polarized

Also, 32 is no big deal at a B-school.

What do you mean by "the strategy conversation is a non starter in some departments" Rsaylors? You mean as opposed to OT or an opposition to macro in general? Anyway it's definitely true that strategy "rankings" are idiosyncratic and a top 10 isn't exactly clear. What you'll find is that some of the top schools are very disciplinary and you'll basically be an applied economist or sociologist. Make sure this is actually what you want (it should be obvious by looking at professors cv's I think).

This is great.

Carnegie Mellon is the gold standard for this I believe. I'd expect that the programs stronger in Bayesian stats would lend themselves to this (Duke, UWashington, Columbia) as well. Here's the CMU program: Home | Department of Social and Decision Sciences | Carnegie Mellon University

Has anyone ever seen a resume or c.v. from someone with an M.A.in Economics from Harvard and no PhD? They must exist right?

That "derailing" post was incredibly helpful, ARE. That's great information about the NSF HMs. I also thought the Chi-Batjik back and forth was insightful, pinpointing exactly what the NSF does and does not do. I thought Chi made a persuasive case that the NSF can "tick the box" on research and I hope he's right. Also just a few notes, my UG isn't literally unknown, but yeah there are no hotshot researchers to speak of. I hope I'll be considered on the basis of the masters program which is pretty well known and quite good (I'll have one or two courses with "stars" during the program.) Also while Fulbrights to some areas are not all that competitive, a Fulbright UK is extremely competitive (the applied/selected stats are about the same as a Marshall from what I've seen.) For what it's worth. Thanks so much for your help everyone. I'll definitely post my results next year as they come in.

Thanks for the MIT advice. I'll definitely be gunning for the NSF this year so I'll apply to MIT and just see what happens. As for the other suggestion about Michigan vs. Caltech, I expect that you're probably right, but because of my interests in experimental econ I was hoping Caltech might be worth a shot (from looking at admits they seem a little unpredictable anyway.) Did you suggest Michigan because it's a bit lower down the top 20 or because of something specific about the way they evaluate candidates? Cheers!

I definitely appreciate the opinion. As the advice goes there's not much I can think of doing that would eliminate the risk at this point (I'm open to suggestions of course.) Regarding professors there's not a track record for my school in economics (we've had Rhodes scholars and LSE admits in politics recently, but not much from economics.)

I hope you're right, you are the guru after all :)

Batjik, I think top 5 is probably out of the question because I'll be up against people without these question marks, but I'm gunning for Columbia/Caltech and wondering if there's wiggle room. The economics NSF speaks a bit to research (since I was judged on my research proposal), but you're more or less correct about the professors. Two of them write about research ability, but they are not known at all and not even actively researching. While at the moment of application I won't have grades in advanced courses, I should be able to provide them in early Jan before the decisions are made. Gard level micro, macro and econometrics (green).

Thank you for the encouraging words. Because of the timing of the application cycle I'll only be able to provide the performance of the first term (in fact when I apply to phds I won't be quite finished with term one, but I'll send the grades in later) so the MS won't be a full MS when they're considering me. I expect that's not uncommon though.

Hi All. I'm basically wondering if a few unique strengths in my profile can make up for some thinness in required areas. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Undergrad Economics at relatively unknown LAC in the US Undergrad GPA: 4.0/4.0 GRE: 730V 800Q 5.5AWA Math Courses: Calc Sequence I-III(All A's), Matrix Algebra (A), Proofs (A), Econometrics (A), Bayesian Econometrics (A) Econ Courses: Everything standard, All A's Letters of Recommendation: unknown economists but they know me well and the letters are glowing. Research Experience: I got an NSF honorable mention for a research proposal. Otherwise nothing major (I studied at an LAC so opportunities for research were non-existent). Research Interests: experimental economics, decision theory, bayesian econometrics, methodology SOP: very solid, i think Concern: I have the bare minimum in math with no opportunity to take more. That said, the requirements are met (MIT requires an "upper division, proofs based course" rather than real analysis, which my school just didn't offer) for instance. The better news: I got a Fulbright scholarship to get a masters in economics this next year at a top institution overseas (top 30-50 department in the world for economics, depending on the ranking.) I will do well there. Are there top 20 institutions that'd take a chance on me for a PhD? What do you guys think?

I did a site search of the urch forums for variants of the phrase "love graduate school" and there were no results. I wonder is there anyone who genuinely "enjoys grad school"***, particularly an econ phd? If so where do/did you go? Is there anything about yourself that you think made the difference? This isn't meant to be naive-- even if there are such people I would expect them to be the exception and not the rule. But I also wonder if it would be instructive to know what makes a person enjoy grad school (rather than just succeed in it). ***0 results for this phrase too. maybe I'm just searching incorrectly :)