flopson

Thanks, Zubs. Bumping to solicit more opinions, and also to add a couple data points and ask a further question. -The UG 3.0 masks some disastrous grades in math and econ courses (lots of B-, one F in a Linear Algebra summer course...) but also a decent streak in Real Analysis (I took four semesters, got A-, A, B+, A) as well as a grad-level Topology class (B+). - I had a bad experience writing the GRE, and as a result settled on only applying to Canadian schools this time around. However, do you think, given a mixed math background, writing it one more time to try to crack a great quant score, would be worth it, for the extra math signal? Thanks

PROFILE Type of Undergrad: Econ Math double major at Canadian School Undergrad GPA: 3.0 Type of Grad: MA Econ at "top 3" Canadian school Grad GPA: 4.1 RESEARCH EXPERIENCE RA'd in undergrad for a young macroeconomist. RA'd for my MA thesis supervisor. Worked very hands-on quantitative job in industry. TEACHING EXPERIENCE TA during MA, tutoring during Undergrad. LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION Prof I RA'd for in Undergrad (should be decent, worked for him for about a year) MA supervisor (whom I also RA'd for). Old guy who is very well-known and well-connected. We got a long very well and he will write me a very strong letter. Then a prof who I took a Research Methods course with during MA (got A+ and we got a long well). CONCERNS Undergrad GPA is the main one. I also bombed GRE and don't have time or will to re-take, so only applying to Canadian PhDs as I am Canadian and therefore don't need to submit GRE. APPLYING TO UBC, UofT, Queen's, McGill I am confident about my chances at the latter two but how much of a reach are the first two, in your opinion?

i find profile evaluations to be too pessimistic around here lately, but i don't trust myself either. my advice is always to look for people similar to you in profiles & results threads this profile looks similar to yours but with more math, got into some good schools http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/155010-profiles-results-2015-a-2.html#post993447 if you're self-motivated you can teach yourself real analysis from the book. i had a bad prof for one semester so i skipped lectures and read the book, got A. not saying it's best strategy but it's possible and you need some rigorous math

barcelona gse is not very affordable FYI

is it possible to take something other than "sports econ"? something more technical maybe. not a good signal

this seems exaggerated IMO but what do i know

i think you could apply to some econ MAs and have a reasonable chance of getting in somewhere. there were people in my MA with non-econ backgrounds who got funding and did fine.

^^ preach

if you did something like the Qualifying Year at McGill (https://www.mcgill.ca/economics/graduates/programs) + analysis 1 and 2 and multivariable calculus, and aced everything, i feel like you'd have a good shot

i imagine this is a killer philosophy profile IMO: don't do an economics phd just because you want to get a job. however, it's true that if you do an economics phd you are much more likely to get a job (provided you are willing to go non-academic) academic job market for economics: better than philosophy but still tough non-academic job market for economics infinitely better than philosophy. (even if your thesis is theory you can still take courses in metrics & applied stuff as a hedge in case you don't get an academic job) (also: if you are worried about jobs and have a strong philosophy background, why not go into law?) you can still do economics phd but you'd have to take at least a year of math & econ classes and ace them all. unclear to what extent all your philosophy experience would count towards econ phd admissions, i think it would be a good IQ signal but you would still want to take the usual IQ test (real analysis) and a solid background in economic theory. but i think CH is exaggerating when they say you need to do 4 years.

This is a good profile IMO BUT Don't trust other people. Read old profiles and results threads and look at placements of people with similar profiles.

the odds are 100% of getting in. funding seems competitive but you definitely have a shot

also, if you got funded offers at ubc or u-toronto and the only difference is the cost of living in those cities, i'd say go with your heart. i got pretty slim funding: just a TAship and a bursary from my provincial government, but was able to live quite comfortably in kingston off of that.

nah you'll be fine. my officemate never even took calculus and he got straight A's

you don't need real analysis at all and there's a math prep that will teach you the lin alge you need. no difference in level of math required for UofT or UBC

not too intense. i had a fairly strong background so it was pretty easy for me. people who had absolutely no math background struggled, otherwise everyone was ok if not taking a development class is worth 14,000$ to you... you must have a lot more money than me! :-D

RE: queen's - there's a development class offered in the fall and you learn a lot of applied labor in the empirical labor course. in the end was very happy with all the courses i took. if your next best option is paying $14K to go to UofT i'd say it's a no-brainer. course selection is an issue with the program for sure, but not a $14K problem. i can personally confirm the congenial reputation. there are weekly seminars, after which you can go to the grad pub to have beers with profs.

i don't think this transcript is that bad. agree that you've pretty much gotta get straight A's your next 2 years if you wanna be competitive. "not competitive for a top 50 or even top 70 econ program" is exaggerated imo. i've seen similar profiles get into like, rice. acing analysis could make up for the bad calculus grades. so my take is basically the same as everyone else's: you're not out of the running yet, but if you want to still be competitive at the schools you're aiming for, you're gonna really have to kill it.

i took a phd class in MA at queen's. it wasn't double-listed, it was pretty hard but fun. also this is somewhat inaccurate: you actually only have to take 7 courses, so the choice is between 3 - 3 - 1, 4 - 3 - 0 and 3 - 4 - 0. The majority of people choose the latter. in terms of course offerings, it's definitely limited, but i don't think the amount of research faculty should be a concern. there's plenty of solid researchers relative to the size of the MA cohort, and unlike UofT you get a lot of access to them. there's a mandatory MA essay, and you get paired with a supervisor of your choosing. to my knowledge the only people who get access to profs in that way at UofT are second year PhD's, but they get chosen by the profs. or MA's who get RA's. i don't know how common it is there for an MA to be RA there, though. the "congenial" atmosphere at queen's makes it very easy to get RAships, at least in my experience.

if you're not interested in econometrics, definitely don't go to mcgill. the dept has a few strong senior researchers in econometric theory(davidson, dufour) but they're all fairly old, and dufour has like 4 phd students at any given time. even so it's not /that/ strong in econometrics, ubc and u of t are both better. the main problems with the phd program from my perspective seemed to be... pretty much everything that could be wrong. not a good dept culture either among students or faculty (the one grad class i took no one participated, phd's barely showed up), no good resources for grad students (no office, for example), no good placement, not very many strong profs with active research programs. honestly, i would strongly recommend you do the UBC MA and then apply to some good schools

austin

i went to mcgill UG and my profs told me not to do my PhD at mcgill

also if you're not in the honours program don't worry. i was in the honours program at my school but there are 2 other people from the non-honours program in my program, and they have comparable profiles to you. except with even less math.

honestly i wouldn't stress too much. if you apply to top 4 (ubc, uoft, queens, western) you're extremely likely to get into at least one of them. research doesn't matter for a 1 year masters as you won't be doing research. another math course or two couldn't hurt but i don't think you're at any significant risk of getting rejected from all four as is. i think adcoms will trade off a lower gpa with more math courses vs a higher gpa with less. the people in my program who never took calculus had like, 4.0's, but i got in with a 3.1 with tonnes of math. i got lots of B-'s in math courses, so the B- in cal 2 isn't a big deal IMO. and a 3.65 is good.

I was just joking about the avoiding wage labor thing. But 90 hours is brutal, I am sorry. The variety of responses to this thread suggests different people have different relationship between marginal productivity and hours worked. Either that or those of you clocking under 12 hours per day are slacking, lol