SASsy

Unless your fall quarter will be over before you apply, I don't see how adcoms will be able to fully evaluate your performance in those classes. You would want those profs to recommend you based on your performance in their classes, but you may cut it short on time. The coursework alone could signal interest, which could help you. If you are hoping only to gain an advantage in admissions, I think you could invest $3000 a little better, say by taking a lower paying job that allows you to research something related to econ? I guess only you know what the alternatives to enrolling next fall would be. A side thought, could you enroll in courses in the math department over the summer?

I picked red because I wasn't ready to commit to purple. Ya know, not full on sarcasm. :hmm: Sorry for the confusion. I think I figured out who you are too!

Couldn't it just be beneficial that the student revealed himself as a bigot before entering the program? Maybe that's why they liquor us up on the flyouts anyway...to get us to reveal our ignorance.

I was at the Chicago flyout too (and met kipfilet there, actually). My contribution to this discussion may be perceived as biased because I've already signed my contract and accepted my fate. I went with the intention of making the most of the inevitable hell that will be my life for the next year or two (or six), given the rumors that I have heard. In fact, since I received my offer, more people have warned me about the program's infamy in the last few weeks than I would ever have expected. I suspected that there would be a factor of "false advertising" in my conversations with faculty and current students. I was impressed by the candor about the department's and program's weaknesses. Still, I want to address a few flat out misperceptions. I want to add to mamisakura's point. While job placement immediately after graduation is probably a good predictor of future job placement, I suspect there is a small market for lemons around students who publish with their advisers. I recognize that it is extremely difficult to be published at all, but these job market candidates seek careers as professional researchers, which I think implies that they will be publishing on their own at some point. The Chicago approach would introduce this "shock" to students before branding them with a diploma, rather than promoting students on the job market who may not have developed intellectual independence yet. The adjustment for this second type of student would be delayed, I suspect, but ultimately inevitable. Thus I think that looking at job placement 5-7 years after graduation would provide a better indicator of the quality of economists produced by a program. You should recognize that past job placement is a poor estimator of your own outcome on the job market because it neglects so many other personality traits required for good research. Wouldn't it be BEST to choose the program that you believe matches your learning style? The focus would remain on educating yourself so that when you do publish or face the job market, you will be good at what you do. Steve Levitt added a good response to the data as well. He suggested that if students began writing sooner, they wouldn't have such a hard time with the job market paper (and hence the job market). He is, of course, idealistic if he thinks that any one of us (that's on the site, not just at Chicago) could get our papers published that early. The only execution of his plan that I believe is feasible is to try to publish with former professors early on, to introduce the process of publishing and revising. I spent part of the flyout seeking assistance in executing this plan, and I found resources around the campus willing to help. I don't expect that Becker directly advises anyone anymore. He was listed as a reference on several job market CVs, but I believe that Kevin Murphy is in the process of assuming the advisory role for students who would otherwise seek Becker. Neither was present during the flyout so I could be wrong. You should note that Murphy is young, and was listed as the dissertation committee chair on a number of CVs from the most recent graduates. I didn't see any of the "old" professors on Friday. You may include professors in their 60s with your assessment, but I think that those are the economists who have the most to share with students. For example, Heckman has an army of RAs, some of whom are students. (They get much better offices than the others.) Keep in mind, middle-aged academics are probably just starting to hit their stride. It might not be a good idea to get an adviser who was too young because he/she might not have as much wisdom to share. Resources beyond the actual Department of Economics are so easily accessible. The Becker Center is located in the business school, but from my understanding, they are the folks who help run and process the experiments for List and his students. There is also now a Milton Friedman Institute for research as well. I don't know if junior faculty leave shortly after being hired by Chicago. I wouldn't. The whole university seems to bend at the department's whim. It's nice. EVERY door is open, in that respect. True dat! I didn't even get help from my UG thesis adviser (who went on sabbatical without warning, after I defended my proposal). I applied to Chicago aware of these (sometimes true) perceptions because I think the benefits far outweigh the (emotional/mental/financial) costs.

