Klimano

Sting54911, I told you before, but I think you don't read the messages. This is a thread from the LAST season (admission for fall 2005). Now people are discussing about Fall 2006 admissions. Got it?

This time I am retired for sure :) Klimano Emeritus Applicant

I think Philip Reny and Roger Myerson can fill the gap.

I received my letter on Friday. (london/uk)

Hope to see some of you in Chicago next year.

haha.. I hope you get well soon guys.

Wow! Congrats!

BC is better at monetary macro and time series econometrics. BU is better at applied micro, micro based macro (growth, development) and DSGE modeling with mixed empirical and numerical techniques. I'd prefer BU, but BC is also a good school.

Trinity (the best for Economics). Others are almost equally preferable (in my opinion).

I am sorry for you jjyy. Pray for your SOP's being ingored (or not read) by the adcom.

Hi Heath, First of all, be sure that you have a very strong profile. People around here do not know much about the GPA standards of Physics programs. For Economics, there is a ridiculous grade inflation. Nowadays, even an average econ student have 3.7 - 3.8 GPA. So, be aware of the fact that you have an "interesting and exciting" profile for many schools you've mentioned. Frankly speaking, for PhD, you have a good chance of admission + funding to OSU, UIUC, Toronto, maybe UCLA and Michigan. You have a good chance of admission without funding to Boston U and Rochester (this is not your fault, they don't have much funding for incoming PhD's). You have a chance (but not good) of admission to NWU and Penn. But it is definitely worth to try. For MSc, don't apply to NYU. It is not a rigorous program. Other schools, except Oxford, will be a quite easy shot for you. Oxford has a very competitive and weird admission process. But, again, it's within your reach. Trust me :) . Good luck Klimano

Just check your PM!

You have totally misunderstood what I said. What I want to mention about microfoundations is totally different. And you are wrong in your thoughts about the top 20 schools. There is no relation between micro and micro-founded Dynamic General Equilibrium setting. This is a deep debate.

No, no, no... They were really very nice and I liked them. There were some other factors affecting my decision.

Being a neoclassic is not bad. In fact, I like it. But sounding like a one may be risky in the application process. If you are not a perfect applicant, then this kind of considerations may affect your admission. As far as I have understood from your explanation, you expressed yourself in a proper way. So, don't worry. But maybe you could just say that you would like to study Development and IO. This is only an opinion. I might be wrong. Best, Klimano

No I am not. I changed my mind in the last minute. But I can still answer the questions about Minnesota, since I visited the department and met the faculty.

You should apply to Econ PhD. Be sure that you will enjoy. Undergrad econ and grad econ is totally different in nature. So, don't compare your current micro course with the PhD courses. Btw, I can guess your nationality and even your school. Maybe the professor you asked for advice :) . Cheers

Some schools do not like "micro-founded" approach. So, be careful when talking about micro-foundations. You may sound like a "neoclassic". Just a warning!

Ex-tmians are watching you :) Cheers, Klimano

You've made the right choice :tup: . Congrats!

Frankly speaking, your intellectual shape/formation perfectly fits to that of an ideal Econ Phd student. Courses you have taken, areas you have studied and the reputation of your undergrad institution are all excellent. HOWEVER, your grades are A BIT (not very much) low in US standards. I think you still have a good chance for being admitted to top 25-50 schools with funding. But, admission with funding to a top 20-25 school is (not impossible but) hard given your profile. If you pursue a one or two years masters study in a decent European/UK/Canadian school and get good grades, then you will definitely be a perfect candidate for a top 5 school (with full fellowship). Its your choice; top 25-50 or top 5 (after 1 or 2 years). Outside research experience will make your profile look stronger, but it is not a big plus. So, dont waste time and get your masters degree (if you aim the top) :) . Hope this helps Best Klimano

Fortunately, you are absolutely WRONG! :) Check the profile of my dear friend Econ, one of the most popular Tmians. My undergrad GPA is 3.22, and you can find my admission summary for this year under the SUCCESS topics :) . And please note that I dont have an MSc degree.

If you finish an MSc in Econ or Fin Math with a good CGPA, then you can apply to top PhDs. Then maybe you may want to apply to LSE's MRes/PhD program.

in inglese? per favore :)

UT Austin is good at computational economics, macro theory, dynamic macro and time series analysis. UCL is good at microeconometrics (panel data), consumer economics, behavioral micro, applied micro (including applied labor) and econometric theory. So, they are at the both extreme ends in terms of their most popular research fields. UCL's academic placement history is far better than that of Texas Austin. Getting your MSc -next year- from UCL can be an advantage, but it is not a very "big" plus. Don't forget that you wont have any grades until July 2006. So, you will not be able to send even a single grade in your PhD application packages. Thus, dont expect "too much" from a UK masters program (I mean its effect on your PhD applications) before getting your degree and final marks.