DrEgg

I agree with what has been said so far, especially in regards to work experience. It does not seem to matter much for getting into a program - and paradoxically, this seems like it might be even more true as you move up the school rankings. There is something I have been wondering though, and since it is somewhat related to the OPs question and very related to sb29's response, I guess I will ask it here... Does work experience matter at all when you graduate from a program, in terms of getting a job? Not just for consulting reasons, but for teaching reasons? A number of the professors in my department did not have work experience before getting their PhD. Most also do not have an MBA. I know that this sometimes hurts their credibility with MBA students and is a challenge they face in the classroom. (To be honest, I have some (not a ton) of work experience and an MBA, and in a lot of the cases, I really can't blame the MBAs for their incredulity.) It seems to me that - while I fully realize that research is supposed to be the most important hiring criteria - that if I were hiring Asst. Profs, real world experience and/or an MBA would factor into decision to at least some degree. Obviously this would benefit me, but I ask more out of curiosity than false hope - I fully expected to be judged based on my research abilities :playful:

As usual, rsaylors comments seem right on. My suggestion would be to look at what the professors in a given department are working on and where they are publishing, and determine which work you like. This will likely be much more informative than the name of the program. My experience has been that people tend to cluster in departments where others share at least somewhat similar outlooks about research. For example, my department contains mostly people trained as sociologists or psychologists, as opposed to economists. As students, this heavily influences what we read in our "core" classes, what makes it onto our comps reading lists, what methods are emphasized, etc. This does not necessarily reflect what the program's official "name" is, however.

We had to use LaTeX for a couple of classes I took. My sense is for OB it is largely personal preference. A few of the professors in my department use it, most do not. It also probably depends on the type of research you do. If you are heavily quantitative, have a lot of tables, etc. or have a lot of math/equations in your papers then I see how it might be helpful. Personally, I am not that big a fan. Partly, this is probably because I do a lot of qualitative research, but I'm not even sure I would use it for my quantitative work. For me, having to compile all the time to see how things look, to really do any serious proofreading, etc. seems to offset the time spent editing tables in Word. Also, I know a lot of people recommend Lyx. Personally, I found Lyx way more annoying/time consuming than just learning how to write the LaTeX code. Lyx seems to me to be trying to replicate a normal word processor, but to do a fairly poor job of it. For me, I felt like I was getting the downsides of a Word processor without the benefits. Of course, this is all just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt!

I worked on several business cases before applying. I think they may have helped my application and certainly didn't hurt. I think part of it is how you spin it - I tried to be clear that I knew it wasn't "real" research, but thought of it as a way to start thinking about relevant ideas/problems facing businesses, engage with professors, etc. Doing actual research (which I also did a little of) is certainly better. So, if you have the option, I would definitely go that route. But, I don't think working on cases is inherently a negative.

I know from a friend that Darden has extended at least some interview invites. I believe they are on campus. Don't know if they actually happened yet though.

Cool, thanks for the helpful advice!

Interesting discussion. I have been thinking about getting a new laptop (if I can come up with the $$$ for one) and have been leaning towards a Mac. I have always been a PC user, but I am not particularly tech savvy. I have noticed that I am pretty much the only person in my department (including students and professors) that doesn't use a Mac. Even most of the MBAs (who are given a "free" Windows laptop as part of their program) mostly use Macs. I haven't been particularly impressed with the life spans of my recent laptops, each of which has started to fail after just a couple of years. I admit, I am a little rough on my machines - I carry them around with me everywhere. Given this, I was thinking a Macbook Air might be a good option since they have the solid state hard drives. Any one have any opinions about those? Also, I was wondering, does anyone here do a lot of qualitative research and use either atlas.ti or nvivo? Recommendations about which software is better? I noticed that nvivo isn't available for Macs yet, but they are supposed to release a version for that OS in June.

I agree with everyone else. In terms of PhD applications, my sense is that *all* programs look favorable on any publications you have. I think it becomes a different story once you are in a program. My sense is that when it comes to the job market, lower-tier publications can send a negative signal. I have even heard that it might be better to go on the market without any publications (though obviously not ideal) than only second-tier ones...

