YaSvoboden

Hi. I don't get on here often anymore. I remember you from a few years ago. What you are describing isn't uncommon. Life happens, and it's hard to know everything that a Ph.D. entails going into it. Previous recommenders are fine. A more recent professional reference would be okay. Getting a letter from your first program could help a lot. Schools will be interested in what happened, and assurance from someone at that program could go a long way. Your personal statement will probably be much better at this point too. You know what you are getting into and still want to do it. You can message me if you'd like.

Usually more in Jan and Feb.

Still a crapshoot. And those things alone do not make you highly competitive. They are good, but some exposure to research and a successful researcher as a letter writer are very important too.

I'm in accounting, but I'll take a shot at your question. At a minimum, you need probably 6 courses. Calc 1, 2, 3, Linear Algebra, Intro to stats (calculus based), Intro to probability (Calc) You could also really use a proof based class or two. Real analysis would be the standard, but there are several courses that look like an intro to proofs, i.e. bridge to abstract mathematics. These would meet the math minimum for most finance PhDs. I think a full bachelor's degree would be overkill. The same courses would also be good prep for the MIT micromasters. I hadn't heard of that program, but it seems good. If you could have contact with the professors and possibly get a letter of recommendation then it would be really helpful. I will also say that microeconomics is very necessary for a PhD. Macro is a big deal if you go into asset pricing. It looks like MIT has a couple courses that would be really good in their DEDP micromasters. I hope that helps.

There is variance in the amount of math required for sure. Behavioral / experimental is less math intensive, but will require building on psychological theory. Programs that have more of a behavioral emphasis can have less math intensive coursework as well. The PhD Micro and econometrics classes are the biggest math hurdle in most programs. If you don't have to go through those, it will be easier in some ways. I could go into more detail, but need more context.

Congrats! There is a lot of focus on R1, and I don't think that's wrong. But people should know that life at a mid-tier university in an area you like is really good.

Honestly, below 700 will be a problem at a lot of schools. If your are thinking top 10, I would put that number at more like 750. Quant is more important, but both have to be very good to get a score that high.

Yes, you should mention it. Most applications ask for all post-secondary transcripts, so that would be included. A letter from one of the professors at the old program would probably be necessary. It's not terribly rare to take a second stab at a PhD program, but you need to explain it.

Welcome! This is a stressful time. You should definitely get an admit from that many interviews, but interview costs are lower, so maybe schools are giving out more. I don't know about Yale's yield rate. You would think it's high, because it's Yale, but they are probably admitting some of the same people as Harvard, NYU, Stanford, etc. and people could choose those places. The econ subforum here has a lot of stuff from Finance PhDs sometimes. I haven't checked in on it recently. Hang in there. Things will start resolving soon.

I'm sure this will vary. For most, I would guess that you are expected to be there in person, but they will be flexible. We had a first year come in this past year with visa issues. Everything was remote anyway, so he just joined in from his home country. The fall should have more in person activities, and I would expect PhD seminars to have fairly high priority for that because there is an advantage in being face to face.

Congratulations on where you are. My wife was pregnant with our first when I started my PhD and we had kids the second summer and third summer. So 3 kids in the first 3 years. It was hard, but doable. My wife didn't work and we actually lived pretty comfortably. I was in the Midwest, which really helped. I rented the whole time. An apartment to start and then moved into a 4 bed house that we rented and got a good deal on. I considered buying early on, but am happy I didn't. My family situation changed enough that I wouldn't have bought the right house. Also, I was able to rent a bigger place than I could have bought. My university did have child care available. I didn't use it, but another student did and I think it was like $1,400 a month per kid. Something to consider is healthcare. I had an offer from a school that covered my health insurance 100%, but adding family insurance was like 6k/year. Which isn't a terrible deal, but a lot of money as a student. The school I went to covered 85% of the premiums for my family, so it was quite affordable. We actually ended up qualifying for Medicaid after having a kid, so it wouldn't have mattered for too long anyway. SNAP, WIC, and the EITC were other benefits of remaining low income while having kids. It created a pretty strong incentive for my wife not to work, but that's probably what we would have chosen anyway. I just mention this because it sounds like you aren't sure if your wife will be working. You can PM me if you want details about this kind of stuff. Taking out some loans isn't a big deal if you have to. Definitely talk to students with families at prospective universities. You can even go to other departments in the B School, because the details will be pretty similar between programs. That's money. Another issue is time. A PhD can easily fill every waking moment. You have to put in a lot of time, but you have to carve out time for other stuff. Make time for your family, spending time with your kid, etc. You will definitely regret not doing this. Also, you need to make some time for yourself. I didn't do this and it really ended up getting to me near the end of the program. Carve out time on a regular basis for a little exercise and doing something you enjoy that isn't mentally taxing. You'll be much more productive and a better husband / father if you are mentally healthy. TM's advice on boundaries sounds good. I'm happy to answer more questions, but students at prospective universities will be your best resource.

