CostaRicanEcon

Hey guys thanks a lot for all the comments! etoposido: I also like international macro a lot, even though I didn't write that in the first post, so thanks for pointing that out. LazyGraduate and primus: I have gotten that recomendation from two professors in my program as well, so my interest has grown, I am trying to make arrangements to make it to visit day. Nalu: I already declined UPenn I do feel they have a very strong program and macro group but I didn't feel they have so many people in my specific area of interest. Yeah I also think Columbia is pretty strong, that is why I am having doubts about which visit day to attend, since Columbia and Northwestern are the same day. Also lately I have been more inclined to decide between Nothwestern and Berkeley, since both departments have showed a lot of interest, several professors (in my field) have emailed me, they told me I can call them if I need information and they have been very nice and helpful. While this has not been the case for Columbia. This per se may not be so informative, but I am wandering if this could be indicative of the degree of interest the department may show later on for students... Any further comments or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Again thank you very much!

Hey everyone! I wanted to ask the forum's opinion about doing macro at Berkeley vs Northwestern or Columbia. I have been admitted to these programs and I am undecided (although leaning Berkeley). I have been gathering a lot of information to make the best decision, and I would really appreciate your opinion. I especifically like business cycle macro, monetary and fiscal policy and the effect of the zero lower bound. I think Berkeley has a stronger department overall but I really like the macro group at Northwestern. Also Columbia has a great group for this topics. From Berkeley I like: Gorodnichenko, Auerbach, Obstfeld, Romer and Gourinchas, from Northwestern: Christiano, Eichenbaum, Rebelo, Lorenzoni, Berger and Primiceri and from Columbia: Woodford, Reis, Clarida, Uribe and Schmidt-Grohe. Anyway, what do you guys think? Thanks a lot for any comments or suggestions!

Where are you guys getting the info for Berkeley tuition? My letter says that (tuition + nonresident supplemental tuition + fees) = $30000. For the info presented here to be correct it should not be taking NRST into account and this category must be really high!

Thanks man!!! I am so happy right now! Good luck to everybody!

Institution: Stanford Program: Economics PhD Decision: Rejected Notification Date: 3/4/13 Notified through: Website Posted on GC: No Comments: Prefer Berkeley! Institution: Berkeley Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: Full Notification Date: 3/5/13 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Yeahhh, incredible, so happy, a lot of great people there for me to work with

Only one Berkeley admit in all this time, what is going on??

But the guy in GC saying that we will hear from Berkeley in two more weeks, where can this info be coming from? I would guess something closer to march 1, maybe next week or something, but 2 weeks sounds weird

Yeah actually Berkeley said that they would notify the majority of applicants on March 1 (but this is an estimate subject to change) and the remainder of applicants on March 15. Do you guys know something about MIT, last year it was today right?

Institution: Princeton University Program: Economics PhD Decision: Rejected Notification date: 02/27/2013 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Bummer :-/ Institution: Columbia Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: Full Notification date: 02/27/2013 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: Great! Would really like to work with a lot of people there!

I don't know why they write things like TM:"x", it just makes it so easy to tell they are trolls if we check out this thread

But even if those posts where trolls, the 24 hours thing is still true right? Should we expect something for tomorrow?

Institution: Yale Program: PhD Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: No Information Notification date: 2/26/2013 Notified through: e-mail Posted on GC: no Comments: It is a bummer waiting for the letter

Institution: UPenn Program: PhD Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: Fellowship Notification date: 25/02/2013 Notified through: email Posted on GC: no Comments: Great!

Institution: Northwestern Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: Full Notification date: 2/19/2013 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: Yes Comments: So excited, this is great!

No dude, short run as in the periods of time where output deviates significantly from potential output due to some aggregate shock hitting the economy. I would say price rigidities are generally important for these deviations to occur, so in macro the short run is generally between 1 and 3 years. This crisis has lasted longer but again the ZLB makes everything different. My point about the crucial difference between the government and a firm was this: for firms, even really large ones (say walmart) "general equilibrium effects" of employment decisions are negligible or really small, while for the government at a recession (specially under the liquidity trap) they are crucial. That is, if a firm manages to cut back employment and the reduction in revenue is smaller that the savings in salaries then it improved its position and stockholders will be happy. In a recession (again keep in mind the ZLB) if the government cuts back on employment then this could have a significant effect on the economy, this itselfs worsen the government finances through reduced tax income and increased spending in food stamps and unemployment benefits, not to mention the important hysteresis effects that are probably important. This is just one of the ways in which firms and the government differ a lot when you are thinking about short run macro and the reason I personally don't like to make that analogy. I think this is very relevant to the platinum coin stuff because for the government to bring down its deficit abruptly at this point, with the present conditions, would be quite a drag on the economy, while if this is postponed to a time where the economy is out of the liquidity trap and the recession is past, the impact would be quite different. This is why even if a "gimmick" like the platinum coin is used to extend the time when the government has to start cutting back, it would be beneficial. Of course it would be better to do it by choice, but if republicans are demanding ransom to increase the debt ceiling, the coin could be a good idea to reduce their bargaining power.

In short run macro, specially if the ZLB is binding, I think the worst think you can do is think of the government as a firm.

