FromTheHip

In general I agree students should be skeptical of high-attrition programs, but I think there are reasonable arguments for attending one given the right circumstances. First, just getting a PhD is probably not the right metric for most students -- what matters is what happens afterwards. A program which kicks out a greater proportion of students but places the reminder in better jobs might reasonably be preferred by some applicants. (To give a contrived example, if you're going to a PhD to have a research career, a program which boots 50% of students but places 3/4 of the rest in research-focused jobs should be preferred to a school which graduates everyone but places none of them in research-focused jobs). Second, getting students who aren't good enough early is potentially a gain for everyone, since wasting additional years getting a qualification and then not getting a job which uses it benefits no one. Further, this might enable some programs to admit higher-variance applicants, which should make everyone strictly better off. Of course, many programs with high attrition do *not* place the remaining students better than similarly ranked places. And many programs kick out students far too early and almost surely boot out potentially good researchers (at schools of a certain rank, comps are not a good predictor of future research ability). Plus (heresay only, since I don't attend such a place), high attrition can create a bad atmosphere. Which is why I think applicants should generally be wary of high-attrition programs.

Thanks to Catrina and Chateauheart for bringing up what I think is a really important topic, especially at this time of year when there are a LOT of profile eval requests on the board. My sympathies mostly lie with Chateauheart in this debate. I've voiced my skepticism before, and I'll say again that I think the majority of profile evals serve little purpose for this board. I think this forum serves an important role, which is why I lurk around even though I don't have time to contribute very often. In my mind, the greatest value of this forum is for: 1) students don't have access to professors who can give good advice, 2) as can be less intimidating to learn about the generalities of the admissions process for younger students who don't yet have econ professors to talk to, so that they can, say set themselves up to have appropriate math classes and maybe some RA experience in time for applications. 3) to help with stress, etc., and talk to others who are "enjoying" the same grad school admissions process. I don't see profile evals as really furthering any of those aims. By the time you're a first semester senior figuring out where to apply, students had better have letter writers who they can talk to directly and probably give much better advice than this board. I understand that there are exceptions, but if your professor doesn't have a clue about how to go about applying to grad school, you have much bigger problems (e.g., I doubt they know how to write an effective letter either). [i will say that this aspect of the process really stinks and is deeply unfair, and it is great that this board is spreading the word that this problem can be fixed through masters programs/RA experience]. I am further skeptical of the quality of information disseminated through profile evals because: 1) advice (each of us, individually/collective wisdom) have received may or may not be appropriate for someone in very different circumstances 2) LORs have incredible sway in the process, and we have no idea what they'll say. (Just knowing your writer has a PhD from University [Y]/Nobel prize/whatever, tells us nothing about whether they will write you a positive or effective letter). 3) on this forum, in general, the more you know, the more time constrained you are, and the less likely you are to respond to profile evals. I have no problem with people posting profile evals -- this is a quasi-anonymous internet forum, after all, and as long as people aren't being inappropriate and are vaguely on topic I don't think there's a need for regulation. But, I do wish people who tend to respond to profile evals would include some disclaimers, advice to look through other materials on the forum, etc. (Or maybe this could be accomplished with a sticky thread in a profile eval subforum). To respond to Catrina's second question (who should be responding) I don't think there's a problem with anyone responding, either. But again, I wish people would provide just a brief discussion of who they are (Something along the lines of: I currently attend university [Y]/top [whatever] university, I am originally from [rough place], I [went to a PhD straight from undergrad/did a masters/whatever. Not sure that all of this is useful, but I think at least some of it would put advice into context.). And I also wish they'd cite sources better (not exhaustively, but things like, this is received wisdom on the board, I was in a similar circumstance and was told to do this by one of my LOR writers, whatever). I know all of this weakens anonymity, and I don't think it's reasonable or desirable (for length considerations) for posters to include all of it. But I do think this would really help put advice in context and help posters put responses to profile evals in appropriate context.

