coffeehouse

204 used almost nothing from 202 and 203. It couldn't have been that. Maybe you are not used to going home and learning independently.

Listen. The difference is not prestige, ranking vs the financial cost. The difference is that an unfunded offer means the school does not really want you there. The rule of thumb is "accept the best offer" out of the subset that are funded. Some people have an (extreme) view, that even if you were swimming in cash, you should not be accepting an unfunded offer. Last year I had an offer from Northwestern that was unfunded first year. I spoke to many people and I said that I could afford the extra 80k (tuition+living expenses). Everyone said I was crazy. They said even if my next offer was a school ranked outside the top 30, I should not be accepted an unfunded offer.

If you attend an unfunded school, just know that you are paying someone else's tuition and stipend, and that the department does not consider you to be worth funding in the first place. It's also a signal on their part of why they chose not to fund you. Do you really want to attend a school that wants you to pay for your PhD? Take the UCLA offer and it's not even close. Every year Chicago says they will lower their incoming student count, yet they still send out 100 offers and last year's cohort has close to 40+ people. Every year they say the same thing.

Northwestern is known to use a bunch of different "strategies" instead of giving a specific waitlist. A waitlist signals that you are good, but not quite "good enough" for a proper admission. Doing this, makes it seem more like they're just taking a while to decide. But in reality, they are just hoping for people to start accepting/rejecting before they give you an offer (this is essentially a waitlist). Last year the equivalent was an offer, but a waitlist for funding. I even heard the receptionist say that this was Northwestern's waitlist.

All second year students at Stanford must RA. It's their second year RA program. Even if you have an NSF or you have external funding, you will still be required to RA (the department sees this as beneficial for yourself).

Definitely, definitely visit.

I graduated with a BSc. from a top Canadian school and I am currently at a Top 5 right now. Feel free to private message me.

Last year Berkeley was the last top 10 school to send results. Rejections came 1-2 days before acceptances. Rejections came on a Sunday. So, yes, rejections CAN come first, and decisions CAN come on a weekend.

Berkeley, MIT and I think Harvard? They have second year field comps though (I think Oral).

Probably huge heterogeneity. Some schools do not have comps, while others have a end of math camp final that determines whether you can enter the program. Also, almost no one has attended more than one PhD program, so there really isn't much to compare.

A single B grade will not kill you. I had a B- in my ONLY analysis course, and I am currently at a top 5 program. I do not feel mathematically behind my classmates either (of course minus a few).

Fair enough. Now I want to make one thing very very clear. Econhead stated that a letter from a non-tenured professor carries "much less weight". That statement cannot be more false. I see it being stated everywhere on these forums, it is absolutely bogus.

In this situation I think you are better off asking for at least one letter from one of your bosses. Usually it is NOT recommended to ask for letters from people in industry but here is my reasoning why in your case, you SHOULD: 1. Your academic reference letters are all quite mediocre. Two of which are from professors who taught Principle of Micro/Macro that you TA'ed for. They have nothing much to say about your abilities for graduate studies. Another letter would be from someone who taught you intermediate Micro. This course, although required, is not a challenging course and would carry little weight. 2. Your industry letters may not be that bad; they don't appear to be the usual industry letters. They all have PhDs in Economics from reputable schools and one was even an AP at some point. If your relationship with them is good, you can ask them to tailor their letter towards what work you did and how it would prepare you for grad school, and how the skills you acquired at your job may be transferable to a PhD. They obviously had some academic experience and know what letters are important, so ask them to tailor it in such a way.

The last thing I would call a perfect quant is "very impressive". A 170 tells me almost nothing over a 168.

Independent of the TOEFL score (considering I know nothing about it and what that score translate in terms of your English ability), I think the two are very much identical. You could survey 100 people and I think you would have a 50/50 or a 60/40 split. I think the second attempt is better since the difference of a 3.5 from 3.0 is greater than a 170 and 168. This is even with ignoring the marginal improvement on the Verbal.