I like the idea of this thread. I went away for the weekend this weekend and pretty much got no work done. Right now I am watching this pathetic Super Bowl. I will likely regret all of this tomorrow. I am only taking two courses this semester, but am also trying to get going on a potentially major research project, and I have comps at the end of the semester. So... still pretty busy. Happily done with all of my quant methods coursework though! Oh and I am also a second year.

Sure, I applied to OB and Strategic Management programs.

Not to generate even more anxiety for you all, but I definitely heard from some schools on weekends :devilish:. As we all know, academics don't necessarily keep normal work schedules. Nevertheless, I would agree that doingfine's calendar seems about right. Of course, knowing the schedule doesn't make it go by any faster!

Well, you also might separate macro and micro OB. Much of the stuff in macro OB isn't really "internal" to the organization, but has to do with how the organization relates to the environment. E.g. the population ecology stuff, where the level of analysis is the org field and the main DVs are births/deaths and survival rates. One might argue that micro OB and CB are closer than micro OB and macro OB, at least in terms of methods, level of analysis, etc. In reality, many of these divides seem somewhat artificial and/or fuzzy. People at my school collaborate across both the micro/macro and micro/CB divides...

A combination of all 3. The sheer volume is probably the biggest factor, especially in the 2nd year when I started being expected to be working more on research, doing some RA work, some TA work, etc. (though honestly, I think the amount of RA/TA work expected of my program is probably much less than most...). Also, it seems like every semester, there is at least one course that makes my life miserable. On the plus side, it is usually balanced by one that doesn't require all that much work... This coming semester I have to start preparing for comps, so that should add an element of fun :playful: I wasn't really trying to scare anyone - it is manageable, just exhausting. Also, academia seems to make everything much more dramatic than it needs to be. Sometimes I find I need to just take a step back and put things in perspective.

I second Catguy's comments! And will add that the 2nd and 3rd semesters are no picnics either! :playful:

Yeah, I agree with what has been said - rsaylors is probably right. I actually recently had a conversation with a professor where she mentioned that she could really probably only get a job at a few different b-schools because of where she publishes and the specific topics covered in her work. I think that her research is really interesting and important, but it is true that it does not necessarily fall directly into typical "management" topics - it definitely relates to organizations, but you probably wouldn't read it in SMJ. It is sort of too bad that this is the case - in my opinion, much of the work you see in journals like SMJ is on fairly marginal topics. The bigger, more-ground-breaking, and (again this is all completely just my opinion) more impressive studies are more likely to be in places like AJS... I also agree that in choosing a program, you really need to look at the faculty's research to get a good understanding of what the program will be like. In addition to affecting your research (since you will obviously be working with some of them), often they have an influence on what you read/learn in courses. At least that has been my experience. Of course, this might also depend on the size of the department, the size of the program, how "formally" defined it is, etc. My experience has been interesting so far, I think in part because my program is very small. Because of this many of the courses we take are outside of our dept/the business school. As a result, what I have learned (especially in regards to views about methodological approaches and research designs) has been colored by the dominant perspectives in those other departments. Which has been good and bad, I think...

At least judging from my program, a lot of macro OB professors publish directly in Sociology journals like AJS and ASR. Also ASQ and Org Science.

I would mostly echo what doingfine said... Definitely make sure you are confident with Linear Algebra - not having this exposure has been coming back to bite me for a semester and a half. In general, I would prepare with as much math as possible. It can only help. I wish that more people told me to focus on math. Instead people mostly told me to read in the field, which is helpful for the reasons mentioned by doingfine. It is also helpful for your readings courses as you don't have to spend quite as much time poring over the material if you are already familiar with it. But... for me, math was the bigger thing, though this is also because my math background was particularly weak...

As usual, I agree with pretty much everything rsaylors said. I don't think you will have much trouble getting into a top program. In addition to more stats, you might consider taking Real Analysis. I certainly don't think it's a must-have (I have way less math than you and was quite happy with the response I got from ad-coms (though I was more on the macro-OB than the strategy side, and I'm not sure how many of the schools I applied to would be considered T20)). From what I hear, real analysis (as well as topology) can be quite helpful in microeconomics.

Thanks for pulling this thread out samil! As a first year PhD student, I have actually been struggling with this myself. I had downloaded EndNote, but actually just uninstalled it from my computer the other day. I was getting frustrated because I wasn't used to using it and things weren't appearing in my paper how I wanted. I have little patience, so I got fed up and gave up... Based on the comments above, however, it sounds like it is worth investing some time to figure the software out. I'd also be interested to hear if any of you more experienced students have found something even better in the last couple of years though!

