Rando

This is an appealing profile. Your first question is the most important one because math/stats is the obvious hole right now. Assuming a ~730 GMAT score with a good quant component, you'll be viewed as someone who potentially has the quant horsepower to succeed, but who hasn't demonstrated it in the most relevant areas. So there are 2 components of addressing that hole: 1. Substantively, how do you develop your math/stats skills to the point where you're prepared for the quantitative aspects of a top program? 2. In terms of signaling, how can you convince decision-makers that you have the requisite math/stats skills? Those are two different, but related questions. You could informally take online classes in calc/linear algebra/probability/econometrics to get you up to speed, which would address the first component but not necessarily the second. Or you could formally enroll in one or more courses that would address the second component, because they would send a credible signal that you understand the material. However, the courses that are convenient/available to you for enrollment might not be as directly relevant or high-quality as the ones you could take online. But regardless of which approach you take, you need to do one of them. I'd be ok with a combination of high GMAT (particularly quant) and completion of relevant online courses. Be sure to articulate how you're plugging that hole in your statement. 2. Yes, 720-740 GMAT with relevant work and RA experience would be fine for almost all schools, as long as you've plugged some of the math hole. The higher the quant component you can get, the more likely you'll be viewed as someone that can handle the coursework. 3. Yes, definitely. Talk about what you learned, what you liked about it, why it motivated you to pursue a career in research/academia. 4. Beef up your math/econ/stats.

1. Different schools will vary in terms of the likelihood of offer conditional on inviting you to campus. For some, it's a virtual guarantee as long as you act like a reasonable person during the visit. For others, it's a way to narrow the field. 50% seems like a reasonable lower bound for likelihood of an offer, unless you're local to the school, where they may have invited you because it's relatively costless for both them and you. 2. Please don't ask questions in the workshop. Faculty and phd students are already fighting for an opportunity to ask questions, and this is especially true this time of year, when we have faculty applicants coming in for a job interview. 3. As an alternative to asking questions in the workshop, write down any questions that come to you, and use those questions as an opportunity to have a good conversation when you meet with faculty. 4. I'm not sure if this was a joke, but please don't try to act "adorable".

Yeah, this isn't even close to a generalizable "truth". Accounting faculty understand that auditors are going through busy season at exactly the same time as phd recruiting. The idea that an admissions committee would just toss the application after already choosing to invite the person to campus is pretty far-fetched and would certainly not happen at my school.

"I really wish I could visit in person, but due to busy season I don't have any ability to travel during the week. I continue to be very interested in your school and would be happy to speak on the phone or through skype if it would be helpful."

A couple of things, because I disagree with some earlier comments: 1. Schools will vary in terms of what campus visits mean. For some schools, a campus visit is effectively an offer, where it gives the school an opportunity to inform you about the school and even try to convince you to come. (Of course if it turns out you're a lunatic in person, you won't get an offer.) But for other schools, campus visits are a way to choose from among a promising subset of applicants. So for those schools, even if you're perfectly fine in person, there may only be a 50% chance of an offer. And if you're local to the school, the school may invite you for a campus visit with an even lower likelihood of offer, because a local visit is less costly for both of you. It's definitely not fair to say that a visit is a lock for an offer at all schools. 2. If you attend a workshop, I would strongly discourage you from asking questions during the workshop, for a few reasons. First, the regular workshop audience (phd students and faculty members) are typically already competing for an opportunity to ask questions - there are usually more questions than available time. Second, if you're talking about campus visits in the near term, it's likely that you'll be attending a faculty recruiting workshop, where the presenter is trying to get a tenure-track faculty position. So the stakes of that workshop are really high. What I've seen happen in the past, when phd applicants or even phd students have asked questions, is that they've sometimes struggled to articulate exactly what their question is, and it's derailed the job talk because the recruit is trying very hard to respectfully answer a question that doesn't make sense. I don't think that's fair to a faculty recruit. So those are two reasons why faculty members wouldn't want you to ask questions during the workshop. But there are also strategic reasons why you shouldn't want to, as well. First, in my opinion, the payoff is very asymmetric. The odds of you asking a fantastic question that wows everyone and increases your odds of an offer are much less than the odds of you asking a question that makes you look worse. Second, taking a question from the workshop, and discussing it during an office visit seems like a really good way to make yourself look thoughtful. Like, if you're sitting in some professor's office and say, "I was wondering if you could help me understand something. During the workshop, the speaker said XYZ [ maybe something like "Obviously, CEOs who have been with their firms longer are likely to be paid more."] I thought that was interesting, but I wasn't sure why it was obvious. Could you help me understand why he/she said that?"

