Khansian

Throw042, have you had any econ/econ-related research experience before, outside of the classroom (e.g. RA)? If not, it's entirely possible you may not enjoy it. However, you should get at least some feel for it after two years through your field courses (in which you read papers) and through your own research (a lot of programs have second-year paper requirements). Note that an MA probably has little value in industry unless it's from a university with a strong brand name in the private sector. Sure, there are plenty of people who have been relatively successful with an MA Econ, but I think those are usually individuals who have valuable technical skills and would have been able to get similar jobs without the degree. The MA really just serves as proof to your employer that you didn't fall off the Earth for two years. Is it not possible for you to pick up on your business after two years of a grad program? Could you expend some minimal effort or delegate it to someone else to keep the business alive in the meantime? Personally, the option value (as Zeno put it) of PhD programs would be worth it for me if I were open to going back into the private sector with an MA. But, in your case, the opportunity cost is far greater if you need to kill your business in order to go to grad school. For what it's worth - and I don't know whether this strengthens or weakens your case for going to grad school - I really don't want to do anything but a PhD anymore. And this isn't for a lack of options; I have a good job in finance and recently got admitted to a good business school (not PhD). But I realized pretty quickly that I wanted to be in academia, and the year I 'wasted' working was worth it to me since it confirmed that I wouldn't be as happy in industry; plus, it provided a back-up career path in case I didn't get into a program that worked for me. If I had gone straight to grad school after undergrad I think I would've always wondered whether the grass was greener on the other side.

Many people talk about 'research ideas and interests' before grad school, but I'm really unsure of what that means. I'm starting this Fall and I know what field I'm interested in and I have many big questions, but how do I know any of these can translate into real research questions without first learning more? I've read stuff about the general direction of my field and some of the seminal papers, but I don't really want to start doing a thorough review of the current literature since that may stifle my creativity. Also, I spend my entire day debating myself over issues/questions that I come up with, but it seems like 99% of the problems can already be 'explained' by the basic micro theory I've learned or are too vague to have an answer. Perhaps I have an overly simplistic understanding of the theory or I simply don't recognize the flaws in my reasoning. But I don't think I've ever come up with an idea or made an observation that makes me say, "wow, I really don't know how to explain this using existing theory and/or empirical literature."

In terms of the choice of courses, I think Econometrics is preferable to Probability given that you've already taken Stats. But as for the structure, you know your strengths and preferences better than us. If I was in your shoes, I would probably choose B. In my experience, macro and econometrics were the most time-consuming of this set, so I would avoid taking those two together. My intro to proofs class was pretty easy, but I can imagine that on a compressed schedule it could be challenging; sometimes proofs just require a little bit of time and luck. You probably saw some proofs in linear algebra, so use that as a gauge for your ability.

Okay, seriously? Payscale? What kind of budding economists are you guys? 1) Only bachelor's degree holders are included in the survey. This means that a school that has a higher proportion of its graduates interested in pursuing graduate/professional degrees than another - otherwise identical - school will have a lower ranking. UChicago is well-known for being a launching pad to graduate/professional school. 2) Universities that are geared toward engineering and other technical fields have an advantage in this ranking. Again, since only BA/BS holders are considered, a university that produces a relatively large number of engineering grads will be ranked higher, ceteris paribus. 3) Cost of living. Notice that many of the 'non-prestigious' schools that are, nonetheless, highly ranked by Payscale tend to be clustered in areas with notoriously high cost of living, e.g. NYC. These small schools are more likely to also have their grads cluster in the same region, relative to elite schools that send their grads around the world.

Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (haven't read it) might be a good place to start if you like IO. Smith and Marx are very broad, so they're good for pretty much everything from labor to macro to public policy. I'd say Friedman is more in the political philosophy space, with emphasis on IO (imperfect competition and government intervention), labor (welfare), and monetary policy. Oh, and if you're interested in inequality, there's a book by Thomas Piketty that just came out and is getting a ton of attention.

And for law school apps LSAC handles most of the applications. Letter-writers submit their letters only once onto the site. Many schools have supplemental apps, but it's relatively easy to duplicate things at that point.

Catrina, definitely.

Thanks for the advice! My wife was accepted to Vanderbilt Law just now. In all fairness to UIUC, I do like aspects there as well, and I think the general reputation is a bit stronger. One of my referees has suggested the same. He said that when he's evaluated job market candidates, UIUC was definitely above the bar for consideration (implication that Vandy was often not). Would I be correct in saying you believe Vandy and UIUC are roughly interchangeable, and more important now are individual preferences?

