fakeo

Where do you guys get your econ news from? I'm not talking about new research, but news about the economy. I obviously know there are tons of news sites, but I'm looking for something like a daily video/news program that summarizes the most important headlines in 10-20 minutes? Anyone aware of such a thing? I know of some longer programs and a lot of good blogs, but I want something more succinct and in video format. I realize this may not be the right place to ask this question. So if this thread is against some rules, then sorry and please delete.

Completely 100% anecdotal and unverified, but I heard that London-based firms like to hire Bocconi graduates.

Wife fantasizing about husband dying (and vice versa)? I thought that was a natural side effect of marriage.

I wonder why you want to go to grad school given your situation? Wouldn't leaving school ASAP be the dominant strategy? Most likely, grad school will be even more stressful than your undergrad.

The short is answer is because the methodologies of those rankings differ. US News is basically based on surveys of econ profs (who are supposed to evaluate the quality of PhD training). Tilburg is based entirely on (published) research output. There is also a RePeC ranking based on training quality: https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.inst.students.html, and it places Wisconsin in the top 20. So altogether, I think US News and RePeC probably give a better indication of the program's quality. The reason why Wisconsin is so low on Tilburg could be because the department may be small, and thus research output in absolute terms is low. Tilburg does not correct for department size, so it favors larger places. To double-check everything I just said here, you could compare Wisconsin's placements to other T10-20 US departments. This is a relatively generic answer though, maybe someone who's done more research on the program can be more informative.

GRE: your scores are perfect for econ admissions. No one really cares about verbal and AW. PhD or not: I'm fairly certain that after your industry and RA experiences, you will have a good idea of whether you prefer industry or academia. The two cultures are quite different, though econ consulting may be a middle ground between academia and the "real" business world. So it's entirely dependent on your preferences. In industry, you will probably make more money and will start earning those big bucks earlier in your life. However, academia may be somewhat less stressful with shorter hours (unless you want to get tenured at a T10 I guess), and more intellectually challenging. Also, I see no reason why not having a PhD would limit your opportunities in industry (there are plenty of chief economists at big banks with MBAs only, and they know more about the actual economy than PhDs do), so I would not suggest doing a PhD if ultimately your interests lie in the private sector.

I'm not a fan of converting grades to US scales. Grading (culture) differs substantially by country, and adcoms are aware of this. Your class ranks indicate that your grades are quite decent on average, so I wouldn't be worried about them. If you're a top student by your country's standards, then you should be OK. I agree that - coming from the EU - your next step should be an MRes. Just get good (=above average) grades (with local standards, don't convert to US scales), and concentrate also on getting decent LORs (from thesis supervisors if possible). And you'll be fine.

Great to hear more perspectives. Especially because these are more in line with what I expected. I obviously suffer from confirmation bias. :) Haha, they should make a TV show about the intricacies of econ academia.

It depends. The most important benefit of research experience is the letters you get out of it. If you don't need letters anymore, then I don't think academic research has any advantage over consulting; at least from a signaling point of view. Experience at economic consulting firms is considered relevant experience in applications, but likely won't make much of a difference.

Thanks a lot for the replies. Any other opinions? Indeed, if the RA work were to turn into a coauthored paper that would obviously be great, although I'd bet more often than not this doesn't happen. Assuming no coauthored papers, will anyone care whether I have RAship experience on my CV when I'm on the job market?

Do you guys think it's important to RA (during summers or the school year) during your PhD studies? I could think of two reasons why RA'ing may be helpful (money issues aside): 1. To develop relationships with profs who may be your references when you go on the job market, 2. To have some additional research experience under your belt. I like to think that none of these reasons make a strong enough case for RAing during one's PhD. Because ideally, you can fulfill #1 just by socializing/discussing research with profs on a regular basis, and going to seminars. And you can fulfill #2 by well... your dissertation. Am I right in thinking this? Or do you guys disagree? And a second, related thing: with all this in mind, does it matter at all what I do (and where I am) during the summers as long as I am able to develop good relationships with profs during the school year, and finish up a good thesis on time?

