AlSharpton

Several of the grad students at ND don't drive, but I would say it makes life easier having a car. There are several shops/restaurants very close to campus, which you could potentially walk to if you needed to do so, but I wouldn't recommend doing that in the winter. Some of the grad students carpool whenever they go grocery shopping which is probably your best bet if you don't drive. Also, the stipend goes a long way in south bend so you probably could save up enough to buy a car in a relatively short period of time if you needed to.

You should always go to the flyout unless you are absolutely sure you are attending a certain program. Even if you think you are absolutely sure it is still a good idea to go to flyouts. There is no substitute for being at a campus in person and being able to interact with the faculty/grad students one on one. Also, the way the flyouts are setup can reveal a lot of information about the program/department culture that you might not have received otherwise.

There are plenty of on campus housing options for grad students and there usually isn't a problem as far as availability of housing goes. The campus of ND is safe. Some of the areas outside of ND in South Bend might be a different story, but you shouldn't have any problems on or near campus. Feel free to PM if you want more info.

This depends on the lack of math in your profile. If you are lacking the basics like linear algebra or multivariate calculus, then an MA in financial econ or applied math is not going to help you. If you are lacking things like real analysis or differential equations, then financial econ/math is not a bad way to go so long as you have the chance to take those types of courses and you are genuinely interested in finance. Otherwise i say do an MA in econ while taking the math classes you need.

I had a somewhat similar experience as you as my undergrad GPA was low (around 3.2). My two cents. Top 20 schools are likely out of the question, whether you do a masters or not. Most of the schools that I was rejected from rejected me on the basis of my low undergrad GPA, even as the rest of my profile was relatively strong. The issue with top schools is that you are competing with people who have almost no deficiencies in their profile, whereas you have a glaring one. This gives adcoms an excuse to ding you, even if the rest of your profile is still strong. I would apply to lower ranked schools that are relatively strong in the areas you are interested in. Doing a math masters is an option, but only if you are certain that you can improve your math grades and you are willing to spend the time/money. Your math courses are the weakest part of your profile and are the greatest cause for concern given that you have not exhibited an upward trajectory in your math GPA over time. Taking additional math classes and doing well along with getting strong letters will certainly improve your prospects, but I think your target range should be in the Top 30-70 conditional on doing well in your grad level real analysis course. Conditional on doing well in a math masters, I would say your placement is likely better, but top 20 is still unlikely (but not impossible).

First year here. It's interesting to see how many people have lost weight in this thread while I lost 20 lbs my first semester. I guess people deal with stress in different ways.

The more math you have, the easier your first year will be. That being said the jump from an MA program to PhD program is still substantial. In my MA program our macro theory course ended with what my PhD macro theory 1 course will begin with.

This. Also learn a programming language or two in your spare time if you already haven't. Something like R, MATLAB, GAUSS, or even the Mata language within Stata will pay dividends once you start doing your actual research.

A few points.... The people who teach the core theory classes do not necessary write the core exams, especially for a first year AP. Also, your post makes me question the level of commitment you actually have in regards to learning the core theory at a level sufficient enough to pass the comps without an unfair advantage over your classmates. This reflects poorly on you as well as the institution that you are in, which by the way, can be found relatively easily with a few google searches given the information in your post.

I would go with grad analysis + PhD macro + grad math stats personally, but talk it over with some of your professors and people who know better than I do and see what they say.

If you are interested in doing macro, then PhD macro would be the way to go then, as his connections/recommendation would certainly help you out in the admissions process. Letters of recommendation are probably the most important part of your profile in my opinion. At a certain level, there are way more applicants than positions open who have great GRE scores, great GPAs, strong math backgrounds, etc. At this point letters of recommendation often tip the scales so if you think you will do well/impress your macro prof, then I would go with PhD macro.

Only you have the best idea of what you can handle. That being said I would take the most difficult course load I could while still having time available for the application process (which is always much more time consuming than originally planned for). One thing to keep in mind is that grad level probability is usually measure theory based so if you haven't already had grad level real analysis/measure theory you may be at a slight disadvantage. Personally I think option 1 is the best bet with grad math stat instead of grad level probability. These courses will all send strong signals and will balance your profile nicely, and should allow time for the application process as well. Every school/professor approaches analysis differently, but when I took grad level analysis we essentially covered everything we did in undergrad analysis 1 and half of what we did in undergrad analysis 2, except in a more general way and with a higher level of rigor (along with a few other topics). So if your school's approach to analysis is similar, I would definitely go with grad analysis over undergrad analysis 2. Also, PhD micro is much more uniform on how it is taught across programs relative to PhD macro, so I believe PhD micro will send a stronger signal than macro. Since you have had undergrad probability already, I believe a math stats class will be more beneficial to your profile and your future coursework than grad level probability will be. Best of luck.

From personal experience, it is incredibly difficult to focus and stay motivated in classes during the admissions process. I think I spent almost as much time researching schools/faculty than I did on actual coursework this spring. I would take classes that are challenging enough to keep you interested, but not overly difficult. More than anything take classes that will help you out in your PhD such as programming, technical writing, research, etc.