Hi All, Quick question about my choices. I've been accepted to UIUC and Vandy with full funding, and UT-Austin MA with a 75% tuition waiver. My interests are in Micro/Applied Micro, particularly IO. Question #1) I recognize that, generally speaking, most of you would say UIUC>Vandy. While I'm leaning toward UIUC for academic purposes, my S.O. is applying to law school and has a chance at Vandy Law (Vandy Law > UIUC Law). So, my first question is, how big is the difference between UIUC and Vandy? Are UIUC and Vandy close enough in quality that a factor such as this could change the inequality? I also really like many aspects of Vandy (smaller program, seem to be focused on the students, etc.) One can look at placements and all that, but at the end of the day it's hard to tell whether one is observing the value of the program or the quality of its students. Question #2) Is the UT-Austin MA worth it? How far might it move me up the ranks? According to the director at the program, my profile is most similar to a student who got into a Top20 after the MA. However, the MA would not just be costly in time and money, but I would also have to live apart from my S.O. for a year minimum and possibly up to 3 years if she goes to law school elsewhere. Would a PhD from a Top20 be so much better than one from UIUC/Vandy that such an expense and risk is worth it? I've completed a fair amount of master's level coursework, so this MA would be almost purely for signaling purposes. My profile: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/149034-roll-call-2014-a-6.html#post976840 I don't have the strongest profile. However, call it hubris, but I do think there are certain personal circumstances that hurt my record in ways that are not accurate portrayals of my ability. Namely, having no education from 5th-10th grade, working during undergrad, and commuting 4+ hours daily. I didn't discuss this in my SOP, FYI.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Honors Program, B.S. Mathematics (Pure Math concentration) and Economics Honors, from private teaching university w/out Econ. PhD Undergrad GPA: 3.63 overall, +3.9 econ Type of Grad: MA-level courses at my undergrad Grad GPA: GRE: 165Q / 167V / 5.0AW Math Courses: Calculus I-II-III (B,B,B+), Intro Proofs (A), Multivariate Calculus I-II (A, B), Linear Algebra (A), Real Analysis I-II (A, B), Grad Measure Theory (B), ODE (A-), Abstract Algebra (B+), Probability and Statistics I-II-III (B+, B+, A), Grad Mathematical Finance (A-) Econ Courses (grad-level): Advanced Micro (A-), Game Theory (A), Econometrics I-II (A, A-), Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Intro/Intermediate Micro (A, A), Intro/Intermediate Macro (A, A), Behavioral Economics (A), History of Econ. Thought (A) Other Courses: Lots of pre-med courses and honors program courses Letters of Recommendation: Very strong, research supervisor, Stanford PhD; Strong, grad econometrics professor, Chicago PhD; Very Strong, behavioral professor and adviser, Yale PhD; all relatively unknown researchers. Research Experience: 6 months RA at university; summer at national lab doing economic research; data and regression experience working full-time in finance Teaching Experience: None Research Interests: Micro / Applied Micro, particularly IO SOP: Well-written, but nothing special. Concerns: Math grades, non-prestigious university, unknown letter-writers. Other: I attended a seminary for 5 years, so had very little math education before I finished high school in 2 years. Unfortunately, I didn't discuss this in my SOP. Applying to: Mainly in Top 10-30 range, with some outside on both ends

Did you receive this in response to an inquiry from yourself, or was this out of the blue?

I would highly recommend communicating your situation to UPenn, if you have not already done so.

Both are excellent opportunities. But given that the OP feels that his profile is otherwise complete, I feel that an RA position at a prestigious university (say, Chicago) would be preferable to an institutional position (e.g. Chicago Fed) given similar research foci, compensation, location, etc. However, if the OP feels he could benefit from taking additional coursework, then the Fed may be preferable since they provide tuition reimbursement and tend to be very lenient about taking classes (confirm this before making a decision). Also, while RA positions at good universities tend to be well-paid, both positions are good enough that any significant difference in compensation should be taken into account (i.e. I do not think it would be 'unscholarly' to do so).

Georgetown tends to do very well in placing students at international organizations like the World Bank and IMF.

I just flew into Nashville from Chicago (where I'm from) yesterday, and it was surprisingly chilly. But it is generally much much warmer and humid in Nashville. I've never been to California so I can't comment on Davis. Public economic theory seems to be a strength of Vandy. Attrition also seems to be low, but I can't give you an exact figure. UIUC also offers three chances for the prelims so attrition shouldn't be too big a worry there either.