Both of my parents switched careers in mid-life, to go to professional school (not at the same time). They did not go to "highly ranked" schools, but that isn't as big a factor for non academic jobs. I say, find what you're passionate about. If you have the drive and capability to be an economist, you should let nothing stand in your way. To the OP, I don't know how much age itself could factor into placement. I'm 5 years younger and will start my PhD at a pretty good school in the fall. I can't imagine age was even an issue in evaluating my profile. The more relevant concern would be about the time distance from coursework. This is a concern that even "unranked" schools feel about their students. I think applicants who have been away from academia for several years are risky for a few reasons. (1) The perceived opportunity cost of your time could make you more likely to drop out. (2) The perceived distractions posed by extracurricular obligations (i.e. financial/emotional dependents) could distract you from serious coursework. I got married over the summer, and then I took a job, and those were the two major arguments made against my "life choices." My gut reaction is to call BS to these ideas, but I have witnessed other students lagging behind or dropping out for similar reasons. To combat this prejudice, I think older applicants should consider enrolling in a few graduate courses (the prereqs) while working, to show their commitment to academia. In other professions, people often "work their way up from the bottom" to get to a powerful position in their company. Academia is no different.

I do think that rthunder (like myself) applied to generally great schools overall. (I don't see a single unranked school on his/her list.) That is, even though Stanford GSB Finance is crazy good (and probably a sign that the rest of the econ folk there want to work with him/her), how bad are the rejections? The entire list in his/her signature look like great schools. It may be that the spread isn't that high. (I just assumed uniform distribution of qualification/talent when I applied. It further supports that rthunder's acceptance to a very selective program was less probable than my acceptance to Chicago though I still feel that it is a fluke that I got the funding offer I did.) I think an equally competitive candidate would be someone who was accepted by a top 20 school but rejected by an unknown/unranked program. Does such a candidate exist? Also, a rant: I am quite embittered about my Georgetown rejection. That could be because I've been passed fliers for their PhD program for the 6 odd years that I attended my UG/G school for econ. (The flier just hung there by the department secretary's desk, daring me to want to go there.) That said, I don't think it's a surprising rejection now that I've read my SOPs, if SOPs matter. I may have come across as an entirely different candidate to schools I applied to before or after Christmas. If SOPs really don't matter, then, GTU, you've really hurt my feelings. End rant.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Small Public U (~12K UG & G) comparable to LAC; top 5 party school Undergrad GPA: 3.38 overall, 3.81 econ, 3.76 Spanish, 3.35 intl studies Type of Grad: same as UG Grad GPA: 3.50 GRE: 800Q/760V/4.5W (12/2010)...but 700Q/700V/3.5W (11/2010 - obviously I had to study harder) Math Courses: Cal I (B), Cal II-IV (As), Foundations (B), Linear Algebra I (B), Intro to Stat Methods (B), Differential Equations I (A), Intro to Math Stats (A), Advanced Cal I-II (As) Econ Courses: Honors Principles Micro (A), Honors Principles Macro (A), Int Micro (A), Int Macro (B), Honors Global Econ (A), International Trade (A), Game Theory (A), Managerial (A), Econ for Engineers (B), Econ Stats II (A) Grad Econ Courses: all taken with PhD students, Micro I (A), Macro I (B), Econometrics I (A), Price Theory (A), Managerial (A), IO (A), Math Econ (A), Econ History (A), Math Methods for Econ (B), Stat Methods for Econ and Business (B), three Econ seminars, and a course that I failed 5 years ago due to very odd circumstances...hence the low grad GPA. Other Courses: 6 senior history courses, 2 senior sociology courses, 1 law school course, several heterodox courses (polisci/history/sociology/philosophy/law) for intl studies; lots of language courses, including graduate level spanish (but other languages as well) Letters of Recommendation: I used a mix of 5 professors, to reduce the burden on them. 1 prof recommended me to all schools with what I assume was a very strong LOR. I asked all of my grad-level theory professors (micro, macro, metrics) plus the two professors I had written research papers for (and who had taught many electives to me). None