sulebrahim

Any ok laptop will do as long as you are not doing any powerful computing or playing advanced video games. For the former, you can always one of your campus's clusters/super computers or whatever they call it.

The issue here is that OP may be in a non-US university where they are restricted in course options, so the math for economics courses are meant to be self contained and provide with the math one needs as applied to economics. I'm not suggesting that OP tells us her school but if you look at the international profiles here, you would see that many students with the exception of those coming from Germany and Australia and a few others, do not have any formal math courses.

I think it's difficult to advice because you have not taken any math in undergrad, but then again you were able to do well in two Masters programs that look rigorous enough, which should erase the concerns, for some and maybe not for others on the admissions committee. So the question is, will Adcoms look at the two Masters and say "he can make it through the first year", or will they be concerned that you did not take any math. I think it's more of the former, because I know someone who went to JHU with possibly worse grades and got into a top 10 ARE program, but that's only anecdotal. He like you has a lot of research experience. So I guess the generic advice of applying broadly is pretty much ideal for your case.

-----> EJMR If actually serious, OP is still building foundations, so it wouldn't make sense to jump straight into those books.

From experience it depends. Some schools when applying have a math section where they explicitly ask you to provide course descriptions. Others may not provide that, so in such a case, you would need to have one of your recommenders and/or your SOP mention that. I think even if there is a section in your application, it does not hurt to mention it.

It normally counts. The same thing appplies for people who did math for econ as opposed to math. You may have to provide course descriptions.

No. Game theory is not required. The undergrad econ courses that seem to carry the most weight are intermediate micro and then metrics. Even the latter is not always required.

Schools like Sharif and University of Tehran are well known in the US. At least in Engineering they are well known. One of the top young economist specializing in Matching did his undergrad at Sharif University of technology, so there's that. FYI: The competition at the top 20 schools is really really high, acceptance rate are Harvard is like 4% . So, I don't know if that obsession is healthy

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence to contradict this. Take a look at the profiles and results archive. Some of the people have already finished and are APs, and some of them didn't do better than OP in math.

One thing you can do is to look at the placement information of both schools, especially the European placements and compare. But while you compare the placements be aware of the self selection bias. Many people who want to place in Europe after graduation, only go to the US if it is a top 20 school, so this affects placements from mid ranked US to EU, because there are not many to begin with.

Stupid question but what do you mean by 'not on transcript'. Did you take it at another school or you self taught yourself? Also, I know you say your school is unknown but do you know if they have sent people to PhD programs in the US? If they have, then your school may not be as unknown as you think.

It's pretty common for some ARE programs to have 4 years of funding. As far as getting an additional year of funding, It really depends on the school and how much money they have. My advice is to assume that getting an additional year of funding is not automatic so when you get to your fourth year, you can start asking professors if they need RAs and apply for fellowships. From talking to people in econ, ARE and policy, many people fund their unfunded years through teaching gigs (sometimes at community colleges), student loans or personal funds. With people now finishing in 6 years in econ, I assume that schools will start adjusting, but right now, that does not seem to be the case, at least for the programs (LRM) I am familiar with.

Have you looked at the placements? Economics: Placement and Graduate Placements - University of Houston I think looking at the recent papers of the macro faculty may be a good way to evaluate which is the better fit.

Not one to give math advice but isn't this where math for econ books are helpful. They don't cover everything about linear algebra, but they cover the essentials of linear algebra that you would normally would need for econ.

The calculus wouldn't be a problem. Once they see the advanced math classes, the admissions committee would not be concerned about it. It's pretty common for people to test out of calculus 1 and/or 2 or take it in high school.

I remember looking at Simon Fraser when I was applying a few years ago. I know that they are the 5th or 6th best program in Canada behind the big 4, so I know they have a strong reputation in Canada. I think BGSE may be more known internationally but I still think Simon Fraser a good program to go to, especially since you got full funding. You have the chance to continue on towards a PhD but even if you decide against that, you still have the change to carry on independent research for your MA, which could help in your PhD applications. You can see the PhD placements PhD Job Placements - Economics - Simon Fraser University here if you haven't already If money is not a problem I can see how BGSE would be the option but SF isn't bad either.

I understood the point to mean that someone who has taken enough math plus some econ classes > someone who has taking so much math and no econ classes, assuming everything else in the same as opposed to somebody with little math and some econ over someone with too much math and no econ.

Looking at the job market candidates and current students, UBC does seem to have a lot of people doing Macro and/or development. UVA and OSU does have people too but UBC seems to have a higher concentration at first glance. If you go to UVA I assume you have access to intern at the Fed in Richmond, and UVA is like 2 hours away from DC, so it would be easier to intern at IMF/WB and other institutes, assuming you are open to non-academic jobs. I don't have inside information on any of the programs, I just wanted to bump your thread so people who may know more could respond. And looking at the placements, UBC seems to be established as well outside Canada.

I think, your performance in your remaining math classes in addition to gaining research experience during or after your masters will help. As someone with experience at the low end, your profile with an improved GRE could probably get you into some unranked programs to be honest. But you want to get to the best school you can probably can as well as be well prepared. So having better grades in math and getting good research experience will help. If you look at the profiles and results section, you will see profiles similar to yours but better GRE and research experience. I do second Heron's advice for policy programs. But the advice about GRE, Math and research holds for either path.

If you are interested in non-academic work after graduation, I think being in the DMV area is a plus because of sheer number of NGOs and think-tanks in the area. So networking and doing summer internships would be easier than if you were somewhere else. If you are not, then I agree that the stipend at PSU is hard to ignore.

Looking at the GWU website, they have two Masters, an MS in economics and a Masters in applied economics. If it's the MS, you take mostly PhD level courses. The micro, macro and metrics sequence is theoretical as well. So if that is the Masters you are considering, I think it's a good preparatory masters. I think Boston has the prestige but I don't really know what the coursework is like. it seems to me that it is more applied. I may be wrong here.

if the funding was the same for both schools, the debate would be probably be a 50/50 split, so with funding at Tufts, I think that trumps the other offer. The program is well regarded as well

This is a great point actually. As someone in development, this rings true

One thing that I have noticed is that may students in schools in Europe sometimes get the opportunity to be vising students for a 3-2 months at top US/UK schools. Normally they are supervised by a resident faculty, so that could be an option if you are not eager to stay in the US for a long time but still plan get some of the network effects. It's still not the same as attending a top 10 school though.

First of all, let me say that I never said your profile sucks and if it sounded like that, that was not my intention, I can relate to your situation more than you can imagine. It is very possible to improve your math skills, many people have in the past but you need to devote as much time as possible which is difficult because of your course load and extracurricular activities. That was why I suggested that it would be easier to switch paths, but if you want to go the econ route which is perfectly fine, it would require extra work and possibly a couple years or more of math classes after you graduate to remedy your previous grades. There are people on this forum that have done that, it's just that they were interested in fields like econometrics and micro theory where heavy math was required, so they basically had no choice but to learn as much math as they could. And the fact that they were interested in fields like that meant that they were probably already mathematically inclined to begin with. I realize this thread is about your summer options but I think the consensus is that getitng a good grade in your math class(es) is a priority so anything that prevents you from focusing 100% may not be the best. Best of luck.