ELMST

This is a rare case in which I agree with the above poster. But I wouldn't even think about a PhD in either until you have at least completed Calc II and Linear Algebra. You don't have to get straight A's, but get them done, and do better than a C. I'm in a mid-ranked ARE program and I watched people with poor math backgrounds drop like flies during the first year.

I suppose it depends on the program you go into and the type of research being done. In my program the Finance PhD students take all the same first year core courses as the Econ students minus the two semesters of Macro. But Micro I-II and Metrics I-II are core requirements for the the finance students. They also take Metrics III-IV in their second year of coursework. I don't know much about the type of research the finance dept. does, but I know their PhD students have similar core requirements as the Econ students.

No one including the OP mentioned a "famous professor" so I'm not sure what dream land you're living in.

Please see Urban Dictionary: sarcasm

Maybe you would like to suggest the OP study history of the american civil war as a better signal.

It seems to me that you are arguing that "if a person can hide their deficiencies by Acing an Econ sequence over doing pretty well in a graduate Math sequence," then that is their best course of action. I think thats dead wrong. And I doubt the Adcoms would disagree.

Who says they don't? You're not addressing the argument. I'm arguing that spending a year in an MS Math program is a better signal than spending a year taking Advanced Micro, Macro and a sequence of Econometrics. Economic theory is not difficult to grasp but proving it mathematically can be challenging. So a strong math background (btw a few B's in graduate level math is not at all bad) is the best signal.

I don't think I ever stated "in all cases" but I will now state that in MOST cases an MS in Math is superior to an MA in Econ. So are you saying that you didn't significantly improve in your second year of graduate work? I know I sure did and most people do. So its not fair of you to claim the OP's grades won't significantly change. Sorry tm but you're just dead wrong and I suspect you're just arguing to argue.

I'm not arguing in Some cases and the OP isn't asking in some cases. After speaking with one of my professors whom is actually a member of the admission committee, he told me that his first question is "how is the applicants math." You're right each applicant is different but the mantra that you speak of "more math is always better" still holds and is not gone in my opinion. Just my opinion and I acknowledge that I could be wrong but this forum is designed for opinions.

Ok well all I have left to say is that I agree to disagree. Actually wait I have one last thing to say...

I respect your guys opinion but I must say I'm surprised by your position.. Raise your hand (so to speak) if you have an MA or MS in anything.

Did the OP from the "Admission Committee" thread ever prove to be legit?? Maybe they'll have greater insight.

You can "what if" all day long but with the limited information given by the OP I still think its simple. Math > Econ. Sorry I'm not trying to incite some lame argument but I just cant help to state what I think is obvious.Btw maybe I should say that I just finished an MA in Econ with a pretty decent gpa (3.74) but a limited math background. Had I focused on just taking math classes or attempted a MS in Stats I believe I would have had stronger application results. Are you really arguing that holding all else equal an MA in Econ is greater than an MS in Math? And remember that with the limited info given we must assume ceteris paribus.

You're right, two anecdotal observations don't make a rule. But an MS in Math still will produce stronger results than an MA in Econ. Simply put. Research interests evolve over time and the OP states they are "Uncertain." So there is no need to start tailoring coursework now to unknown future research interests. I think the OP's application results will be much stronger should they stick with the MS in Math over the MA in Econ. A 3.5ish gpa in MS Math will produce stronger results than a 4.0 in MA Econ. That seems obvious to me. Is it the right path for them? Ultimately that is their decision, but if the OP's true goals are to get into the highest ranking program as possible, then I see no reason why they should switch to Econ. Stick with the math program and rock the GRE and you'll be very pleased with your results.

I'd go with the Math. I knew someone who had almost zero Econ, but a MS in Math from wait for it...University of Utah. She wound up at Princeton. Granted she had to play catch up a little bit in the Econ classes, but nevertheless...Princeton. Yes I said Princeton. Another option, can you dual major? A former classmate of mine, (not from Utah) dual majored in MA Econ/MS Math and is now at MIT. Can you see a common thread here? MS Math rules MA in Econ any day of the week.