From my perspective, the biggest issue is that you already have a phd in finance. Unless you have a compelling story for why you're now seeking a phd in accounting, I'd have a hard time giving you an offer over someone else. For whatever reason, there are several people in this year's applicant pool who have a business-related phd already, and some of them didn't even mention it in their statement. Instant turn-off.

Of course you'll be using the word "I" in a statement designed to inform someone about you. I echo earlier advice to find another person to review your statement. That being said, I think there is something worthwhile in what your old professor is saying, and it's based on the idea that your statement should "show, not tell". Don't spend your time describing yourself as "deeply interested in X" - not because of the adverb, but because it's not credible. Instead of *claiming* that you're deeply interested in X, convince me that you're deeply interested in X by showing me evidence of that deep interest. Has that deep interest led you to sit in research workshops at the local university? If so, what workshops did you attend, and what did you find interesting about them? Has it led you to read recently published journal articles or talk to active researchers about what they're working on? If so, tell me about them. Has your interest led you to pursue research assistant positions? Tell me about them. Without that kind of evidence, your self-description is just meaningless words. And I'll also agree with the general idea that "creativity" isn't that great. Like, I don't need to read an introductory paragraph or two that talks about how pearls are formed by way of an irritant, and that they represent the triumph of individuals over adversity. And just like that pearl, you have faced adversity and OVERCOME to be the polished applicant you are. Skip the pearl talk and just tell me about you.

I disagree with this. Recommendation letters should be from those who know you best, and can speak about your qualities with familiarity and examples. Of course it would be better if those letters were written by academics, particularly when those academics can speak to research-relevant traits rather than just "XYZ was in my class and he/she did very well". But those aren't always available. Basically, you want your recommendation letters to speak to things that can't be inferred from the rest of your application packet. If I read a packet with a recommendation letter from, say, Gene Fama that says "This person took my MBA class and got an A", that letter is completely meaningless; I already have the transcript and I've learned nothing more from the letter. On the other hand, consider a recommendation letter from Professor Unknown that says, "This person worked with me closely on a project that required substantial data collection, and he/she exhibited excellent judgment in deciding how to code that data, what to do when there seemed to be mistakes in that data, and how to summarize that data." That's a piece of new information that speaks very well to the applicant's potential in a phd program. The same is true for a thoughtful letter from someone in industry. Phd committees are trying to identify candidates that will complete the program and move on to a successful academic career. Obviously, it's important for the applicant to have the raw mental horsepower, but that can be demonstrated with GMAT scores and course grades. It's just as important for the applicant to have good judgment, the ability to think for themselves (e.g., when dealing with data of uncertain quality, or trying to figure out which econometric approach is most appropriate for a very unusual research setting), the ability to communicate clearly (in writing and verbally), and sufficient self motivation to complete work in the absence of close monitoring. An industry letter that speaks to those factors would be extremely helpful.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

Can you guys tell me how much specific should I be about my research interest. Here are two examples: My primary area of interest is archival financial accounting, with special focus on capital markets and accounting choices. versus My primary area of interest is archival financial accounting. More specifically, corporate governance and audit quality, financial statement analysis, earnings management and forecast, analysts' price targets, and stock recommendations. Which one is more preferable? The second one doesn't make any sense, because you've basically listed most topics in financial accounting. In fact, it's the worst of both worlds: it presents a lot of specific topics, but makes it seem like you don't understand the topics that you claim to be interested in. It would be like saying "My primary interest is sports. Specifically, football, baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, archery, track & field, volleyball, golf, and tennis." My general sense is that people in this forum are way too concerned with making sure their statement identifies a particular research area. I don't think there's any real benefit to doing so, unless you can demonstrate a good reason for it. (It would be sensible for a former auditor to be interested in audit research, same for a former analyst interested in analyst research.) I don't think people expect you to seriously know your specific research area coming in - that's part of the process of the doctoral program. Much better to demonstrate intelligence, intellectual curiosity, willingness to work hard, and ability to communicate well.

