. Many thanks for your help and advice. \bc

Wow, thanks for all the quick opinions--this forum is the best! You all confirmed what my gut was telling me: that a marginal increase in my quant score is much more valuable than a marginal decrease in my verbal. For those of you who took the GRE twice (or more), did you make any changes to your study techniques for your second attempt?

Hi everyone! I've been having fun lurking here for several months, but now I finally have a situation about which I could use some opinions. After consistently scoring 780-800Q on PowerPrep and other practice tests, I let my nerves get the best of me during the actual test last week and ended up with a 750Q. I was able to get a 720V though, which was 50-70 points higher than my practice tests, and I'd imagine the AWA score will be pretty good as well. The relatively high verbal score is making me question whether I should retake the GRE or not. I'm a third-year US student at a Ph.D. granting university whose econ program usually doesn't grace the top of the rankings (let's call it "Top 80," but it may be lower), and I'd be looking to apply during the next cycle at the end of 2011. I have a 4.0 math & econ GPA so far, and I'm going to be taking the rest of the TM favorite math classes (Real Analysis, Math. Statistics, Probability, etc.) over the next two semesters. I think I already know the answer, but I guess I'm wondering if the 720V is valuable at all. Should I take the risk of a losing the 700+ verbal score to improve the Q, or does my school's mediocre reputation preclude me from the top programs that require near-perfect GRE scores anyway?