were extraordinarily well-known (to my knowledge) but knew me very well and knew my understanding of applications of econ. Research Experience: My Formal experience was very limited; At time of application I had just accepted RA job at a university, in an unfamiliar field. Otherwise, had collected my own data for papers and had done all research independently. Teaching Experience: TA for campus-wide service during MA, more like a math tutor; tutored for 8 years Research Interests: micro/labor/health, IO, public finance, behavioral, development...isn't it all related on some level? SOP: It was ever-evolving. The "best" SOP (the one that yielded my Chicago acceptance) was very professional, very direct, and discussed all research papers I had written previously. The others talked more about my one big idea. I also took a more "persuasive" tone in them. All mentioned that I want to teach. :) Other: I have won several scholarships and fellowships in the past, for which I think I provided a pretty good ROR on the investment. ;) I also worked 40 hours/week for the last 3 years while bringing my grades up significantly. During this time I made sure to be one of the top, if not the top, students in each class. (Except macro. Damn.) Also my Chicago writing sample was a paper in which I disproved my undergraduate thesis. :tup: RESULTS: Acceptances: Chicago with level one fellowship Waitlists: Rice Rejections: Harvard, NYU, Princeton, Northwestern, UT-Austin, Rochester, Georgetown, Duke, Maryland, Cornell, Brown, UVA and LSE Incomplete: Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Melon, American, George Mason What would you have done differently? This is a difficult topic. Obviously I did something right. I also did many things wrong. Points (1) and (2) are changes that would've made me an entirely different person. These are more like life lessons, that required trial and error with my own life to discover. On the other hand, I like to think that if I had only enacted (3) and (4) from below, I would have had a much better application season in spite of my past. (1) I would have taken my academic destiny into my own hands years ago. I let my course load and academic interests be chosen by well-meaning advisers instead of determining what I actually wanted to learn. Thus I was disinterested in many of my courses, and I underperformed. I also let exogenous factors affect my grades too much. I would have been more mature about accepting life's hardships rather than taking a few semesters to mope about it. I would not have partied so much. (2) I would have been proactive about research with professors. This problem started with my undergrad thesis. I continually chose "interesting" rather than "executable" topics. My adviser at the time encouraged me to be intellectually curious. I should have asked to continue research under his specialty so the paper would have been easier. Instead, I spent the past 6 years chasing down data about a seemingly irrelevant topic. It makes me unique to have this expertise, but it also makes me OLD. (3) I would not have experimented with my SOP. Really, what the hell was I thinking? I could've been shut out entirely this year. Clearly I am a strong candidate, but I really shot myself in the foot with the changes I made to my SOP at the end of December. While the SOP may not help an applicant, it surely can hurt him/her; I am a good example. I should've been professional, straightforward, and commanding in all of the SOPs. (4) I would have planned to rock the GRE by mid fall. I cut it really close by taking the GRE in November and then again in mid December. If I had given myself a little more study time between the two exams, I think I could've aced the verbal and significantly improved my AWA. I took the exam late because I didn't expect to do so well, preventing myself from the possibility of applying to many excellent schools. I applied to Harvard at the last minute, and it was the only Dec. 15 deadline I met. I like to think that if I had taken more time to prepare that application, I'd be going to Cambridge in the fall. Note: I would not have changed my initial course of study or UG institution. I believe that my background gives me a true appreciation for economics, and without it, I'd be a physicist (true story). I tried out the other social sciences first, as I chased down my interests in foreign cultures and varying governance systems. Writing research papers for other social science courses left me utterly frustrated because I could never prove what I said. My senior thesis left me utterly dissatisfied. Enter economics. It was a natural fit for my data and research. I am proud to say that I am passionate about economics. ;)

