leonm

As might be obvious from what is to follow, PortMeadow and I have essentially the same profile :P (Yes, we are actually different people as becomes clear from the results!) PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: UK Top 2 Econ programme Undergrad GPA: First (Top of the year) Type of Grad: UK Top 2 Econ programme Grad GPA: TBC (so far First level, Top 3 in the year) GRE: 170Q, 169V, 5.5AW Math Courses: Private Tuition in Real Analysis, Metric Spaces, Topology, Linear Algebra (all >70). Econ Courses: UG: Intermediate Micro, Intermediate Macro, Intermediate Metrics, Game Theory, Microeconomic Theory, Mathematical Methods (all >70); Grad: Micro, Macro, Metrics sequence (all >70), advanced micrometrics, macro, micro, IO (tbc) Other Courses: philosophy courses including advanced formal logic (all >70) Letters of Recommendation: grad thesis supervisor (top 800 REPEC), undergraduate tutor who has known me for 5 years (top 6%), grad first-year supervisor (top 8%) Research Experience: master's thesis; summer research assistantship at well-known UK think tank; month-long research assistantship for professor at uni Teaching Experience: taught real analysis at uni Research Interests: micro theory, finance SOP: explained why I hate to take maths as private tuition, short description of RAships, that sorta thing Other: one page explaining how UK grades work and how they differ from US grading systems RESULTS: Acceptances: Princeton, Northwestern, NYU, Oxford, LSE Waitlists: MIT, Yale, UPenn Rejections: Stanford, S-GSB, Harvard, Berkeley, Chicago, Booth, Columbia Pending: --- Attending: Princeton Comments: I naturally agree with what PortMeadow said above. Institutions put varying weights on different criteria, but given those weights there is little randomness. Some variation is introduced for international applicants because the person evaluating your file needs to understand your grades; I suspect this was a problem at one of the above unis specifically (but don't think I should mention which). What would you have done differently? I definitely should have gotten a recommendation letter from a higher-ranked / more well-known professor, even if it had cost me a summer of free RAing. Apart from that, I think it was all good.

AFAIK everybody on the Yale waitlist got the same generic e-mail detailing its size and the fact that it is unranked. I don't follow why you would believe they are lying to you about there being a ranking. [incidentally, I know of at least one person who will reject the Yale waitlist, so hang in there - there's always a chance!]

Did both of you post on GradCafe? [Just trying to get a feeling for how many people were already notified]

... and here

Yh, it could be spot on. Annoyingly it's also close to how many Chicago acceptances were shared last year, so I do think it is entirely possible we are done. But tbh we'll probably know by tomorrow anyhow, I doubt they'll delay rejects further...

I guess the question is what sort of yield ratio Chicago has. If it can admit 25 and get a yield of 20, this might be it. But more realistic to expect them to admit 40ish, in which case I'd expect a bit more than the current 9 acceptances on GradCafe...

How would they know it's a troll? It's not as if they have extra information, or am I wrong? (Also note there is an additional waitlist, though I guess it could be the same guy...)

Because you didn't get an informal e-mail? I wouldn't give up hope quite yet, I don't think S-GSB send out all acceptances at once.

They have been deleted so I would assume trolls; though S-GSB would be exactly right, timing-wise. EDIT: never mind, at least S-GSB was reposted with the comment "[TABLE=class: results narrow-table ui-table ui-table-reflow, width: 1374] [TR=class: row0, bgcolor: #CAC8CA] [TD] Informal email from professor. Don't know why my previous post disappeared... Excited anyway !! [/TD] [/TR] [TR=class: row1, bgcolor: #F2F2EC] [/TR] [/TABLE] "

How do people feel about the recent Berkeley Econ rejection and acceptance pair on GradCafe? Sounds a bit early for real Berkeley responses?

Thanks for the feedback guys, sounds like I should leave them blank then!.

Dear everyone, I am not used to writing diversity statements for applications; honestly, writing them makes me feel slightly dirty. It seems to be required for certain universities (e.g. Berkeley) - fine, if everybody has to embarrass themselves, so can I. But what is the deal with other universities (e.g. Stanford), where this statement is optional - did the cisgender-male-straight-white-middleclass people among you leave these empty or did you write something just in case? If so, does anybody have an example what kind of stuff you could write about? This whole experience is very strange to me. Thank you so much for your help! Best, leonm

EDIT: Ignore this post. I mistakenly read "~10 US programs" as top ten US programs. Your range is appropriate. I'm sorry, but I'm going to put aside my British politeness here to speak bluntly: these are not the sort of grad GPAs I'd expect someone who plans on applying top ten to have, especially as your weakest grades are in the technical courses. At least personally, I'd consider a B in grad micro very concerning, same goes for stats and probability marks. Your letters also sound a bit weak: heterodox economics is a warning sign for top ten programmes (might get you into GMU if he (s)he has connections?), and you admit yourself your best letter-writer doesn't know you particularly well. On the other side, however, you being published might help you, depending on the quality of the paper (esp. if it's technical that would be good). All in all, I would highly recommend casting a wide net. Even top 30-50 programmes in the US are still pretty decent. Also don't make it depend on GRE, because the GRE will never get you a favourable "bonus" at top programmes - it will just decide whether they look at your application.

(Potentially biased: Oxford MPhil student here) Comparison with Cambridge: * Amongst people I know (including Cambridge graduates, professors and students) it is very established that Oxford beats Cambridge significantly at graduate level: e.g. when there was a talk in the department to undergraduates which UK unis to consider for PhD or Masters, Cambridge was not even mentioned (LSE, UCL, Oxford were). When somebody asked about Cambridge, they were told they really should try better than that. Having said that, Cambridge is quite good at networks if that is your thing. (Should also mention LSE EME was generally considered to beat Oxford MPhil, so this isn't just people saying Oxford is the best :P) * Undergraduate-wise I don't think the two are comparable: Oxford offers only PPE or History & Economics, Cambridge does straight econ. It is true that Oxford has lost a couple of top faculty recently though (see EJMR post, though that contains a lot of false rumours aswell). Also general wisdom is US top ten beats any European place.

Thanks, that sounds like good advice :)