Indeed, I have no idea about how it works with PhD courses. But this must be very school-specific. About relationships: my point was exactly that you'll have to cultivate relationships in 12 months in either case. I mean, you'll need to have secured letters by October/November of your second year, so the second year won't really allow you to increase your LORs' quality. In addition, in a 1-year program you'll have guaranteed access to profs who know something about your research abilities, because you'll need to write a thesis. This is not so clear-cut in a 2-year program, because in most programs you'll only start working on your thesis in the second year. Of course, I'm making broad generalizations. There can be exceptions. OK, now I'll stop before this thread gets too derailed. :)

I've said this many times before, but I'll say it again: from PhD application point of view, 2-year MA = Frankly, if it weren't for the negative comments from @Econhead, I'd say go to UCLA. Also, I don't see why paying for a one-year Masters at Columbia dominates paying for the first-year of the PhD at Penn? Unless you don't like Penn for some reason. I think your main problem was clearly that you overestimated how well you'll do this cycle. Unless you're one of those top 10 or die types, I'd suggest reapplying next cycle to a wider range of schools (at least if you decide that UCLA is not good). In the meantime, maybe you can improve your letters?

I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but I'm pretty certain S&B would be more than enough. Rudin would be overkill. Real analysis is more of a signal, though you use some of the stuff in it, it's just not worth self-studying/revising Rudin in my opinion. S&B does lots of useful stuff, but it's like a freaking dictionary, really boring to read.

Econhead. But gotta mention jrdonsimoni as well for his excellent advice on European programs. And a special shoutout to everyone who took the time to contribute valuable first-hand info on specific programs. That's always very useful, and a good break from generic stuff that we've all seen 1000 times. :) Edit: After some more reflection, I realized I should also give an honorable mention to sulebrahim.

Heterogeneous preferences, you guys. :)

Alright, sorry I totally missed that thread. As the poster said in that thread, a pure econ preparation won't be that bad. Maybe you can try to write your thesis with a finance prof (from the business school, if necessary). This should be possible at most schools. Also, take John Cochrane's MOOCs (Asset Pricing I and II on Coursera) to get some good finance coursework under your belt (won't be a signal for PhD apps, but will be immensely useful to you). I'm not an expert on finance, but in the unlikely event that you're rejected from finance programs, you can still count on getting into either a business econ program, or a regular econ program and then specialize in financial econ. In most places, you can definitely work with profs from the business school as an econ student. So this shouldn't be a problem.

No idea. Could be that the majority of people on this forum are so good that they are able to get into the really top programs like LSE, Oxbridge, etc. Also, this forum is very much focused on US PhD admissions, and the programs often mentioned here are probably more specialized in sending students to the US. Whereas at your average European program, most people will either do their PhD at the same place or move to another EU school. So people from these programs are probably not going to be very active here. But I'm just guessing, obviously. By the way, regarding Bologna, just wondering do you have any alternatives? Or is this the only place you applied to?

Just a heads up, lots of great programs get zero attention on this forum.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about the program at Bologna. But based on their website, it seems like a rigorous program, it would be a good PhD prep in my opinion. Also, quite a few of the profs have PhDs from top places, many of them from the US, which is a good sign. As far as I know, the school itself is relatively renowned. There are definitely active researchers there, the department is top 80 on Ideas with lots of registered authors. Forget about the lack of math/stats. Advice on this forum is very US-specific. You will be fine with this program. Conditional on good letters, top 50 US/EU PhD should be easily doable from Bologna in my opinion. Regarding your other questions: 1) Yes, strong masters grades with accompanying good LORs can greatly offset unranked/unknown undergrad schools. 2) I don't think adcoms care too much. 3) Yes, letters from economists should be fine for finance programs.

That sounds great, I hope more schools follow suit. Though the choice of date was indeed unfortunate. :)

You must surely mean vitamin D haha.

Talking about programs you missed: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, UCL, Warwick, Bonn, Toulouse, IHS Vienna, and maybe others... Also, if you have some money to spare, then consider UBC and UofT as well. If you think you're not good enough for PhD-level coursework yet, then you need a 1-year masters that serves as a bridge between undergrad and grad. For instance, Toulouse's M1 serves this purpose. Then you can do the M2 doctoral track in your second year, or just take a year off working/RA'ing before the PhD. Regarding Tilburg: lots of horror stories out there that they don't support students who don't want to do a PhD at Tilburg. This may only be applicable to the MRes, or may not be true at all, I don't know I just read these comments from random people on the internet. But it's certainly something to consider/research before going there.

If you're talking about the M2 ETE (doctoral track) at Toulouse, then it shouldn't really be any easier than UCLA or Michigan's core courses. If you're gonna do it, then you might as well make it count towards your PhD.

Hm. Regarding MSU, they did send out a letter to waitlisted people. According to the letter, they already sent out decisions to all waitlisted/accepted applicants, and possibly also to rejected ones. If you haven't received a decision, then check your spam folder.