ryans

What kind of details? Transcript? Resume/CV? Those kinds of things are standard and have no bearing on the strength of the letter. Good luck.

I received accommodation from my college...I must be lucky in that regard.

If you're publishing something as an undergraduate, you either A) are co-authoring a paper with a professor or B) have a professor at least supervising your progress and work. If you can convince who you're working with that you not only great research potential but also research ability as an undergraduate, than a letter from someone who already won the game of academia (tenure-track professor at a university) speaking highly of your research on your behalf is worth more than any other portion of your application, granted everything else is at least average (GPA,GRE,etc.).

Despite what some are saying, it helps a lot--especially if you can swing a good letter of recommendation out of it.

I would agree with your second point--however basic linear algebra required by economics departments can be taken concurrently with freshman level calculus so I fail to see its purpose in the discussion. I can guarantee you that there are more people at T10 programs who didn't take RA than took RA and did badly--of course, those who are T10 material probably don't have much difficulty with the course and are thus much more likely to do well than the "average" graduate school applicant anyway. It's obvious we aren't seeing eye to eye. We are after all arguing about the benefits of being familiar with a branch of mathematics with limited scope. We can treat the discussion as such without being churlish and getting flustered. It's an interesting argument.

No, I am not trolling--and to clarify, the users "blanket" and "sulebrahim" asked the question I was answering. Actually, having multivariable calculus as the highest level of maths on your transcript-- conditional on the fact that you also did well in it -- doesn't send a signal at all. The kid who aces his math courses and gets a B/B- in RA is worse off than the kid who aces his math courses and never takes RA, isn't he? Adcoms will look at the profile of the latter and have to extrapolate his ability to do the mathematics required for an economics PhD, whereas they already know that the first kid has a relatively high probability of struggling based on his past performance. They aren't going to give the first kid points for simply trying, I can tell you that. I'm not sure where your animosity is coming from, this stance is hardly new--as "clueless" as you may think I am. I'm not saying that it's right, but that's the way the system is set up at this point. There's a reason that "real analysis" is a running joke on EJMR. Maybe we're looking at this from different perspectives--if you're looking to get into T10 programs I think my reasoning stands--if you're aiming 50-100, then I would probably have to agree with you...your familiarity with the coursework will help more than your grade could ever hurt you.

The point is that a B in Real Analysis, or any proofs based math course (including graduate courses) is a negative signal to the adcom. Period. To answer the question--no, nobody will be impressed that you got a B+ in real analysis.

Real Analysis is used moreso for signaling than anything--the material you cover in RA, while good for gaining some mathematical 'proof' intuition and skills, is not necessary for most disciplines outside of theory (which compose the small minority at lower ranked schools)...not to mention that most theory uses mathematics far beyond introductory real analysis anyway (measure/probability theory, etc.). If your options are an application with a B+ with RA or without RA, I'd say don't take RA and study on your own. *Not that a B+ will matter that much in the grand scheme of your profile* but this lets you take another course you can do better in, and go through the analysis material necessary for the program you're looking at much faster than a semester long course.

Don't waste time worrying about how your work experience will hurt you. There are plenty of guys who go back for their PhD, especially recently given the financial crash when a lot of guys lost their jobs--one of my profs. (TT) being one of them. If anything you are more mature, a better writer, and determined. If your letters are good you will do fine.

Look up some papers from Sanjeev Goyal, Matthew Jackson, Duncan Watts (physicist), etc. a good starting point might be Goyal's "Connections" or Jackson's "Social and Economic Networks". This is a pretty interdisciplinary field, tying in a lot of graph theory from math with applications in physics as well as economics.

Got it, thank you! I was mainly concerned with the larger private sector positions.

As an American, do you think my nationality would hinder my ability to get a job in the UK? I know there are some pretty strict regulations as far as employment is concerned...

has anyone received any information about college-specific scholarships/funding yet?

So what college is everyone at?! :)

Ugh. I'd love to go to Oxford--it's been a dream since I was a youngster. I'm a foreigner, and I can't justify going $80,000 into debt for this degree though :(. Anybody care to convince me it would be money well spent?