s1391470

Well, notice that Lucas discusses the government doing "too much" as opposed to anything. While there is certainly room for debate over where this happy medium lies, at least we understand that there is such a thing as productive government spending (for example, Barro 1990), and from there try to identify what is a valid measure of welfare and how to maximize it. Similarly, we believe that with externalities, some form of regulation is required. Yet compare this to Rick Perry's recent call to put a moratorium on all regulations. My intent, however, was not to discuss specific party policy. Rather, I'm curious as to whether its fair to say current undergrad economic classes contribute to some unrealistically rigid positions in politics due to insufficiently explaining that what is taught is really a boundary case (or perhaps we disagree that it is). If so, how should we change what is taught to improve the situation?

As folks start their PhD application process, I thought this may be an interesting discussion topic (I didn't find anything related with a search of historical topics). Basically, I was wondering if the current material and teaching method of micro/macro in undergrad is actually harmful to economic policy. From my own experience, I learned the basics of supply and demand, ISLM, optimization, etc., but generally within the context of perfect markets. Some classes mentioned other cases (imperfect markets, convexity assumptions, externalities, etc.), but more in the way of passing than any rigorous analysis. Of course, graduate school looks more deeply at these cases, but the large majority of individuals will take intro micro/macro and call it a day. Politics is of course about spin, and this basic economic understanding allows PR people to spin messages that resonate with a large majority of voters; the, "Oh yeah, I remember that from school" idea. This allows people to put forward ideas such as "increasing taxes on the rich kills jobs", "regulations hurt the economy and individuals", and "government spending is always inefficient and harmful (except for defense)". These ideas may not be 100% incorrect, but are usually only (possibly) true in idealized situations that don't reflect reality. Unfortunately, it is this self-same idealized environment that people have learned about, and therefore apply to the message. Yes, we could argue this is an issue with the political or cultural system where individuals believe the message of politicians over "experts" (we all want to hear what we "know" to be true), but given that such a large number of people do take basic economics, shouldn't we be giving them a foundation for rational thought rather than simplified models? After all, how much does understanding pricing in a monopoly really help someone anyways? Why not discuss basics but also focus on the exceptions and reality? Foundations are obviously important, but maybe we need to rethink the way we teach it? Love to hear your thoughts.

Also from my personal experience (all in Canada): I quit my job two years ago at 33, but as I completed my undergrad at 21, there was little to no chance of getting LoRs from my old profs. Instead, I went back and did a one-year masters program in econ and retook four undergrad math courses through distance education. As I was able to do quite well in my courses and get very strong LoRs (I know several of my writers called colleagues at schools to which I applied), my age probably didn't factor too strongly. I will start my program (I'm now 35) in September. Assuming that there is some age bias in admissions (something of which I have no idea one way or the other), I would say that the way to convince adcoms to take a chance on you is to be a really strong candidate and have recent data to which they can refer.

Hi Untitled, I noticed that my results from Carnegie Mellon weren't posted. Cheers.

I think this is especially true at the letter writer's alumni.

I think you have an excellent shot at the Canadian masters programs you listed, as well as the phds. Take a look at untitled's website which lists universities and the profiles of people who got into them: Untitled There are a lot more schools to which you could apply, conditional on a strong GRE score.

In Canada, different universities seem to handle this in different ways. Some have integrated "math for econ" courses, whereas others require math department courses. In regards to undergrad econ being sufficient preparation for graduate econ, I found this interesting tidbit from Harvard: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/UndergradGuide10.pdf Specifically, on page16 (22/44) it says i.e. essentially directing students to a math undergrad if they want to pursue graduate studies.

I second this statement. When mentioning my MBA (at a top-ranked program) the response (from three different adcoms) was, "yeah, but it's only an MBA." I don't know if this same sentiment will hold for poli-sci though.

Minnesota!

Institution: Minnesota Program: PhD Economics Decision: Accepted Funding: N/A Notification date: 04/19/2011 Notified through: e-mail Posted on GC: no Comments: In response to email inquiry. I had sent them an email asking for confirmation of my status (expecting a rejection) since I had to confirm with schools by April 22. Instead, I received an offer!

Good to know, disappointing to hear :). Do you know by when these offers have to give a response?

Another day without any notification. Anyone else hear anything?

Institution: Toronto Program: PhD Economics Decision: Rejected Funding: N/A Notification date: 04/15/2011 Notified through: e-mail Posted on GC: no Comments: In response to email inquiry

No news today from MN. Looks like another day of painful waiting :(

Others on this board are more qualified to provide advice on how to do this (especially in the U.S.), but have you considered talking to any of your profs regarding working with them in an RA role? This would be a good way to get stronger recommendations, obtain some research experience, and perhaps not have to leave the country.