Hi guys, I'm a current Yale student, and I might be able to address some concerns about the location. The location is nothing to worry about -- in fact, I quite like New Haven. There are a bunch of good restaurants and a good theater scene. It is easy to get to NYC/Boston. Rents are significantly cheaper than New York/Boston/etc. (although there are plenty of cheaper US cities -- it's just that most of them don't house PhD programs in econ). Like most major US cities, there are rough areas, but they are not particularly close to campus and there is no reason you would go there. With a little care, the odds of something happening to you are quite low. As a general comment, however, I think people tend to overrate location when picking programs. Perhaps you are a total rock star, and will revolutionize the field of economics while only working 40 hours a week, leaving you ample time to hit the bars, restaurants, and museums. If so, congratulations. For the rest of us, a library at Yale looks like a library at Stanford looks like a library at NYU. Etc. As for the broader question of how to decide, I have a few points of advice: 1) Go to the visit days of all the schools which you're serious about if this is an option for you. Once you're there, you should try to figure out: a) The style of the program. Different programs tend to train their students in slightly different styles. The "best" style will depend on how you learn and what you like. It can make a big difference (back when I was looking at programs I looked at some programs which were prestigious but would have been a really bad fit for me). b) Think about potential advisers. As I noted on a post on this forum some time back, the right adviser for you is not necessarily the person who is the most famous or the person who does the work which is closest to your interests. A potential adviser does need to be successful researcher who knows your field; this broad generalization will describe more professors than you expect. If you have certain advisers in mind, it would really pay to talk to students at the visiting days to see if you can find out about their current students feel/what their advising style is, and oftentimes you can find out information about the placement of their previous students (frequently on their CVs). c) Ask students and faculty about the seminar schedule, and you should also ask how often grad students get to present their work. Getting to go to good, interesting seminars related to your research can be really useful for getting research ideas. And I cannot stress enough that having lots of opportunities to present is really important for getting good feedback and learning how to present (I'm still working on this last bit!). d) Ask if there is usually funding for data/fieldwork if you think this might be your thing. Double check with grad students -- do they have trouble with this? e) Are the grad students happy? Seriously, this is going to be 4-6 years of your life if all goes well, do not sign up for misery. 2) Whether or not you go to the visit day, ask the schools for a full recent placement record, if possible by field. Sometimes you have to do a bit of work to put this together yourself. (E.g. they give you names and you have to google all of them to figure out what fields they're in). I am sure there are other considerations, but this is what I remember paying attention to back when I was looking at programs.

Venture -- I got in without ever going on the waitlist. Definitely possible that the department has changed its policy, and if so, it's too bad that you don't get full information about your chances. I don't know why they wouldn't tell you, but probably they have a reason. Coffeehouse -- I think that would vary based on the departments in question. Sorry not to be more helpful. Venture -- you definitely can tell your first (second) choice what the situation is. If you've officially been accepted, you have until 5 pm on April 15th (or whatever the date is this year) for basically all of the top ranked programs. They can't pressure you to decide before then, and none of these programs is permitted to retract an offer. So, let them know the situation and get back to them by 5 pm, as if you have good options (as you clearly do), I wouldn't wait to get in off a WL after that point in time. Again, good luck to both of you! Venture, perhaps I'll meet you on the visiting day.

Hi Venture, I don't know if the department has changed its admissions procedures, and I didn't come off the waitlist myself, but I have talked to other people who did. Based on talking to them, here are the rumors about your situation (again, based on previous admissions cycles -- no idea if things are different now): 1) In years past the department has released ranks on the waitlist on request. They also have been willing to tell people about the number of admits off the waitlist in recent admissions cycles so that you can get a rough idea of how likely your eventual admission is. 2) Again, rumor is that in years past if, conditional on acceptance, Yale was your first choice, then it was important to make sure to communicate that to the department. Furthermore, you needed to make sure that the department had a clear and quick way to contact you on April 15th, which was when the waitlist would usually move. At this time, people start committing to schools, and so the department needed to make snap decisions -- and if they can't get through to you, then you could lose out. On the picking departments, I'd be sure to attend all visiting days, which I think is the best way to figure out what your best options are. Good luck!

I'm no expert on monetary economics, but for what it's worth, my first year class used "Monetary Policy, Inflation, and the Business Cycle" by Gali.