I agree with the above. Both are great options and where you will do best depends on how well interests align with potential dissertation chairs along with factors like location preference, how well you get along with your cohort, location preference, etc.

Congratulations! Those are some great choices. I think the choice is between BC and Minnesota. Maryland is good, but doesn't have as large of a faculty and doesn't have as good of a record of placement. I went back and looked at your original profile. If you are interested in banking and debt contracting, Minnesota is one of the best schools you can go to. The strong theory training will really help in that area too, as the empirics are very driven by theory. I personally would lean towards the faculty at BC, but that speaks to my research interests. The lack of placement history is somewhat concerning, but they have great faculty. I would actually be more concerned about how they are teaching the Micro theory and metrics courses. Minnesota has a good econ PhD program to leverage for those things, BC's econ PhD isn't quite as good. Of course, the courses that the business students take may be much better at one over the other. I didn't find metrics from the econ department to be too useful. Ask current students about this stuff. BC also is in the Boston area. I don't know anything about the dynamics, but having so many other good schools around might be an advantage. Again, current students are a good resource here. I think it comes down to preferences and who you can envision working with. I lean towards suggesting Minnesota for you, but it's close.

I'm in accounting, so my perception might not be perfect for finance, but I would choose Booth and it's not close. A big part of that perception is because Chicago controls JAR, which is a top 3 journal in accounting. I believe Oxford controls RFS. If there is some really useful connection with LBS there it might help sway things, but I doubt it. Chicago has the current editor of JF and people on boards at every good journal. I'm also American, so there could be some bias there. I think most people would say Chicago.

This very well may be true for USC. I don't have any insight into what they are doing. However, I know that it isn't rare for programs to start looking at applications before the deadline, especially if it's a later one like 1/15. I wouldn't put everything off until the last minute. Most of the work is repeated for schools anyway, so once you start turning in applications, keep it up and finish.

You should ask this in the econ forum. To me it seems like a reference list would be fine, but not necessary. I would probably just leave it out.

This question definitely has been asked before, but the search function on here isn't great. I remember that a user named Hedgequant wrote about 2 very different experiences in finance interviews a few years ago. I found his profile, but I haven't looked for the post I'm talking about. I think it was titled "a tale of two interviews" or something like that: https://www.www.urch.com/forums/members/hedgequant.html The answers to "Why PhD?" and "Why us?" should include some references to research. You should be familiar with the broad areas of finance research and the big people in those areas at the schools that you apply to. I didn't experience anyone asking about a specific research idea, but it could come up. It is expected that most people will change the details of their research interests throughout a program, so they shouldn't expect you to be too specific. A lot of the time interviews overlap with research presentations, but that probably isn't happening this year.

I never actually worked in advisory, but it seems like a more interesting option than the other two. For an internship, it doesn't matter much. I would do what you think is most interesting. Passing the CPA exam is a good thing and the CPA credential definitely has some value. Can you get credentialed without actually taking a couple of years to work? I seem to recall it is possible in some states, but I never ended up taking the exam. The way I view it, the CPA exam is a pass / fail. As long as you pass all of the sections, it doesn't matter much what you got, unless you get an Elijah Watts Sells award or something like that. The CPA exam takes a lot more time than the GMAT. I would take a decent GMAT course and not do more than that. I can't really say for the CPA exam, except, you should definitely aim to pass each section. 23 credits is a lot, even if some are the easier intro courses. I would probably take Calc 3 and Linear Algebra and push a couple other classes back. If you decide that you want to go into a PhD as quickly as possible, it might be worth dropping out of your internship and taking some classes over the summer and trying to RA. I can't say that is definitely the best course though, so definitely ask other opinions before doing that. Hope that helps. Feel free to stay in touch.