In addition to the names mentioned by EE570, Chicago Booth accounting hired Korok Ray and Andrei Kovrijnykh in the last 10 years, both of whom had econ degrees. Econ Phds have a couple of disadvantages in the accounting job market, even though their program is almost certainly more technically challenging than an accounting program: 1) Accounting audiences will want to know how the candidate's research extends existing accounting research, and will also expect the candidate to know institutional details relevant to their setting. Institutional details matter in accounting much more than in econ, whether the setting is executive compensation, corporate governance, litigation, debt contracting, or disclosure. Econ candidates often struggle in linking their work to accounting research and/or correctly incorporating relevant institutional details in their research. This is bad because it leads to a poor workshop presentation, and accounting departments will naturally wonder whether the candidate will be able to successfully publish in top accounting journals. 2) Accountants understand adverse selection, and know that oftentimes econ students end up on the accounting job market because they weren't able to place on the econ job market. So there's a natural concern that econ phds are lemons. 3) Teaching is a real issue. Teaching is obviously not nearly as important as research in terms of hiring and promotion decisions, but a candidate does have to have the ability to teach at a satisfactory level. Econ phds, on top of being relatively inexperienced in teaching, have also implicitly signaled that they aren't that interested in accounting topics, which suggests that they won't be as interested in teaching accounting.

Your letter writers are almost certainly just copying the same letter from school to school. 25 seems like the high end of reasonable to me. If you've picked good letter writers (those who know you well and will write a very personalized letter), writing the letter will be much more effort than just sending it out.

Other than passing the CFA, which is great but unlikely to materially affect your phd prospects, nothing in your profile really stands out in a positive way. Your grades aren't particularly strong, you have no research experience, and it isn't clear that you are a good fit for a phd program based on something else you wrote: "I think I need to get some more insights into what accounting research is. It seems that some Accounting PhD's end up working/consulting as value investors at hedge funds while also being professors. This is something, if true, would be my ideal role. Being a teacher and a value investor." Can you better describe why you want to pursue a phd in accounting?

Right, but this is an argument for maxing out your low-interest borrowing. Not for trying to negotiate a greater stipend. If you are set on negotiating (and I agree with the earlier poster advising against it), don't negotiate the annual stipend number. I think you'll have more luck getting a bump in your computer budget, relocation money, or some other one-time cost. I appreciate that money can seem like a big deal at this stage, but I think people overemphasize it and sometimes hurt themselves because of it. For example, taking on TA opportunities for immediate cash, which takes time away from research, which can lead to a huge drop in lifetime earnings. The accounting job market is good. If you are confident you'll make it through a decent program, borrow borrow borrow.

I don't necessarily think a grad school is a tube that has no effect on applicants, but I do think people underestimate the effect of self selection and the power of a school's brand. Suppose everyone believes that, say, MIT is the very best program in the world. All the best people apply to MIT and MIT selects the very best applicants. You would expect that MIT's graduates should be the very best graduates. But MIT's excellent placement record wouldn't necessarily be evidence of the program's quality. It could just reflect the quality of their incoming students. The real question is the counterfactual - what would those students' outcomes have been if they decided to forego the MIT offer and had instead gone to XYZ State University (perhaps because of family reasons)? I don't know the answer to that question and, from what I've seen, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question. We simply observe that the best schools get the best students and, not surprisingly, have the best placements. How much of that is due to the incoming student quality and how much is due to the quality of the program? My belief, unsupported by any evidence, is that school choice is less important than people believe. I think a student with offers to all the top schools is going to do very well at whatever school he/she chooses. I think that placement records (because they're subject to the same self-selection concerns) are less informative about program quality than many people think. I think if you have a really good feel for a particular place (perhaps you get along very well with the faculty, or you see a lot of faculty doing cool stuff), you should weight that heavily rather than simply choosing the school with the highest rating. In terms of the original question in this thread - you have to live your life. Doing a phd means dedicating 5(?) years of life. Yes it's an investment, but it's not necessarily a good investment if you (or your family) are absolutely miserable in the particular geographical location you choose.

