Daniel

econjobrumors.com Just kidding! First, my profile: Undergrad: Large state school, Econ program ranked in the 40-70 range Major: BS Econ Overall GPA: 3.45, Econ GPA 3.50 Grad: Public Policy M.A, Good school. Grad GPA: 3.67 GRE: First time (2008) 720Q 570V 4.5AW, second time (2011) 800Q 650V AW-Pending Math Courses: Calculus I (A-), Calculus II ©, 3 Stat classes (third one with calc and programming) A-, A-, A. Post Grad: Linear Algebra (A), Calculus III (A), Differential Equations (A), Math for Econ I & II (A, A) Econ courses: The whole undergrad she-bang, assorted A's and B's, and A's and B's in the core (Micro, Macro, Econometrics). Grad Micro and Macro (Master's level) - (A, A). Research Experience: 1. Currently doing some research with a Professor at my undergrad institution. This is key. 2. MA thesis, some econ, but nothing on the level of an econ academic paper. Other Experience Think Thank internships, private sector internship (microfinance).This is key as well 1. My 4 recs are good: All professors from top 10's (one maybe top 15, depending on who you ask). 3 undergrad, 1 from my MA (he's an econ PhD). Anyways, like many others, I was very interested in an Economics PhD. I liked the romantic idea of being a professor, had the utmost respect and admiration for my professors - who were, 99% of the time, amazing teachers, counselors and individuals. I liked doing economic related research, enjoyed writing papers, and hence thought that a PhD would be a natural progression. I worked hard this summer, working on the research project and taking 3 summer classes, and studying for the GRE. While doing actual economic research this summer, I realized: I don't really care for all of this. Time after time, I enjoyed doing policy analysis and private sector work a lot more. Talking to my professors, and with some self-reflexion, I came to the realization that a PhD is not for me. I would be better served by going to the private sector, or the non-profit route. I enjoyed my time in the private sector and think-thanks way better than my time doing research, even when the economic research was supposed to be aligned to my interests. I'll be honest: I was lost after my graduation from my MA. I wasn't really sure what I liked to do, or what I wanted to do. Preparing myself for a PhD seemed to take my mind off the decisions I needed to make. I knew I wasn't going to get into the top 25 schools, and even top 40 would be a stretch, and that definitely played a factor. There's no reason I should toil away for 5-6 years and then settle for a job I won't be that passionate about. In short: I am thankful I realized this now and not after I make commitment to go to school. There is no shame in deciding a PhD is not for you. I've done research, and found there are a lot of economics related things you can do without one, like policy analysis, private sector work (finance, banking, etc...) that can be closer to what an undergrad thinks economics is. Finally, my advice: If you can, try to do an internship at a non-profit, one in the private sector, and spend some time doing RA work for a professor, even if it is for free. It will give you a much clearer picture to what you want to do with your life. The point of this was to others (PhD's and non) to chime in and discuss the issue of "Hey, an econ PhD is not for me", or the other side of this: "Hey, this is why I realized it was for me" Best of Luck, Daniel.

It really depends what multilateral development bank or intergovernmental organization you want to work for. The International Monetary Fund hires PhD economists almost exclusively for their senior positions. Non PhD's tend to be support staff - Research Assistants, Office Managers, computer and network experts, etc... They actually expect you to leave after a couple of years and find employment somewhere else or go to school to get the degree. There are some non PhD's there, but they generally have some very relevant and specific experience and knowledge on a specific issue. The World Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank and Asian Development Bank hires people without them, but they generally have a lot of experience on narrow areas. They hire young people as support staff, but are also expected to leave after a few years. However, they have been moving towards hiring more PhD's in recent years. Finally, there is a very strong "glass ceiling" (more like ballistic grade glass) in all of these orgs between junior and senior staff, and movement from junior to senior is very rare without leaving to another organization or getting schooling. The UN is a clusterf**k and hire however knows someone inside (this is true of every org, but more so in the UN). If you are an economist, avoid at all costs.

Go to the best school that offers you money... Cambridge is great anyways. Loans can be a *****.

To work at the IMF, WB, and the many regional and national development banks you only need a PhD if your title says "Economist" or a variation of such. Many who work at these have a Master's at most, since they will be doing policy implementation instead of actual economic empirical research (although many do). The IMF seems to do more economic research than the others though. However, most of the top brass at IMF (chief economists, section chiefs, country economists etc...) do have PhD's in econ or statistics - WB and regional banks have moved in that direction, although Masters in Applied Econ are more common (Development, policy, commerce). As for the MD of the IMF, it's mainly a political position on par with the General Secretary of the UN and President of the WB (who is headed by Robert Zoellick, another "non-economist"). Lots of hand-shaking, conferences and travel, and the executive decisions they make are mainly handed down from large donor governments, or asked for by the chief economists. Finally, let's not kid ourselves. DSK was an economist by training, but he was a career politician. I was hoping for Agustín Carstens of Mexico. Chicago Economist, and he managed to minimize the effects of the recession in Mexico as their Central Bank Governor. He was also the Deputy MD of the IMF under Rodrigo Rato (DSK's predecessor).