Good luck to all of you! The wait is horrible, but it ends eventually...

As others point out, I doubt it gives you much of an edge, but anyway you can just list it on your CV. I don't think there is any reason they wouldn't believe you are proficient if you say you are.

This just my opinion, but I wouldn't bother with the econ, I would just focus on math. My undergrad was in econ, so I have a pretty good background in the "theory" aspects, but to be honest it isn't really that helpful so far. As long as you understand basic concepts (ideas like "rationality", utility maximization, etc.) then you are probably fine. The thing is, the underlying theories in micro econ are relatively simple. It is translating that theory to abstract mathematical models that is difficult. In terms of what math I would take... I'm still early in the program, but for my econometrics course so far, I wish I had taken linear algebra, real analysis, and whatever courses cover set theory and measure theory in depth. I am not taking micro right now, but I've heard it's a lot of real analysis. Also, one of the things I really struggle with is writing proofs, since I had no real experience in doing that before I got here. Whatever you take, I would recommend taking a "proof-based" course, or at least trying to practice doing proofs on your own. Again, this is just my opinion. Also, I am speaking from OB, but things could be different for strategy.

I am macro-OB and based on my experience, the math background you propose will be fine for getting in, but you may struggle once you are there. My background is similar to yours and I got lots of interest from schools. Now that I am here, however, I realize that I definitely would have benefited from more math. We have to take Econometrics and Micro in the econ department. Most of the econ students were math majors. Right now I am taking Econometrics and there is lots of analysis, set theory, measure theory, etc. that I know nothing about. Looking ahead, there will also be lots of linear algebra. So... my suggestion would be to take as much math as you possibly can. Even beyond getting in, do as much self-study, etc. as you can. You will probably use more than you think, and even if not, it certainly won't hurt you... Definitely advice I wish I had received...

Thanks for the ideas frayed. Yes, we are expected to take micro and the econometrics sequence (the first two courses). Unfortunately I am part of the first cohort in my program, so there's not anyone ahead of me in my specific department to ask. I have asked some of the current students in other fields (marketing, finance, etc.) which has been somewhat helpful, but I also was hoping to get a sense from some of you guys. Actually, the fact that management students at other schools aren't required to take those courses may be helpful. Even here, the behavioral marketing students aren't required to take the normal micro (they take one that is more applied I think), but our department head wants us to take the real deal. I may bring up my concerns with the director of grad studies for the b-school (at least one other person in my cohort is in a similar situation) to see if it would make more sense for us to follow the path of behavioral marketing. It's frustrating because in theory I would like to take the real micro and econometrics, but if I'm not going to be able to handle them, I'm not sure its the best route. I've heard the courses are considered hazing even for the econ students, which makes me a little nervous!

I'm not sure of other school's schedules, so this post may give away my identity, but this is something I really want to know :playful: I am starting the first year of my PhD studies in management in a few weeks. I have already moved and I just started a pre-semester math program offered at my school (by the econ department, but students from a number of programs take part). During this program I have VERY quickly realized that my math skills are pretty weak. Basically all I have under my belt is calculus through multivariable and some econ-related statistics. These were all about 10 years ago, early in my undergrad studies. I am finding that the professor is presenting the material at a very theoretical level and in a very formal format (i.e. lots of proofs, etc. and basically no concrete problems/ examples). To be honest, I am really struggling so far. My question is to all of you already well along in your programs that have taken Microeconomics and some Econometrics courses... What math have you found most critical for those courses? How important is it that I understand these notation-heavy proofs? Will I be okay if I understand the concepts behind them and can solve problems (i.e. the materially typically taught in undergrad courses)? I ask because my plan is to buy some textbooks and use online courseware like that of Khan Academy to try to learn as much as I can. My thought is that with some of that background, the stuff the professor is presenting might be more intelligible to me. I am sure that won't allow me to get fully up to speed before the end of the summer course, but it still seems more fruitful than trying to internalize the high level stuff the professor is presenting. I'm not sure if I am even asking an answerable question, but any thoughts are welcomed! I am pretty much completely panicked right now and concerned I won't survive those econ courses! Thanks in advance for any insights!