PatentClerk

@chrishacker. "First, I think economics is not a subject of 'thoughts', but a subject of testing various hypothesis." And Where does a hypothesis come from? In fact, getting to a reasonable hypothesis is What Economics is. It comes fundamentally from where all great human work comes from. Thinking. After the hypothesis or the testing of hypothesis is Applied Mathematics for most part.

I think this is a trivial worry. Of course no worry is trivial is it. But even legally you are 100% safe. The rule is that the University does not accept a Reco if the applicant has seen it. But this is applicable till it is submitted and within the deadline Because only if an applicant sees it before submission can he actually influence any changes. Since you saw the Reco after it was submitted and after the deadline this is 100% legally safe.

I have only one argument which obviously comes from my limited understanding of reading random stuff on the internet. So the fundamental argument FOR low interest rates is that it encourages risk taking, business investment etc so that more jobs are created. But if a business sees that this low interest rate thingy is going to last for like forever he says OK! I will just wait before taking a risk in this complicated market. So the argument against low interest rates is to hint/announce that interest rates could be increased sooner rather than later et al. Now the businesses think, OK better invest now rather than later when they go higher up. Just the boost the economy needs. Again there are I think reasons to challenge this but still seems like a reasonable argument to me.

What exactly does "rational" mean? I think I read somewhere (Rubinstein i think) that the very meaning of the word implies that if you can reason some way that supports your decision then you can assume that is rational. So does rational only mean "consistent".

That is why I said OP's profile has a shot. I didn't mean to say that he will get in for sure. I meant to say his application will reach a final stage with 50 other candidates for those 3-4 seats, assuming OP is a T50 undergrad and T25 MBA. I have always maintained no one can predict or guess beyond that point what happens to the admission. I am assuming OP is a US based candidate of course. But Yes, OP could increase his chances by doing some of what hedgequant says - Math courses et al. Programming skills is also considered a huge positive at some places. But matching your background with your research interests and then finding a matching University is at least equally important.

Firstly whatever you have mentioned is looked at in a highly positive manner unless your business is doing badly and that is why you want to do that PhD. Even still that may be excused if everything else looks great. From what I hear, adcoms are looking to take a few risks every year to get outstanding researchers. So the missing information is everything. A 4.0 GPA in a top 50 undergrad is generally a big deal. Same goes with that MBA GPA. That GPA in a T25 school is a big deal. Based on this profile assuming it's mostly T50ish universities, you can get anywhere based on fit. I would advice stick to T50 for long term reasons and find a niche area matching your background though you could add some safeties beyond that. Personally I think if someone says they will pay the fees, there are quite a few top Universities who will be ready to give an admit. You will have to do some research on that.

Ron, I do not have too many original ideas on this, maybe a philosophical/ideological mix based on what I think I know and am sure of. I believe you have not the gone through the side of the argument made by Raghuram Rajan. His book Fault Lines I believe explains the whole crisis the best. Remember he was one of the ONLY guys to get even the timing right and the scale of the problem. Unlike the other famous chap Roubini who has been crying wolf since he was born. Also Taleb but his was a philosophical insight and I seriously doubt he got the scale right as he thought it was going to be much worse. Bottomline is there was a hell lot of activism and banks were pushed big time. Of course once you put them on a complicated path, they went astray. I am not saying they are not responsible. E.g. You should read the statements made by Clinton when he repealed the Glass-Steagal act, also considered by many to be responsible in some way. Even there he mentions that poorer people will get more loans due to this or something like that. At the root of all such crisis is always and everywhere politics and social activism. On NGDP I try to understand about 5-10% of what Scott Sumner writes on his blog. I think it is a must read though never get the full picture ever.

@Humanomics: All research, invention, discovery is the result of human thinking, imagination, intuition et al. You can call it tinkering. I am talking about the difference between Physics and Economics. They are merely a method of classification of different directions and pursuits of human thinking. What we define as Physics has produced far better results than Economics is the only thing I am saying. I thought it was a trivial and well accepted argument. This was in response to an earlier discussion here. I think the prediction capacity of Economics is extremely marginal due to valid reasons though. This is all as of TODAY. It is for the future crop of Researchers to change this of course.