Let me say first that you won't go wrong wearing a conservative suit. So if you're at all nervous about attire, choose a suit, white/blue shirt, and tie. That being said, you could easily go through the rest of your life working in a business school without wearing a suit. Take a look around at the faculty on your visits. In my experience, the people most likely to be wearing a suit are the adjuncts and non-research active faculty (i.e., the ones least likely to be decision makers with regard to PhD students). Obviously there are exceptions, but they are generally exceptions because they like to be dressed up. One of the great things about an academic career is that you rarely if ever have to wear a suit. In the extreme, you could be a Kevin Murphy (Chicago Booth) and almost never be seen without a baseball cap.

I guess my message was deleted? Anyway, I misinterpreted and thought Steve was sending that message to Columbia (where Alon is), not elsewhere. Calling it Wharton Business School is a common mistake - I wouldn't worry about it. The important thing in all of this is to communicate clearly, honestly, and politely. As long as you do that, your messages will be appreciated. It is very helpful to know if a particular candidate isn't interested, so that an offer can be extended to someone else.

Good plan unless a Wharton grad sees your message - they'll know there's no such place as the Wharton School of Business. Congrats on the Wharton acceptance. Excellent place.

Keep in mind that having deadlines around the end of term/holidays is tricky - even if you have a 12/1 or 12/15 deadline, it's likely that some people won't want to review materials until after 1/1. So some schools keep the December deadline knowing they probably won't look at applications immediately. Also, sometimes programs have the deadline determined by the university. For example, the ability to guarantee funding may be contingent upon meeting a university-specified date. In any event, I don't think it's a signal of program quality or perceived quality.

Why are you applying to finance instead of accounting?

This is an important question. I've read a lot of your posts and it isn't at all clear to me that you: - have any knowledge about accounting - have any familiarity with accounting institutions, such as audit practice, securities litigation, SEC enforcement, accounting-based compensation, etc You seem very confident that you want to do research in accounting (or economics or finance?), but nothing in your described background seems to support that confidence. A MAcc program would be a nice way for you to gain some accounting knowledge, but you seem to want to use it as a springboard to talk to researchers, rather than actually using it to learn accounting. It's true that some people go into phd programs with absolutely no accounting background at all, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing. Those people tend to struggle in identifying good accounting-oriented research questions.

If it were a random health problem, probably not. But the adcom would be appropriately discriminating against you because you *had already enrolled in a phd program and dropped out*. That is a hugely informative and negative signal.

I use zotero in firefox to keep and organize all the papers. It's great because it has automatic downloading from the standard academic journal sites (including the pdf and appropriate citation information), and it's incredibly easy to find papers now, and just open them directly from zotero. I import the zotero file to EndNote, and use EndNote to write papers in Word. There may be better systems out there, but if you care about your time, you absolutely should not be: - manually saving, renaming, and storing pdf files in your own file structure - manually updating and formatting your citations/references in your papers Being successful in this business is hard enough, you shouldn't be weighing yourself down with manual tasks that can be easily automated.

What exactly is your plan? If you have a multi-year gap in your resume that you do not explain, I would not admit you. I have you previously left a phd program and do not explain, I would not admit you. I don't want to be overly negative, but it doesn't really seem like you've thought this through.

I don't think you'll get much out of a phd level econometrics class at this point, particularly if it's an econometrics class aimed at econ students (rather than a dumbed down version offered to business school phd students). If it were a masters level or even undergrad level econometrics class, it could be very useful. The statistical programming course would be valuable. In terms of applicability, I would expect the econometrics course (assuming it was a non-econ phd level class) would probably have earlier payoff, as you'd have a better basis for your required coursework and (perhaps more importantly) I think you'd be better able to understand the research papers that you'll see in workshops and in seminars. Depending on the structure of the phd program, you won't necessarily benefit from the programming class in the first year, because you probably won't be doing much/any research until at least the summer after your first year. At that point, though, knowing a programming language well can give you a huge leg up. In terms of signaling value, I think both send a similar signal: you understand that a phd program is about research training (some people are confused and think it's about teaching), and you are preparing yourself for that training. I don't know that one sends an obviously better signal than the other.