UZW

Future admission is not random if you get a good RAship. If you are working for someone big at NBER, say Chetty or someone like that, and you put in a good effort, you will get in at Harvard and MIT. That's actually the route a lot, possibly the majority, of the admits to those schools take. But those jobs are tough to land. Less prestigious RAships, like the Fed or something, are a totally different thing. So if you don't have a really prestigious one lined up, I'd take the admissions.

You should do quite well, particularly if you went to Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. I would apply to the top 15 and hope for top 5.

Stanford doesn't make unfunded offers.

Reading a couple links like this really gives all the information you need to know. Many of the posts here in essence say either 'Do committees make exceptions for people like me?' or 'Should I do x or an alternative very similar to x?' The correct answer to the first is almost always no and the answer to the second is almost always that it doesn't matter. The responses that say otherwise are usually naive or delusional.

Stanford has Niederle, Roth, Sprenger, Bernheim, and an economics lab that is funded in perpetuity.

This is a delusional piece of advice. A 3.5 might be a decent GPA, but there are a huge number of people applying for a tiny number of slots at top five programs. I don't know about top 20, but my guess is that a 3.5 is still going to hurt you. Also, your research in environmental sciences is not relevant and won't help you in the application process. You should RA in economics. That will maximize your success.

You could not work that hard for three more years, get the PhD, and leave for a private sector job.

The gain is small because it won't help you with any undergraduate research. You're not going to write a micro theory paper. You'll just run some regressions with a minimal understanding of econometrics like 99% of undergraduate researchers (including me). The material in the first course of grad micro is pretty far removed from what is being done currently, anyways. Preparation for undergrad research is a very bad reason for taking that class. The better rationale would be that it would make your application significantly stronger. I don't think that's true either. You'll maybe take one more graduate course before you apply. Doesn't make a big difference, doing well in one course is a strong enough signal. The likely outcome for someone with almost no experience with math as of May is that you'll get an AB or B in one of the courses, which is a definite setback for your applications. Grad micro at a top 15 program is much more difficult than the first semester of analysis. (Bear in mind that I took both of these exact courses.) I had a difficult semester balancing stochastics, grad micro, and a lit class, and I am very good at taking courses. Granted, I did lots of things outside of the classroom as well. Lastly, the professor this fall is not who you want to take it with.

I think it would be wisest to listen to someone who was in nearly your exact situation and did something that worked out nicely. A lot of advice on this board gets passed on for years despite being of questionable origin. It's your decision, but don't base too much on posts that are just some outsider's educated guess. You seem enamored with the idea of taking these courses at once, so this will be the last I'll say: don't do it. It's a big risk with minimal gain.

I'm not sure what you're asking. It is pretty broad to ask what economics research is about. If you don't have any experience reading papers, a good place to start would be on a blog like http://economiclogic.blogspot.com/ You could read a few posts, see what the general idea of some papers are, and then try to read as much of the actual papers as you are able to understand. You could also pull up some issues of American Economic Review or the Quarterly Journal of Economics and skim the abstracts of titles that interest you.

Not sure what the OP's situation is, but for anyone else out there, this is a question you should be asking before deciding to apply to PhD programs, not after.

1. I am pretty sure I went to the same school as you. 2. I would not do this. It may be a good approximation of a grad course load, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Good grades should be your top priority. This is a risky strategy. 3. As general advice, I'd recommend a stochastics/advanced probability course over analysis II. (I'm assuming analysis II is mostly functional/vector analysis.) The implicit function theorem is big in economics, but you can learn it quickly. Markov chains and other concepts in stochastics are more varied and show up in more models, particularly dynamic models.

Sending emails to people you don't know and networking are not the same thing. One is very helpful (provided you have some sort of qualifications that can be communicated or demonstrated using that connection). One is not.

Do whatever you want to do. Stop once you stop wanting to do it. Don't put any pressure on yourself.