I think chateau has been unnecessarily harsh towards the OP. Yes, the OP does not have much of a track record, and yes the OP probably does not understand what they are getting into, etc. Nevertheless, I think this is a perfectly reasonable question from someone who is considering investing a great deal of time (and probably money) in trying to go to an econ PhD program, and who wants to know if the plan is realistic. Note that the OP conditioned the question on doing well in the listed courses. Is it likely that the OP does well? I have no idea, but the OP is right that those are the basic prerequisites. Ultimately, I probably agree with wolf that T20 is unlikely even if the OP gets straight As from here on out unless the OP does more -- at least some RA work or some sort of independent research with a faculty mentor, but as I said before, I am not an admissions expert.

I'd guess that lack of research experience will hurt the OP, but I don't know how much. I don't want to be negative -- and I do think that with work the OP could become a top applicant -- but I'm not sure that the classwork by itself will be enough. If the OP is able to get a job as an RA/find some time to do some serious RA work on the side (and I understand that the OP has a very full plate with a lot of coursework and full-time employment), I think that would help a lot. Edit: if the RA work/research experience is not possible, the OP should think hard about what tier of grad program they are willing to attend. If the OP takes the mentioned classes and does well in all of them, I am sure that the OP can get into some grad program (perhaps even a top 20; I'm no expert on these things).

The US News rankings are not very precise, but they are sometimes in the ballpark. (I strongly caution against taking them too seriously though -- I know of several fields where they are pretty far off the mark). It's definitely not worth the time when you're deciding where to apply, but when you decide where to attend you should look carefully at schools' placement records, particularly by field. Skills at research and at training students are not perfectly correlated.

I'm going to disagree with the previous two posters a bit. I think what you need to ask yourself is whether you really want a PhD in economics, and how sure are you. Be honest with yourself on this one. If you're certain you really want the PhD, turn down the banking job. I have a few reasons for this: 1) Given your record, I'd definitely bet that you will be able to find another good job (either an RA job or another job in finance if you want one). The opportunity cost of looking at other options isn't that high. 2) The banking job is likely to make you unhappy. In my experience, the sort of person who really enjoys research does not love banking (this does depend, a bit, on exactly what job you've been offered, but since I have no other information I'm assuming the standard banking job). 3) It might not hurt your PhD chances too badly, but it certainly won't help them and you will be wasting time. I'd encourage you to take the banking job if you have debts/really need the money or if you aren't very sure. With a little extra work you should be able to come back to academia in a few years. But if you are sure, don't let the money -- and not even all that much money (when it comes down to it, on an hourly basis working as a plumber is more lucrative than many banking jobs) -- take you into a profession that you will later regret.

