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.

On buying textbooks: in first year, I found that, for a given subject, some textbooks were just more intuitive for me than others. Unfortunately, identifying these books ex ante was basically impossible. And I didn't have time to look at them in the library/couldn't count on them being available to check out. As soon as I figured this out, I bought pretty much everything recommended/required/otherwise. I think if there's any chance you're like me, you should spend the $s. Finding the textbook which works for you is a real advantage, and in first year you should be trying to get as many advantages as possible, even when those advantages are absurdly expensive (and yes, even buying the international editions, all the suggested books for 1st year were absurdly expensive). Worst thing that happens is that you've wasted a few hundred bucks, which is a small price to pay to minimize the chance of failing comps. This year (2nd) I haven't bought any books, and as others have commented, wouldn't have gained anything from buying them.

You might consider a summer internship in industry to get a taste before committing yourself.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this sort of thing, so take this with a grain of salt, but my thoughts are as follows: 1) The signalling value of the PhD econometrics depends on which department you take it at and where you hope to apply (i.e. an exceptional performance at a program which is similarly ranked or higher ranked than places that you plan to apply probably has a stronger signal than an exceptional performance at a less highly ranked institution). 2) Having taken real analysis before entering a PhD program probably has some benefit in terms of learning first year material regardless of the application signal, whereas the econometrics will probably be duplicated. 3) If you need another letter, getting a top grade in a graduate class might be a way to work towards getting one. Obviously not a sure bet. 4) Think about which class you are more likely to do well in. No sense in sending bad signals if you can help it. Good luck.

You might try looking at some of the books by Kolstad.

I think this is an example of a profile evaluation where (as a board) we should be quite careful, as I'm concerned this applicant is unusual enough that none of us really know what this candidate should do. Personally, I know I have very little information. As a result, I don't want to disagree with "humanomics" per se, but I do want to sound a note of caution as I'd guess none of us really know how LORs from Operations Research faculty will be received. The classic advice is that LORs should come from economists if possible (read: if you can get good ones). That said, Operations Research/Statistics are certainly close enough fields that it's plausible that these will be a useful signal, but then again I also think it's possible that they will be thrown out. "College" -- my personal advice would be as follows: if possible, you should arrange conversations in person with your potential LOR writers who are economists. At these meetings, not only should you try to find out if they would be enthusiastic letter writers, but also it would pay to discuss your situation more holistically and get their advice. These professors will (hopefully) both be more familiar with profiles of people from your undergraduate institution and also presumably you will be able to share a bit more detailed information with these professors than you would be comfortable sharing on a large anonymous board like this. Furthermore, well-informed professors probably know more about the admissions process than the vast majority of posters here, myself included. A few final notes: 1) If you decide you don't like your chances with your profile in the upcoming cycle, I'd guess you'd have some success finding an RA job since it sounds like you have pretty good programming skills. 2) When you do apply to PhD programs, given that your profile is unusual, I'd expect a fair bit of variance in your results, so I'd suggest applying to as many and as wide a range of programs as you'd be willing to attend and as time/money will allow. Good luck!

It seems like Berkeley lines up with your interests better than Princeton. But, my 2 cents here: be careful when choosing programs based on interests. My fields are not what I expected when I entered grad school, and my story is far from unique. I would say that my undergrad econ education was less "comprehensive" than most in that I had never taken classes in several fields before grad school. It turns out that I fell head over heels in love with a field that I'd never seen much of before. This is all a rather long way of saying that when you go to visit days, you should pay attention to general strengths and general fit with the program too. You never know what you'll end up doing.

On the micro side, look into Olley and Pakes (ECTA, 1996). There are several other approaches, however.

1st off -- Congrats to the Yale admits! Hopefully I'll meet a bunch of you on visiting day. Comments about New Haven as a town come up a lot. Yes, like pretty much any medium or large city in the U.S. it has its rough spots. But it has it's charms and if you're careful it is quite safe. Recently, it has been improving VERY rapidly, and so there's a lot of misconceptions floating around. If anyone is considering Yale and is worried about the town, if you search my old posts you'll find things about New Haven, or feel free to PM me or talk + look around at the visiting day.

