aeea

Thanks tm_member for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Do adcomm members even read the SOPs? Given the focus on math classes, GRE quant scores and LORs that people have here, it seems as if the SOP, CV, etc are ignored. One faculty member told me it would not even be read! Some times I even feel LORs are only useful if they are from faculty who are friends of adcomm members and/or are well-known professors.

One more point. To be clear, adcomms can set whatever standards they wish. For examples, top 5 schools can declare they will admit only students from top 3 schools. It is their prerogative. I just ask that the standards be fully disclosed. So much time is spent (wasted) by students on this forum trying to divine the standards of adcomms. Would it not be better that that time be spent by the student in more productive ways?

Thanks for the post. Difficulty is different from impossibility Anyone applying to PhD Economics programs knows that NO ONE can be sure of admission even if you have a 4.5 GPA (on a 4.0 scale), perfect GRE scores and a paper in the AER and QJE. What I am reading on this forum is not people stressing "difficulty", but people stressing "impossibility" and worse doing so with condescension, dismissiveness and elitism. As I said previously, if indeed it is "impossible", for non top 10(30) applicants to get into top 10 (30) programs, then adcomms should clearly inform everyone up front - otherwise they are engaging in fraud by accepting the applications and the application fees.

You said:

Then why don't you and all those who believe that only students who attend "top 10" schools are qualified to apply to "top 10" schools, what more being "qualified to pursue a PhD at a top 30 school, let alone a top 10" have the adcomm simply state boldly on the various top 10 (30) websites and application forms: "Unless you graduated from a top 10 (30) school you are not qualified to pursue a PhD at our top 10 (30) institution. You are therefore advised not to apply. If you do apply, your application will be automatically rejected by the administrators and will not be reviewed by faculty. This is how the 'admissions process' works." If this is indeed, how the "admissions process" works, then this would be the best approach for all. In fact, it is the only moral approach; otherwise the schools are obtaining application fees from students under false pretenses - and that is the definition of fraud.

You can demonstrates results and 'deliver" as a practicing economist not as a PhD applicant. How many orrthodox economist read heteredox journals or vice versa to see what the "results" are, to see what is being "delivered'? For sake of argument, let's ignore the disdain both sides show each other.

, OK. Thanks. What high ranked "traditional" Economics PhD programs do you think would be open to heteredox approaches or those who which to "change economics from the inside" as you state?

Thanks for starting and sharing on this thread. Great insights! You said: "For those who want to change economics from the inside, attending a traditional program and eventually branching out, or attending higher ranked business or political economy programs and still publishing in top econ field journals and generalist journals, is probably the only way to do it" What political economy programs would you recommend? Thank you.

Congratulations! If OSU is the best option for you - I suggest you speak candidly about the situation to both Rice & OSU. Do what is best for YOU. Your candor with both schools should enable you achieve this gracefully. Wishing you all the best!

Looking good! Congrats again!

Congratulations! You have great choices. What offer do you think you will accept?

Congrats on a good first step. Is this postal mail notification or e-mail notification?

I suggest you immediately call them and seek clarification.

Thanks and Congrats again! I am sorry I cannot help with your question, but I hope someone in this informed community will answer it soon..

Congratulations! Into which of their doctoral programs? Public Policy? Did you just get the call or was it this morning? Congrats!

Thanks for the info. Did you email them to ask the status?

Yes, I belive that after the mandatory doctoral level micro, the rest of the Public Plcy program should be more applied. Why is PhD micro so difficult for everyone?! Can you relate any of the micro theory you learn to the real world?

Hi BlackKitty, I can see how those interested in applied policy issues do not want to be bothered with esoteric theory and proofs. However, virtually all the Public Policy PhD programs I am aware of do require doctorate level microeconomics in the first year. Were you aware of that? Are you in a masters or doctorate economics program? In the US or UK or elsewhere? Thanks for starting this thread. Wishing you the best!

What would be the rationale for rejecting the scores?

What fields are Chicago strong in? Weak in? Thank you.

Hello, I am consideirng the Gerge Mason Unversity (GMU) Phd in Economics program. The program is not discussed frequently here. I am keen to learn more about the program from insiders and other informed parties. any information on the program is welcome. I am trying to get a better sense of the program. Thank you.

Hello chateauheart. You said: "No one, really. That's probably why Mueller had to fly back to the Alps. That kind of informal public choice is rarely done in the US any more. But a lot of things came out of it, including more formal models of law and political economy. If you think you can handle the math then you should really consider that as a research area - I don't want to start a methodological debate here, but there are several good reasons for why the formal variants became dominant in the mainstream." When you say that "research area" do you mean "Political Economics"? If so, what institutions and faculty do you consider top ranked. What are the good reasons you refer to why formal variants now dominate. I'm not debating you (not that I shy from that) - I am just curious as to your views. Thanks again.

Are you referring to the "research area" of "Political Economics"? Who are the faculty and schools that come to mind in that respect, if that is indeed what you are referring to. Please do share your views on the good reasons why "formal variants" became dominant. Debates are OK. Thank you!

Thank you pch. This is helpful. Edit: I am surprised though that you did not mention anyone at GMU?!