From what I have gathered here and talking to professors/grad students, admissions to top programs sometimes resembles the lottery. You have done quite well, getting very good grades and you seem to be poised to nail the GRE (assuming you practice for it a bit). But most applicants at these schools also have amazing grades, perfect GRE's, and many have RA'ed with star professors (as you have). In short, its up to letter writers and the SOP. And even then, it's hard to set applicants apart. Definitely apply to the top 10 schools, but apply to a couple of safety (15-30) schools (those are my reaches...hehe!) that match your interests. Top departments are generally well funded and have good professors in virtually every field, but as you go "down the ladder", you need to be more selective of schools. In any case, you seem to be on the right path. Keep it up! Out of the "Top 10", and given your interests, check these schools out (if I am wrong, please correct me!): Macro: Minnesota, UCLA, Rochester. Labor: Michigan Finance: Duke (Fuqua)

You should be good for those schools. Remember that the SOP can be used to explain stuff like this (explain that you are taking RA in the Spring, etc...).Given your grades, AdComs probably won't have reason to suspect you will struggle with it. Also, since you are limiting yourself to the Boston area, why not apply to Harvard/MIT? You never know!

Thanks for the input! I'm leaning towards RA right now. Seems to be an agreement across the board that RA>Micro>proofs. Is there a book, or online source, that teaches proof-writing that you guys recommend? I'm willing to go over it before the fall term starts. Again, thanks for the input.

Well, I've taken the advice given here to heart and have been working on improving my math background: Multivariate Calculus, LA, Diff Eq (over the summer) and some Math Econ courses (through the fall). However, I have the opportunity to either take a Intro to Proofs (called Intro to Advance Math) class, Real Analysis (Called Advanced Calculus I) or Grad Micro (Micro Theory I) this fall, to be completed just as applications are due. Textbooks: RA: The Way of Analysis, Strichartz, et al. Proofs:A Guide to Proof-Writing by Morash Micro: Price Theory and Applications, Hirshleifer Which one do you guys think is better?

Transferring would be a bad idea. And your profile is pretty solid: Just keep it up! Your plan seems to be a great way to prepare yourself for a PhD. Math and economics core is there, so you are definitely in the right track (100+ credits in 2 years is nothing short of outstanding!) Just 2 things: 1) Do not stretch yourself too thin to the point were your grades will suffer. I feel it is better to get an A in grad Micro than B's in Grad Micro and Grad Econometrics. 2) As for the letters, look for summer internships and research opportunities with professors at institutions that match your interests. Great way to get research experience and good letters. If not, a good and deep LOR from your professors (even if outside of top 20) is more valuable to Ad-coms than a luke-warm "plain vainilla" letter from a Nobel Prize winner.

It is important to customize each letter to the schools you will be applying to. I found myself writing 3 "model" SOP's - one 500 words, one around 800, and one around 1100 - which highlight my background, strengths, my deficiencies and what I'm doing to improve myself before I start the program. To customize, I will write 2-3 paragraphs about my specific interest to that school, and the value I bring to each institution.

Be safe. Take the TOEFL. And if you are not doing as well, this is an exam you can prepare for. Take your time, practice, and then take it.

Your years 1-3 classes can be done in a year! Fall: Calc 1. Spring: Calc II, LA. Summer: Calc III, DE. (Most schools offer at least a couple of sessions, take one class in each). Finally, you can complete your MA quicker if you take summer classes as well.

If your goal is to move up the corporate ladder, then leaving work for 5 years to complete a PhD is not necessarily the best way to go about it. That being said, is that second master's really worth it? It seems your Master's had a strong finance component to it. In any case, it really is something you should think about in great detail. Talk to individuals in your industry, preferably in senior positions, to see whether or not a second master's will put you ahead of the curve.

Watched it yesterday. You can watch it on HBO On Demand (in the US at least), and they are playing it a couple of times a day (caught a bit in the morning, the rest at night).

Hangover 2! Haha! Better yet: Besides your favorite movies, what movies feature economists? A Beautiful Mind (although Nash is a trained mathematician) The Visitor I guess "Too Big to Fail", the new HBO movie.