Your profile looks pretty solid for the range you are looking at, although I would apply to several programs outside the top 30 that specialize in your interests.if possible. Also, at this point your letters of recommendation will be the most important part of your profile conditional on you doing well on the GRE. Hopefully you made a very good impression on the professors that you RAed for.

From my experience in TA-ing intro micro/macro courses, I found that most of the students tended to adopt the biases of professor rather than engaging in real economic reasoning, so I'm not really sure how much benefit the current approach of the least math possible is really providing. And like many others have said, the level of math prep and willingness to do math for most econ majors, especially at regional states, is astoundingly bad. I do think having a more mathematically rigorous approach to these courses would have a much greater benefit for the students who would be willing/able to work through it; however, given that the department/faculty has to partially justify their existence by how many students register for their courses, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the department to raise the level of rigor for these courses. So if we keep the undergrad courses as they are we are left with students who often lack clarity of thought and understanding or if we raise the rigor we are left with a department that struggles to justify it's own existence due to lack of enrollment. Of course, this really applies mainly to low/unranked schools in the U.S., which make up the lion's share of econ majors in the U.S. At other institutions I'm sure things are different to some extent.

A computer science minor may be more beneficial than a stats minor whether you go for the PhD or the job market out of undergrad, so that might be something to consider as well. Also, if it is possible I would strongly recommend doing research with a professor for letter of recommendation purposes as well as developing skill sets that will help you survive in a PhD program later on. Research is a great way to develop economic intuition and the sooner you start, the better off you will be. If you decide to go for the PhD route, I think this would be much more beneficial than having two minors.

I would take analysis. The benefits of having an entire class devoted to rigorous proofs of topics that are fundamental to the mathematical tools used in an econ PhD program cannot be understated.

My first instinct is to say that you are probably fine. A 167Q is 95th percentile which shouldn't be an issue at all. There are likely other areas of your profile that you can work on, especially in regards to letters of recommendation, that will have a much bigger impact on your application success relative to improving your GRE score a few points.

Personally, I cannot wait to get started. I've met some really great people on here and I look forward to eventually being able to put faces with names at some point in the future. Best of luck to you all and remember that we chose this path for a reason. No matter how tough it gets, never give up!

I would take another analysis because it is useful and sends a strong signal (if you do well), and I would take Analysis II over Complex just because it has more immediate econ applications.

Generally I think taking more math is always better, but once you get past a certain point, diminishing marginal returns really kick in. If you have made As all the way up through probability/stats, differential equations, linear algebra, and two semesters of analysis, then I think you might be better off allocating your time towards some sort of research project, whether it be an undergrad thesis or an RA, or both. Making As in math classes beyond this point will just reiterate that you have strong mathematical aptitude, which the admissions committee will already be able to see. If your school offers it, taking grad level micro/macro at this point would be a good idea as well.

On top of a more rigorous approach to stats/probability that others have mentioned in this thread, I would recommend Applied Time Series by Walter Enders. While not very technical, I thought it provided a very concise and intuitive approach to conditional/unconditional probabilities with respect to time series.

I'm curious as to why you believe your math grades are a fluke. If you have a legitimate reason, then this is something that you need to impress upon your letter writers so they can address it. However, I think you will have a particularly hard time selling it since your math grades are fairly consistent. The reason I am bringing this up is because your letter writers can have quite a bit of influence on how admissions committees view those grades. And to be perfectly honest, I think the risk/reward to taking additional math classes is probably in your favor. You have consistently gotten Bs throughout your undergrad, finishing off with one or two As in a class like topology would be very beneficial. However, if you got a B your trajectory would likely not change at all.

Assuming you improve your GRE score, the next best thing you can do to improve your chances at a top 15 is to have very solid letters of recommendation. Do whatever you have to in order to impress upon your letter writers that you are very dedicated and have strong research potential. Given that you are coming from a top 10, having solid letters is even more imperative. Your thesis advisor will likely be the most important letter writer you have, so personally I would focus on doing as well as possible on my thesis. I'm not sure how strong of a signal grad macro or metrics will send given your other grades are generally very solid, especially since the amount of variation grad level macro is taught with among the top 15 schools. However, if you can accomplish a very solid thesis and do well enough in grad level macro to impress your letter writer for that class, then I would say to just focus on your thesis + macro for the fall. Remember that the application process always takes much more time than you originally planned (it did for me anyways), and since you are writing a thesis, it can be very helpful to at least have some sort of summary by the time you apply, which also gives your letter writers something else to talk about in their letters for you. Don't overload yourself this fall. It's much better to do very well in the areas that will provide you the greatest amount of marginal benefit (thesis, impressing letter writers), than to spread yourself to thin. Best of luck.

I think you are projecting your situation onto the OPs. When people say personal issues, it usually involves something along the lines of a death in the family, a relationship ending, some sort of major illness, etc, which many people have to deal with at some point in undergrad. While being a non-traditional student would certainly make doing well in undergrad more difficult, working 30+ hours a week isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of personal issues. I was certainly a non-traditional student myself so I'm not discounting your experience. My whole point is use personal issues as a learning experience in the SOP. In your situation, which was mine as well, I would also use that as a learning experience. It is almost always better to put some sort of positive spin on something as opposed to not doing so.