They can definetely not exploit this forever, since issuing a platinum coin with face value of a trillion dollars is not inflationary only in present, liquidity trap, context. Outside of the liquidity trap this option would indeed be outlandish. The pros are to avoid hostage taking by republicans by signaling there is an easy way out without their consent. A con is the process where in the future the platinum coin gets "rolled back" (which would cause the increase in the debt it is avoiding now), which could be problematic if by then the fiscal scenario is not better. The debate comes mainly from republicans that obviously don't want to loose their biggest bargaining chip and hence don´t want this to be even on the table. Republicans seek to get enacted, through threathening not to raise the debt ceiling, measures that they could never pass through the normal legislative process.

Type of Undergrad: B.A. in economics from the University of Costa Rica, top university in Central America (which doesn´t mean a lot) Undergrad GPA: 96.1/100 (first in class) Type of Grad: Master in Economics and Finance from CEMFI Grad GPA: 94/100 GRE: 800Q 660V 4.0 AWA (not native speaker) Math Courses: Math for economists I-IV (A+). Intro to discrete math (proofs, logic, sets, relations), Calc I-III (A+), Liner algebra I-II (A+). Graduate math for economists (A+) Econ Courses (grad-level): Microeconomics (A+), Stats for econometrics (A-), Macroeconomics I (A-), Econometrics (A+), Uncertainty and information (A). Macro II (A-), Time series (B+), Finance I (A) Econ Courses (undergrad-level): 4 courses Micro Sequence (A, A+), 4 courses Macro sequence (A, A+), 3 courses stats sequence (A+), 4 courses metrics sequence (A+). Other stuff like international economics, trade theory, public choice, etc (all A or A+) Letters of Recommendation: 2 PhD’s from LSE (top 5% in Ideas) should be pretty strong letters. Phd from BU should be a really strong letter Research Experience: Will complete a master thesis to graduate. Teaching Experience: Teaching assistant for microeconomics III in Costa Rica Research Interests: Macro (business cycles), international macro, public economics SOP: Should be good. Concerns: No real analysis, although my calculus sequence was in part an intro to real analysis, covering almost all baby Rudin between the 3 courses. No research experience yet. Other: Awarded the 3 consecutive years best student in the Economics department in the University of Costa Rica (out of aprox. 500). Bronze medal in Costa Rican math Olympics. Applying to: Most of the top15

I don´t know much about BGSE so I wont comment. I am attending CEMFI, with the purpose of going to a PhD in the US afterwards. The experience has been great, it has fulfilled my expectations completely. The program is very rigorous, the professors are very accesible, classes are small, and placement into PhD is awesome (even more if you analyse number of students placed to top 15 "per capita", I think in this sense it dominates a lot of masters with better reputation). Although if you want to stay to do the PhD in the same place as the master then indeed my advice doesn´t apply as well, I am not really sure why (I think it is because of the small size) the reputation of the program is not as high. Indeed here the atmosphere is great, I am sure if you come you will be delighted with your choice (if you are willing to work very hard!).

Refering to StateExperiment's post (whose tone seems a bit off...), maybe some spanish undergrad programs have that reputation, but that is certainly not the case of CEMFI, the program is rigorous and very though, US phd institutions know this, as shown by the placement for this admission cycle. Unofficially, by talking to some of the second year students applying to the US, I have heard about admissions to MIT, Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, NYU, Northwestern, Minessota and Duke, among others. Admissions for last year where very good as well. Regarding Mack's post, I think the reason is that CEMFI is a very small institution compared to the complex in Barcelona, there are fewer students, fewer professors and no undergrad. The atmosphere here is pretty international.

I may be biased, but you should also consider CEMFI! It is 2 years long, it includes research, and it has some pretty interesting macro courses. Plus, it has good placements into US PhD. Good luck

I completely agree, if anything, Neo Keynesian economics is passing the "crisis test" with flying colors, meanwhile most other schools are failing it badly. It is pretty clear.

What about Ruud? I have heard good comments. I have not read I myself, since i just ordered it. But it seems to provide nice intuition and looks more accesible than greene or hayashi

Mr Amengual already answered me, and he provided me the same information that somebody had already posted, in particular: "In a typical year between a quarter and a third of our finishing Master students will proceed towards a PhD. About half of those will start PhD dissertation work at CEMFI and the rest will transfer to a PhD program elsewhere. During the last five years the latter were placed at MIT, Columbia, Chicago, Northwestern (both Economics and Kellogg), EUI, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, LSE, Brown, and Washington St Louis. CEMFI students getting a first or a good upper second almost invariably get admitted to top US PhD programs if they wish. So it is fair to say that year-to-year fluctuations in PhD placement are mostly driven by variation in students' interests."

Thank you chisquared. The funding in ITAM is complicated. They are trying to get me a scholarship with the mexican government, which would cover tuition, insurance and a monthly living stipend about 7000 pesos (almost enough to live with, Mexico is not so expensive). If that doesn´t work out they will make me RA which would cover tuition and give me a 6000 pesos living stipend with a workload of 20 hours a week. Even though working as an RA would be nice for the experience and the posibility of getting good LORS, I am concerned it would take a lot of time away form my studying. In conclusion there is some uncertainty regarding Mexico, which I dislike. And also even in the best case scenario the funding is not so good as in Madrid (even adjusting for PPP). So my dilemma is to decide if the program in Mexico is better enough to compensate for this conditions