Institution: Cornell Program: Ph.D. in Economics Decision: Rejection Funding: -($80 application fee + $23 ETS score report + some fraction of the favors I inevitably owe my LOR writers) Notification Date: 03/25/2011 Notified Through: Email Posted on GradCafe: Yes, in a sec Comments: Not a surprise at all. It's a nice touch that the email came from the DGS rather than the Dean of the Grad School.

Can you only choose one? If you won't have a chance to take Real Analysis before applying, you can signal exposure to the subject with Advanced Calculus. (My AC sequence used an Intro to RA textbook. It came in handy to mention that when asked which math texts I had used since many schools (1) suggest RA as a useful prereq and (2) ask you to list advanced text books.) I think, for the love of knowledge, you might consider auditing the Algebra course or enrolling in it as well. Since that may not be a possibility, then at least get your transcript ready to meet the necessary conditions of profile evaluation. This advice operates under the assumption, however, that AC uses a RA text. Consider it this way: After you are accepted, you are going to scramble to prepare yourself as best you can for the intro year. (You just will.) Do you think that, in that process, you might teach yourself or recruit someone to teach you the remaining information that you deem important?

I have limited first hand experience with two low-ranked econ departments. They are, in fact, collegial. The younger professors are always more likely to go out for beers with the students, and the older professors (who are tenured) are more likely to chat with you at length in their offices. This could be more of a self-selection process for people who ultimately take job offers at lower-ranked schools. Another impression I have gotten, which goes along with the friendliness at Purdue, is that schools with closer ties to ag econ and ARE programs tend to have friendlier faculty. It's just an observation, but I wonder if anyone else has observed that too?

Thanks rthunder27! I'm guessing that after the flyout, I'll be able to convince myself that there wasn't a typing error in admissions. Thanks Elliephant! I haven't forgotten about you. I've been drafting my post so the future generations aren't as confused by my outcome as I am. You are right that my signature is wrong (and my adding). I have a master list on my desk, however. That's 14 rejections including the one I anticipate from Cornell. I should just forget the signature thing and let my profile and result write up set everything straight. I'd put money on more rejections, too, if I had completed the other applications I'd started. I guess that will all go in my write up for Elliephant's thread.

I can't complain about my turn out, but it does make me HIGHLY paranoid that my single acceptance is a fluke. I have 14 rejections, 1 waitlist, and 1 acceptance with funding. Cornell remains, but I assume that is also a rejection. This outcome is screwing with my head more every day.

Institution: NYU Program: PhD Economics Decision: Rejection Funding: can i has money n e way? Notification Date: March 22, 2011 Notified through: Official e-mail Posted on GC: yes Comments: A polite letter. Have been waiting for it for 2-3 weeks though.

Institution: Harvard University Program: Economics PhD Decision: :doh: (rejected) Funding: rien!! Notification date: 3/14/11 (dated 3/11) Notified through: la poste Posted on GC: ouais Comments: "When you are a skunk, you learn how to hold your breath for a long time." Alors... Thus ends my Pepe le Pew obsession with the Harvard Econ Department. Stay tuned for the sequel in 5-7 years..:hmm:

Who wouldn't want to be paid to study economics and live in Greenwich Village? There are some DC area schools who get a large number of applications given their overall rank.

Hum...

Sorry about the rejection, Economics Dude. I'm sure mine will come any day now. That is a great sign off. I like that they said literally hundreds. As if to imply it is figuratively hundreds for the other schools. ;) I have no doubt it is true, too.

I would be a lot more concerned if a place with infamously high attrition didn't schedule an open house.

Institution: Penn State University Program: Economics PhD Decision: Rejected Funding: Think they'd send me a few bucks anyway? Notification date: 3/14 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: Yes Comment: I was wondering. The post immediately before mine on GC has almost the same GPA/GRE mix. I thought that was interesting.

Hmm...you may be right. I remember particularly liking one or two topics for the weekly fora there, but I may be thinking of another school during the Jan 15 deadline crunch that allows students to possibly studying as part of some larger liberal arts-y institute. Being wrong about that would make the sting of rejection feel more like a tickle. That's all folks! This SASsy little economist is taking a weekend break from the computer (but not the iPhone...and not if Cornell emails...actually I'm feeling rather codependent with this network).

Thanks for the contact info! (And I'm still keeping the hopes that going to another excellent school won't prevent me from being in contact, professionally, with my dream mentor. I'm planning on emailing said person when all is said and done.) Thanks. I do like heterodox programs, and Brown seemed to offer much in that regard. Plus I've heard they're not super mean to their students... No prob. It'll be Monday sometime. I'm taking the weekend off from worrying about acceptances. I signed the Chicago funding form. I'm physically incapable of mailing it until I know Harvard has rejected me. It's like Pepe le Pew going after the cat. In retrospect, my SOP should have only said, "Permit me to introduce myself. I am Pepe Le Pew, your lover."

I haven't been in contact with anyone in the department at GTU yet. I'll look for Barbara on the website. Re Harvard: My SOP was basically a love letter about one of the faculty's research. We are aligned PERFECTLY. I'd rather think that they didn't read my SOP so I can save a little dignity. But, for lack of cliche, I did grow emotionally involved with thoughts of having a certain mentor.

I was told the only one with that information is out today. I am more concerned with Georgetown's rejection. Who should I email (DGS?) if I want to know the comments about my application?

:: hug ::

I called today. Brenda, who I presume is responsible for this information, will not be back until Monday. I don't care if no news is an implicit rejection; I need to hear it. (Gosh, it's like a bad break-up.)