It looks like you are off to a good start. Are you doing your MAcc at the same school going from Spring 2021 - Fall 2021? I went straight through undergrad, to a MAcc and on to a PhD. I think it works well, but work experience can definitely be helpful. If you end up doing anything related to audit, work experience in audit is very nice. Same is true for tax. If you look at financial reporting / disclosure work, it isn't as necessary to work first. My thinking was that I knew I wanted to go into academia, so why delay. Most people will go for Big 4 work experience, but I have one friend that worked at a mid-size public accounting firm and was able to get broader experience in two years than he would have at one of the huge companies. That can actually be a good way to go too. Do well on the GMAT. I think there are still returns on getting a higher score all the way to the top, so study a bit and do well. If you are testing around 750, aim for that or a bit higher. Courses for the upcoming year: I think the most useful courses I took before the PhD program were the accounting PhD courses I took during my MAcc. It sounds like you are at a PhD granting school. See if you can take the PhD seminars as electives for credit during your MAcc (this is what I did) or sit in on them. Keep in mind that they are at least 3 times as much work as a normal master's level class. This is also a great way to get a good and meaningful letter of recommendation. Next you have methods courses that you can worry about. These are things that will prepare you for the economics and research-type thinking that you do in a PhD. Calc 3 is probably next on the list, along with linear algebra. Both constitute basic math classes that you need to do economics at a graduate level. Next, I would go for an econometrics course. This will be very helpful in understanding research papers and statistical inference. Probability and Statistics from the math department are useful to take. These take a calculus-based approach to statistics that you probably haven't seen. (I'm assuming your stats courses so far have been from the business school. These are quite watered down.) Beyond that, you could go for an advanced microeconomics class and an intermediate macro. There are more math and econ classes you could take, but I've already listed quite a bit and anything else would go beyond what I have personally taken. If you are at a research school, it is common to have outside speakers come in and present working papers. This is a great way to see what accounting research is and how other academics critique it. Obviously, flying people in is different right now, so this might be happening virtually. Check in on these and attend if you can. Research Experience: Work as an RA would be helpful. I think the PhD courses and the colloquium that I mentioned are actually the correct start on research experience. It is hard to get research experience without exposure to research. Getting an idea of the current research and being able to express what kind of research you want to do is a good start for admissions. Letters: Some of the things that I have mentioned will help with letters. Having been a good student, should get you decent letters as well. RA experience will also help. I would suggest getting a letter from the best known person that you can. It is tough to know who that is sometimes, but it is usually some sort of endowed chair professor at your school. If you want to message me and tell me the school, I can give you my opinion on who that might be. Of course, a letter with really good content is better than a boilerplate letter from someone good. All else equal, a bigger name is better. I think that is about it for now. I'm happy to answer more questions that you might have. Be sure to reach out to faculty at your school for advice too. They might be able to get more specific. Also: Check out this site if you haven't - Phdwiki

I'm happy to hear that they are behind you. I wasn't trying to judge or discourage in any way, just wanted to provide relevant information. Connections do matter quite a bit. Top Australian schools have great professors, so I'm sure you have some good people in your corner. Feel free to ask more questions and please come back and share your results and experience for future applicants. Good luck!

I'm in a different field, so I can't comment too much on your chances. I have seen people with low UG GPAs get into top 10-15 schools. Your experience since undergrad looks great, but I would probably expand your list a little. I am more confident in saying that PhD programs are tough on your mental health. I had issues and I know a lot of people that struggle with depression and anxiety throughout the program. It sounds like you have a better grasp on whatever it was now. Just pay attention to how you are doing mentally and take care of yourself.

It would be really weird for a professor to reach out with something that positive and not mean it.

For accounting, there are some outside options, but you don't see it too often. I've known people that have placed in banks and other types of jobs that don't really require a PhD. You can look at industry options for Econ PhDs and those should be open to you if you develop the right skills during your program. The only industry that I have seen actively recruit accounting PhDs is litigation consulting. Firms like Cornerstone and Brattle hire accounting PhDs somewhat regularly.

Hi, this isn't reddit. The thesis based MAcc is a good thing. Does your school have a PhD program? I took some PhD classes during my MAcc and I think that helped me a lot. Your GPA isn't great and your work experience is minimal. Would you have letter writers willing to talk about your ability as a student and potential as a researcher? A good letter from a successful researcher can go a long way. Do you have much exposure to accounting research? Do you know what it is or what area you would be interested in? It is difficult to narrow down programs without an idea of your research interests. With a good GMAT, you might have a chance at programs outside of the top 50, but they tend to like work experience.

Hi Filo, Assuming you can get 720+ on the GMAT, you look like a good candidate for those top 20-40 schools you listed. I would even shoot into the 10-20 range. Here are my comments on the weaknesses you listed: I have little work experience with a large company. - Not that important. You have a CPA from your country and a little experience. I can still improve my quant and econ background. - Taking econ stats and econometrics could be useful. Overall, your math background is pretty good for what you are aiming at. I assume you are looking at doing archival research. My masters isn’t a MAcc like those of most accounting PhD students (I don't have the resources to pursue one) - A MAcc isn't actually that great of preparation for an accounting PhD. Knowing the financial accounting rules is good, but your CPA implies that you have that. The only reason I would recommend a MAcc for you would be to address point 5. I can improve my GMAT (working on this) - Yeah, higher is better. Make sure you can get 50 or 51 on the quant and as high as you can on the verbal. No rockstar LORs - I think this is actually your biggest problem, and I'm not sure how to address it for you. I assume the top school in your country has researchers. Did they at least do accounting PhDs at decent American (or possibly top international) schools? That would help a lot. Can they realistically speak to your ability to do accounting research? Do you think you could reach out to an accounting professor or two at your master's school? You could give them a brief background (a little less than you wrote here) and mention that you were a student there and are interested in accounting PhDs and ask for their advice. The 3 schools you listed all have good faculties and PhD programs, though CMU has had some issues. Little research experience - Most people don't have much research experience going into programs. You have some exposure. Look at newer issues of TAR, JAR, and JAE to get an idea of recent research. SSRN is a source that is actually more up to date. The fact that you know earnings management and disclosure shows you have at least some exposure. I hope that helps. I can answer more questions or give more detail, but I don't get on this board as much as I used to.