I think one point here deserves a response: As Food4Thought says, the right sort of research topic is something which interests you. It doesn't have to be related to your hobbies, of course -- but that's a reasonable place to look. I don't know what the standards are at your school, but my best guess is that you don't need to come up with earth-shattering research for the project to be deemed successful, and any sort of research will teach you quite a bit about the life of an academic economist. I'd suggest talking to your DUS to find out what a successful project at your school looks like, and if you find an interesting project you can contact an advisor who may have further suggestions about what is appropriate. Your best chance for an RA job is with one of the professors at your school. Again, I'd start by talking to your DUS (I'd definitely emphasize that you're interested in going to a PHD program and ask for more general advice while you're at it), along with any professors that you've talked to through office hours/taking classes. You can ask if they're looking for an RA or know someone else who does. You probably should be prepared to work for free. And yes, you might have to wait until you've finished econometrics before you can find someone who will take you on. As long as you're straight-forward about your abilities, though, I think you can start looking now -- even if the result is that you don't end up starting work until after eocnometrics. [i should note that I'm not the best judge of this sort of strategy; perhaps other posters will correct me here if I'm wrong.] If you have time this summer, you might try picking up a bit of programming now. I've always had good success picking up programs on my own -- you could try writing simple games (or anything else you've always wanted to program) in C or VB and be prepared for some frustration and failure! In all likelihood, you'll also learn quite a bit of programming in the course of RA work or writing an essay. Again, good luck.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but I'd like to add a few points to the discussion. The way I see it, right now you have a good start to what could be a truly excellent profile -- you have top grades in everything you've taken so far and you have time to build on it. The question is how to best use your time to (1) make sure you actually want to become a PhD student, (2) prepare yourself well for graduate school, and (3) become a top applicant. As far as point (1) goes, I notice that you don't talk much about your specific interests within economics, and that you don't mention any research experience (either within econ or otherwise). This isn't a problem per se -- you have time, and to be honest, few applicants have a great understanding of research or econ before they get to grad school anyways, since that's what grad school is for. But I do think it would pay for you to use some of your remaining time to make sure that you really do want a PhD in econ. You're young, you're smart, and you have a top GPA from a good school. You clearly have a lot of options, and I suspect it's worth your time to do some investigating and make sure that you're picking the right one. I think the best way to figure this out is to get some research experience -- I'd try to work as an RA for a professor, I'd strongly suggest writing a senior essay if that's an option at your school; I think these two experiences would give you the best indication. I also think a few subject-specific econ classes wouldn't hurt. Luckily, if you do well, all of these things will help your application at the same time (probably the research more so than the subject-specific classes). Also, I'd encourage you not to get too much tunnel vision, and be willing to take some time/classes to explore any other interests you may have; if your true calling in life is as a professional yodeler (I kid, but you get my point), you'll be glad you figured that out now. My comments on point (2) will be brief. I think there are a few classes which you can add which will make you a much happier grad student, in particular real analysis will make 1st year classes much less painful. I'd probably put differential equations in this category as well, and I'd try to get a good background in econometrics -- as rigorous on the theory side as possible, and, if available, a class which deals with causality in a serious way (feel free to substitute a rigorous undergraduate labor economics class here). These are classes which will make the first few years of grad school a lot less painful, and I'd strongly recommend them regardless of any profile considerations (again, though, if you do well all of this stuff is only going to help your profile). And finally point (3), which is definitely not my area of personal expertise, so I'll keep my comments brief (especially because yankeefan has covered this section fairly well). On the math/classes stuff, I suspect there is a tradeoff between time spent with mathematicians and time spent with economists. I think you should think about what your comparative advantage is, and what you enjoy doing. I'd particularly emphasize this part of yankeefan's response: Good luck!

My primary concern would not be whether you can complete the prerequisites/get into a good program (although this is important, and I don't have the background to assess how difficult this is likely to be for you), but rather whether you want to. Research and graduate classes can be significantly different than undergraduate work, and I don't see any signs that you understand what an academic career would mean. I don't say this to be discouraging -- if you have a feeling that would enjoy being an economist, you're still young and you should definitely pursue it. But you should definitely think about a plan which will let you learn whether a PhD is a good idea or not well before you're in the upper years of graduate school. In particular, I'd strongly recommend working as an RA for a professor or two before applying (to be a useful RA, you need some programming skills and probably some econometrics, although higher-level coursework wouldn't hurt). Good luck!

One more point that others haven't touched on: it sounds like your interests are continuing to change. This is a common thing -- I'm now entering 3rd year with a very different primary field than expected when I entered grad school -- and it should serve as a warning about picking a school based only on expected program of study before entering, Obviously if your current program absolutely does not have people who can advise you in your current interest, then that is a problem. Short of that, stick with your top-10 program, because if (when) your interests change again, odds are good that you'll be able to find better support for them at your top-10 than a more specialized program like Caltech. On a related note: if you do decide that your current top-10 program won't be able to train you in your intended field of study, you might want to call the DGS and talk about it before you do anything drastic. You have nothing to lose, and many prospective students are confused about what is necessary for a good adviser and may write off good options. [i am just starting my own research, so this is mostly repeating the advice I've heard: a good adviser is someone who is knows the literature in the subfield that you are working in well, and who you communicate and work with well. They do not need to be the world's leading expert in your subfield of interest, and it is not necessary for you to want to advance their research agenda (both common misconceptions).] A DGS may also be aware of training/resources in related departments which will help you pursue your interests.

I've never seen a book that cost hundreds of dollars. Two years ago, it was maybe 100+ for the most expensive ones for U.S. editions. International editions cost 20-30. But yes, I see no reason to not buy the cheapest versions possible, because otherwise books can get pretty expensive.