Humanomics, part 1: Sorry if I repeated comments made elsewhere -- I don't keep a sure close eye on this board and I avoid EJMR like the plague. The problem with getting professors and grad students to stick around is that people are busy (I know some, in fact, are around. It is impressive that they find the time). The solution, in my opinion, are some stickied threads (perhaps in a subforum) where advice can be collected firsthand and infrequent posters can put down generalized advice without trying to respond to the many threads on the same topic. GreenMan: interesting. Are these students from the US, or international? There are many students in my program who did a masters in econ first, it's just that none of them have US citizenship. I don't really have any strong evidence one way or the other on master's degrees for US students -- I just took the point that no one seems to see US students with master's degrees in PhD programs as something of a signal. But, if that this is working for US students in your program, well, that's a pretty good piece of evidence in the other direction, and I'd encourage you to post a bit more (insofar as you know and are willing to share) about what their backgrounds are, the distribution of where they end up, etc. tm_member: Again, sorry to repeat old news. Also interesting that you also know of US students with master's degrees in your program. I do want to help -- that's part of the reason that I created this thread in the first place, but I am pretty time constrained. Since you are a mod, I think you should think about about a subforum which deals with frequently asked topics, as I mentioned above. I'm happy to contribute what I know, but realistically I need to target my posting at the things where I can make the biggest impact. So, I'd like to stick to more general advice, or things where I have good reason to believe that I have some sort of specific knowledge (e.g. last year after results showed up, I was on here offering to answer questions about Yale's PhD program; I expect I'll do this again this year). Humanomics, part 2: I agree with you. A subforum with generalized advice for the most common questions would go a long way, and insofar as people post with similar questions, it would be easy to direct them to the "authoritative" thread. I also would suggest including some of untitled's work -- taking a look at the failed and successful programs by school gives probably the best sense (by no means perfect, but getting towards the best we have short of insider knowledge) of what admissions committees are really looking for.