Pumping up NGDP for an institution that prints money is not that hard. It is now doing it by that $85B monthly buying announced a few months back. If the Fed were to only indicate that it was going to keep the NGDP growth rate constant in 2008 whatever happens the job would be done right there. That would have been Milton Friedman's exact advice. But he was dead by then. Personally though philosophically, I think the market worked brilliantly. From the 1990s the politics and social activism boosted by maybe the internet/media started a massive push to loans to people who did not deserve them. Yes the capitalists in the middle did not like it initially but then only exacerbated the problem. The market took its time but said enough is enough. Now poets and today's Economists do not like justice being done "Nature" style. I get that. But the market was never meant to be a perfect distributor of resources equally to all people. Economics only says the markets are the most "efficient". Pardon my rant. Could not resist. Also I must say I find the comparison between physics and economics extremely funny. I think the only reason we are able to communicate with each other here through the laptops, wires, the internet is because of fundamental advances in Physics. The best parts of Economics seem to me like common sense and the worst parts are all what the Economists think is Economics. But that is also Why I find Economics an exciting area for research.

27 is the least possible number. For highest possible common students, look at the number of chemistry students. 121 students took chemistry so if they all took algebra that would be the highest possible number.

START doing research right away. Don't waste your time writing the Math GRE et al. Crack the new GRE/GMAT if needed. Call up your favorite Professors and tell them in advance. Your profile is a near sure shot at the Top 10. Mainly because a top 5 ranker from the top IIMs is nearly almost always admitted by the Top 5. Only a handful people from IIMs apply anyway. If you can get that SOP also top class and identify how you fit you will be able close the deal. International LORs especially from countries like India are not a big deal but a well written one always helps.

Just to finally add, it might be a better idea to apply to some Econ PhDs where it is easier to get in than Finance at the same rank. I would say if you could get a Q GRE close to 170 you have a much higher chance at a T 75-100 in Econ than in Finance. Most of the first year coursework is the same these days and you could easily shift to Financial Economics et al later. Also applying to Accounting is already a strategy used by many Finance hopefuls.

@wittmic: Yes I changed that post. Because "qualified" was not what I meant at all. I like to think of profile comparison as a simple statistical thing. The admission process is clearly subjective though. A genius with an incredible idea will be admitted at MIT with no profile at all. But let's face it. Genius is rare. Most applicants are admitted looking at the profile. International Recos especially mean very little. That is you need to discount Recos for international applicants. And most of the numbers tell us that the number of international applicants are significantly more. Now more than ever from Europe for obvious reasons. I am more aware of the international aspect and I know a lot of good folks who have been rejected at T50 and I have myself been surprised by some of the results.

I am willing to bet most mid ranked Universities like OSU must be giving some unfunded offers to people they think will most likely get better offers. I think it is an excellent strategy. If after April 15 such candidates call and request for Aid, they will happily give it. Just my opinion.

HaHa. Again a stupid discussion based on varying opinions of random people. What I find most amusing about particularly the business section is there are too many people who want to barge in and comment on the opinion of someone who is making a judgement based on whatever he or she knows. No one is 100% right here. That is the assumed qualifier for each post. Everyone's beliefs are based on the few data points they are aware of. It is best to let the OP take all the opinions into account and make his decision. There is a reason there are more international students doing PhDs in the US. But you only see those who get in. There are people with better profiles internationally who still cannot get in. The difference gets bigger and bigger at the T50 and below levels. You will be amazed to find people with super high GREs/GPAs doing PhDs in T80-100 even. You will rarely find an American doing a PhD at a T80 with that kind of GRE/GPA et al. And maybe I used the word qualified wrongly I guess. It may have been a stronger word than needed. It is simply about a profile comparison. International students need to have a much better profile to get the same admit. You are looking at 50 countries. And everyone wants to come to the US. You can ask any random Professor in the T50 and below. And there are valid reasons for that. And Ofcourse, I don't disagree people should take a shot at much higher places than their profile allows. As I said subjectively anything is possible. Profile-wise the lines are more or less clear.