Just so you guys don't confuse anyone if you end up there...http://www4.uwm.edu/...www,wisc.edu

Several people out of UW-Madison were admitted to top five econ programs this year. (Including one certified Madison towny.) I turned down WashU to go to Madison (er my parents' checkbook turned it down for me), and I'm glad it worked out that way in the end. Madison's a beautiful and unique city. Between downtown, the lakes, and Big Ten sports, it's a wonderful place to be a student. And yes, there will be plenty of parties. Madison will also have better opportunities than WashU (the econ faculty at WashU is not close to as good, the PhD program is not close to as good, and the undergraduate economics has a reputation for a lack of rigor), but, that said, they won't be placed in your lap like they might be at a smaller school. Some get intimidated by having to work for these opportunities; others think it's good training for the rest of your life. All that said, if your goal is just to get into a good PhD program in four year (you have a lot more figured out at 18 than most), Northwestern is the best school on your list. http://www.education.wisc.edu/images/soe-central-home-slideshow/aerial_uw_17-35mm11_6861.jpg?sfvrsn=11

You should definitely go to Berkeley.

I think it's reasonable to look into your expected career outcomes before committing to a PhD. The thread title, though, is a little disturbing. Worrying about your chances of obtaining different levels of prestige five years down the line is silly. Academics isn't a competition to be won, whether you're looking a colleges, grad schools, or jobs. I would relax and think about what makes you happy in life rather than worrying about if you'll be viewed as a failure (by who exactly, anyways?) in the future. Edit: After reading the post and not just the thread title, this doesn't seem like such an unhealthy line of questioning anymore. But I'll leave up what I said, since I think this forum needs a bit of that around this time of year.

They're certainly good schools. But you specifically addressed your advice to people from top tier publics and second tier privates, and these schools are in that category. Just wanted to give a more optimistic perspective. I also know of many people from top tier publics who have gotten jobs at the Chicago Fed with resumes that would not have placed them in top ten economics programs, so I don't think that that is a prohibitive barrier either. For the schools that Peot addresses, anyways.

Tempering your expectations is probably a good idea, but it sounds like you had an abnormal experience with the small number of US undergrads on your flyouts. I met people from several publics--UNLV, Minnesota, UNC (x2), UW, Cal, Arizona,UCLA (x2), Indiana, etc.-that had multiple top five offers. Some had worked as an RA, some were straight out of undergrad. I can't speak to branch campuses, but it's certainly possible to do quite well out of public universities. I think if you work as an RA, you can really overcome any public disadvantage. If you talk to your advisors, make a good plan, and work (extremely) hard, most barriers aren't prohibitive.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Large public, top 15 econ, located on an isthmus Undergrad GPA: 4.0/4.0 Type of Grad: grad micro Grad GPA: 4.0 GRE: 800/690/5.5 Math Courses: 11 proof based courses, several in analysis, probability, stochastics, measure theory, topology, math stats Econ Courses: pretty typical, plus the one semester of grad micro Other Courses: went fairly far in the psych major Letters of Recommendation: the three most famous economists who I had worked with, including the grad micro teacher. I knew one well, but my advisors really emphasized have tenured professors writing letters, so that was my top priority. Research Experience: RA for an auction project, RA for an education project, thesis, research class Teaching Experience: none Research Interests: everything SOP: bland Other: extensive community involvement, top score in the grad class, a couple best in the department awards, a couple research grants, above average tennis player RESULTS: Acceptances: top ten minus Harvard, was waitlisted for funding at MIT Waitlists: Rejections: Harvard What would you have done differently? From talking to people, it sounds like working for two years at NBER/the fed is a good way to improve your chances at the top two. However, that is two years of your life that you won't get back, and I am pretty set on going into academics, so I'm happy with my decision to apply this year. I'm posting this because I have not seen a profile quite like mine on here before and I think it could be a helpful gauge for people at large publics.

There is no chance whatsoever that John Kennan looks at this forum. However, this should not stop you from being terrified of him. Great teacher, but maybe the most intimidating person I've ever met.

I did undergrad at Wisconsin. I can vouch for it as a fun and beautiful place to live, but would probably be more helpful if you had some specific questions. Here's a link the the university's extensive photo library, which could help you get a feel for the campus and surrounding area. Photo Library « University Communications « UW-Madison