I'm currently a 2nd year student at Yale, and I was somewhat active around here when I was applying to schools. I like to think I'm somewhat wiser now, and I certainly know more about economics / PhD programs now than I did then. I occasionally take a look at the board, and while I definitely think the board is a useful reference for applicants (I've even referred a few potential applicants here), I also think there's significant room for improvement. So, I'd like to make some constructive criticism in the hopes that it can help improve the board and outcomes for applicants. In line with my comments below, I’ve tried to split my comments into concerns which I am not certain of, and suggestions I am certain about. I apologize in advance for what will be a quite lengthy post. Concerns which I am not certain about: 1) My biggest concern is that the board has become a bit of an echo chamber. We all hear advice from the board, and pass it back on to future generations. To be fair, many also add in advice they receive from professors, there are comments from current grad students (many of whom are quite active here), etc., but the fact remains that much information here is passed down 2nd or 3rd hand and the original source is not always clear. And, I'd guess, there aren't a sufficient number of posters who are truly knowledgeable enough about the admissions process (e.g. have been on an admissions committee) to really weed out misconceptions. As a result, I think we need to be more open to questioning some of the things which are "well known on the forum" when new evidence becomes available. A prime example of this problem comes up in the "Master's as path to PhD" thread from a month or so ago, which I think was an important piece of evidence on the value of a master’s program as a route to a PhD. At my program, I can't think of any students (in any year) from the US who had prior master's degrees, either. This isn't, by any means, conclusive proof that a master's degree is a bad route to a PhD for applicants with spotty records from the US, but I do think it is enough to suggest that the advice on master's degrees should be significantly more cautious than is currently the case. 2) I am concerned that the profile evaluations which sometimes take place on this board are at best unhelpful and at worst actively deceptive. I’m quite confident that recommendations can be quite influential, and the fact is that without seeing what these recommendations are, it’s hard to give good advice at the level of specificity which many of these posters are seeking. Furthermore, few, if any, of us have ever sat on an admissions committee, and so we need to collectively acknowledge that we just don’t know enough. Giving applicants a false sense of security/insecurity has the potential to be really damaging. In addition, in an attempt to try to give some sort of signal about the quality of letters, people have begun to describe their letter writers in ways which might confuse others about what makes for a good letter of recommendation. For example, there were people joking that the best letters come from a nobel laureate. In other cases, posters have described the econ PhD obtained by various letter writers. As best as I can tell, this sort of thing is not of 1st order importance, and insofar as it causes other applicants to judge letter writers this way, it is likely doing them a disservice. I think the right piece of advice is that applicants should (within reason) apply to as many programs as time and money will allow, and that they should apply to a schools with a reasonably wide range of selectivity (obviously, of course, applicants also shouldn’t apply anywhere they wouldn’t be willing to attend). And, in general, forum participants would be best-served to ask for advice from people they’ve asked to write their letters, since these should be people who’ve sat on admissions committees and who know something about what will be in their letters. 3) I think the board needs to rethink how it responds to posters with spotty records; in particular, I think there needs to be just a bit more “tough love”. The main question, as I see it, for those who didn’t do well in the past is “what’s different this time?” I really think that this sort of applicant should be aware of what went wrong before and have a pretty good idea that it’s behind them, otherwise they are setting themselves up to commit quite a bit of time/money/energy into something which will not turn out well for them. The road for this sort of applicant can be long and tough, and grad school is at times a rough place where you’re also given quite a bit of rope to hang yourself. I don’t think we should unnecessarily discourage people (anyone who does a bit of snooping into my old posts will see that I had a bit of a spotty record myself), but I also think many of these candidates don’t have realistic expectations, and that this forum is helping these sorts of applicants set themselves up for a fall. Suggestions (made with confidence): 1) I think the forum places a big emphasis on getting in to programs, but could also discuss how candidates can better prepare themselves for grad school ahead of time. I think much of the sort of thing which makes people better applicants also makes them better prepared (surprise, surprise, admissions committees know what they are doing), but I do think the difference in framing is important. For example, I would have hated to try to take 1st year courses without real analysis. So, while I think applicants should try to get an A in real analysis so that they can get into a better program, I also think that an applicant with a B+ in real analysis will be a much happier grad student than one who hasn’t taken real analysis at all, and I think this is a strong argument for taking the class even if applicants are not sure if it will help their admissions chances. 2) I do think people on the board tend to get too caught up in helping applicants get in as opposed to helping applicants figure out if a PhD in economics is even a good idea. I’ve noticed a number of posts from people who are ridiculously young who are trying to get into position to do a PhD. On the one hand, this is a good thing: there are a lot of requirements to prepare for a PhD and I can see how advanced planning can definitely help. On the other hand, while it is prestigious, a PhD in economics is almost certainly not for everyone, and I often wonder if this sort of poster might not on occasion end up unhappy when they discover that a PhD in economics was not what they wanted. I do think this sort of poster should be warned to think about the joys of having a life sometime in the next 10 years/whether they have an undiscovered passion for cooking/astrophysics/model trains/whatever. 3) Along these lines, I notice that posters here rarely discuss why they want to do a PhD in economics. Do they want to become academics? Work for the IMF/World Bank? Work for their country’s central bank or government? Work for a NGO? This sort of thing should really matter for the advice that people get, and it also might encourage people to think about whether a PhD in economics is the right choice for them. 4) I think people on this board are too focused on program rank (or whether programs have strengths in a given individual’s area of interest) in deciding among programs, and they are ignoring a lot of other factors which may be very important to how successful their time as a graduate student will be. Stipends matter. TA requirements matter. Being near a spouse, family and/or friends matters. Program attrition matters. And all of these things are important to varying degrees for different applicants. I think that if people are excited enough about being an economist to want to do a PhD, they probably should be going to the place that gives them the best chance to succeed, but this may not be the highest ranked program they get into. 5) In the extremely nit-picky, it seems like this board goes through a stock set of discussions every application season. It might be useful to put together a section discussion many of these common issues, both to make these discussions easy to find, to save board clutter and also to save good advice for future generations. Right now, I’m thinking of topics like who should you ask for letters, what courses are necessary preparation for a PhD, what does a good statement of purpose look like, etc., etc. I’m done being cranky. Thanks to everyone who bothered to read this all the way through.