fnosdy

I would have wanted to be a researcher, and this year I end up with JHU Msc and U Oregon PhD. From the ranking, I am leaning toward MSC with the hope of getting a better place. I don't know about this program though. What is the chance that I go straight to PhD if I do well in the Msc program. I heard that some MSC is PHD-first-year in disguise, but I saw nothing from the program webpage. Guess it's some kind of inside information. If not, is the program worth going if my goal is to do a PhD? If in the end, I have to work in industry, is the MSc a high value-added program? I appreciate any insight into the program, or comparison with Oregon PhD. P.S.: RA is not a option for me, I am not in US, and it's hard to find a RA where I lived.

So in the end, I am going to make a decision among the three. I am interested in Public Finance and development, or applied micro in general (as people say 99% your interest evolves). BU is lower rankings but it has a good group in public finance. I haven't heard anything particularly interesting about Duke other than it has a good applied micro group overall and has been rising recently. UCLA is highest ranking, but in terms of applied micro, it does not dominate the other two, and it's offer is not funded. I would like to seek some insight on each program, here is my ordering on the factors to look at: 1) program quality: placement in applied micro now and trajectory in a few years if possible 2) faculty support 3) attrition 4) program culture: I prefer a more cooperative culture 5) location 6) funding: It's not too much of an issue, but if the program's funding policy is very stringent for year 2-5, and there is a fair chance not making it, then it is more of a problem. Any helps? Thanks in advance.

After seeing all these comments, I'd say if you are destined to shine, you will eventually, maybe it takes a little longer from a non-top 7. Otherwise, schools more intend to enlist median students from top-7 programs I guess, other factors being equal

Thanks for the reply. I am more interested in some policy-oriented work, like in IMF or world bank, so I suppose top 50 will do (?) I have heard from my professor that in top school, a median student can still get a good placement, but in non top 7-10 school, students with same qualification have much worse job prospective. It would have been nice if everything is on my own.

I chanced upon EJMR a few days back, and people over there(I assume mostly AP or grad students) seemed to downplay any non-top-7 school by a lot (some went as far as non-top-three). Basically they say if you are not admitted top 7, you are wasting your time doing phd. Is it true? I thought top 20 is really a good place to go

but again, if you choose your programs wisely and with a decent large pool, you probably receive funded offers at about same level from other programs.

It seems rather odd to me, given the extravagant cost of graduate study, that grad schools offer you admission without first year financial support. Isn't it just a more polite way to say GTFO? Who would ever take that? I am genuinely confused. EDIT: A lot of guys miss my point. If one gets an unfunded offer from a program, he will most likely get another from programs at about the same level, provided he is willing to file a decent number of applications that are well distributed. That means unfunded offer is rarely taken up. The external funding thing may be a good one, but only applies if you have a shot at top-5, or probably you don't get external scholarship either.

What does that mean? I have seen $,$$,$$$,$$$$. Are they stipend? And May I assume if one puts it, it means the department also covers their tuition and insurance?

lol, just an update, by viewing past posts, it seems upenn is very generous about issuing hope-list, but less so to make it real.

Any one knows what does it mean when Upenn wait-lists you? Seems like they keep a rather long list. I am curious how does it work in Upenn and what is the chance of getting an admits from wait-list? Any insight?

TA89, Thanks for the information. So does that mean they are not going to make a lot of screening from this interview?

I got an email today: they are going to interview me. So I am just wondering any past year applicants with some experience/insight on this? How are they going to make use of it?

Thanks for the reply. The course was in Fall 2012, so they may still ask and see my grade before that. Just curious, how often do schools contact students for fall grade if they just mention taking the course but do not supply the result by the time of review?

Actually not Upenn, should be Penn State

[h=2]Profile: Graduate form top 30 Undergrad with top 10 or so phd program. GPA:3.91(econ & math 3.90) GRE: 168Q, 162V, 3.5W Math courses: Cal3(A+) Functional Analysis(A) PDE(A) Linear Algebra(A) Numerical analysis(A) Probability Theory(A-) Stochastic process(A-) Statistics(A-) Financial Math(A) Econ courses: Intermediate micro and marco( A+, A), game theory(A+), econometrics(B-), Honors Seminar (A), and some field econ courses, all A's. Grad courses: First year Micro (A- A-) econometrics(A-) Research exp: 2 years of RA for a professor at Harvard after graduation, seminar course research paper LoRs: One from my supervisor, one from my seminar professor, and one from my math lecturer. Should be good SOP: standard, but labor on it quite a bit. I am applying 2 from MIT, stanford, UMich, Yale, UCB, UCLA, Brown, UPenn, BU. Concern: W3.5 in GRE a bit worries me. And seems nothing really stands out either. Didn't take real analysis and topology, don't know if functional analysis counts as one. Now everything is settled down, any idea of the range I should be expecting?[/h]