illogic

Yes of course. My bad. Do you plan to attend the visit day?

Hi all! I was wondering who will go to the Berkeley visit day today. It will be great if they are willing to share information on the visit day here! Thank you in advance!

For starter, there are many people other than researchers in these places. And a PhD training is basically all about doing research (and probably not the same type of research you will do in thinktank/policy-ish place). So it is really a good idea for OP to limit him/herself in only the research department of these organisations? Further, stories about grad student loses support from advisor and the department once (s)he declare (s)he wants a career in public/private sectors are all over the place. So it is really nice to persuade someone to go to a possibly unfriendly environment? A PhD is a really, really, really big commitment. You will spend possibly the best 5 years of your life in doing something that might have nothing to do with your dreams and ambitions. A MPP is clearly enough if you just want to get into one of these places (maybe not Fed). So I strongly recommend you to take Econhead's advice of researching before you make any decision.

If you don't want a career in academia, you probably shouldn't consider econ phd. You can do a lot better in these 5 years of your life.

I think it is safe to ask him (just once, if he still doesn't reply then you have to wait). Just do not appear pushy and you will be fine. (at least it works for me)

As much as I would like to answer these questions, I do not have a comprehensive idea on this matter. I think maybe 1/3 - 1/2 of my cohort applied or at least expressed their intension to apply to a phd programme. As many people choose to take a gap year and apply in the next cycle (as I did), the total number of people who decided to move on to a phd is hard to estimate. As for the scholarship, LSE doesn't normally give financial aids to Master's students, I think some need-based aid is available but I do not know whether anyone had gotten any of those. I suggest you email the department to have better answers.

EME alumni here. I am not sure how things are in Cambridge. So I only speak in terms of EME. Last year's EME placements include Princeton, Northwestern, NYU and some other lower ranked schools. People also received offers from UChicago, Columbia, etc. But be ready to take a gap year since you can barely establish any sort of connection with faculty within 2 months (Oct. to Dec.). Also, the mock won't come out until mid-December, which means you might have to submit your mock result after the deadline. Your application result is still correlated with your undergrad, e.g. the math courses and grades. I know some guys didn't do well in terms of Ph.D. placement because of their less impressive undergrad. But if you can get your RL writer write something like "This guy is the best I've ever have" then you still have a chance at the sacred zipcodes. Finally , do not assume you can get distinction at EME. Besides of the materials which is pretty mathematical intense, your result is solely determined by the 3-hours finals. The exam can be very random. Do not be surprised if someone you never heard of get better results than you do.

I'd say Berkeley has done a good job in keeping their seniors during the past few years. And with the improvement of economy in California (or the States as a whole), the darkest hour has passed and faculty retainment may not be a huge problem, at least not the deal-breaker. Back to OP's question, I'd go to the visit day to all three before I make a decision. You might get some fundings from Berkeley if you have some actual face time with people there. Besides, grad school isn't all about rankings, there are other factors that comes into your utility function.

I believe the Berkeley result is related to the source of funding. I've got a university fellowship so the department let me know my result, and people who posted on GC might get one as well so he knows his result. The department email I got (last Friday) says the funding details will be finalised by the end of this week, and perhaps that's when they release "normal" amount of results. I know waiting is frustrating, and I am sorry that I couldn't say for sure the exact date when the department releases more results. This is how my application system looks like. http://www.www.urch.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7014&stc=1

It's April 3rd

The Berkeley ones are real, I got one today. Actually my fellowship notification (sent out by the GD) was even one day earlier than my admission..

By the way, does anyone knows places offer field rankings other than econphd? The data they use is about 8 years ago so I am afraid their rankings are outdated.

I see your point here, but if you look at the big picture, all growth models (maybe all theoretical models as well) would be considered as "backward deductions" that the authors first have the conclusions and then they using mathematics to reach the conclusions. In endogenous growth models they first confirmed the technological process is the key to the growth, then they using CRS and exponential functional form to present their math to have the desired properties and conclusions. In Acemoglu's paper he first confirmed the role of institutions (e.g. political regime or state capacity) and then designed a dynamic game to introduced these institutions and finally reach his conclusions. So yes, the growth is "in the model" because it ought to be. The models are designed in this way. So I wouldn't be bother by the exact form of the math in the paper, they are in the most convenient and the simplest form to present the author's idea.

Actually I believe what these people did was using their models to justify the real world they observed rather than presenting theories to account what is going on out there. Therefore it makes no sense to question whether their settings of the models are legitimate or not. Did Romer, Lucas and Acemoglu assumed the growth? they did because they believe the real world goes in that way. Mathematical formulas are merely means to the end. The CRST, the exponential form and other assumptions make author's points clear enough and logically plausible.