PhDPlease

I didn't have any connections to my program (top 5), and I'm under the impression that this is fairly common. It's certainly possible to be considered/admitted as a strong candidate without connections.

I'd also consider whether the person would be willing to get to know you better and put in effort to personalizing the recommendation. It seems like you didn't get to know either professor especially well. You don't want a professor who just says you got a good grade. Sometimes it's "too late" to get to know the professor better if you didn't during the class, but other times the professor will be willing to get to know a former student who expresses interest in grad school. I'd probably try to meet with both to discuss your interests, and see whether there is one that is more enthusiastic and willing to go to bat for you.

It is okay to not be certain at this point, as you will be exposed to a variety of topics in your first year of the PhD. What I did when I applied was wrote about one topic that was particularly interesting me at the time of the application, and also wrote that I anticipated that my interests may evolve as I progress throughout the program. I think that writing about 1 or 2 topics of interest (as opposed to just saying everything interests you) is beneficial in that it shows the schools that you've put thought into your application, and schools anticipate that many people's interests may evolve. In general, it isn't a problem if your interests change (unless they change to something your program doesn't offer), so I wouldn't worry so much about it.

There is plenty of variation in my program in terms of whether or not people had experience before entering the program, but everyone is able to pick up the skills that they need. For those who didn't know programming before entering, how long it takes to learn really varies... If your first research project requires a lot of effort to gather data (e.g., field study, lab study, survey where you have to design and carry out the study which takes a while before you get to the stage of analyzing data), then it might be a while before you really spend much time programming. Also it depends what programming language you use and whether or not your university offers a course in the language or you have to learn it on your own. But in my experience, everyone manages to figure out the programming, and those who don't have programming experience are given time to learn. The summer after the 1st year can also be a good time to improve your programming if necessary, as by that point you'll have more of an idea of what language(s) you will use, what exactly you will need to know, etc. Also on a different point, are you sure you will use SAS in your analysis? If you haven't already confirmed that SAS is used, I would confirm this before spending too much time learning it. I say this because I don't know anyone in my program who (to my knowledge) uses SAS, although I'm sure this varies.

I would go with 1, 2, & 3. Academic references are usually preferred to professional corporate references. There are some exceptions such as if you've been out of school for many years, but that doesn't seem to be applicable in your case. Since you mentioned that you've done things like writing reports and participating in class while at the U.S. university, the professors should be qualified to comment on your English abilities. Also, your verbal GRE is very good, so I don't think your profile raises concerns about language skills. I wouldn't worry much about your program having arts & science separate from the business school. At many universities, the business school either doesn't offer courses for undergrads or the courses are focused on skills for practitioners, not really things that would be very helpful for someone going the academic path. #1 and #3 demonstrate that your interest in OB. #2 is also helpful to demonstrate strong statistical skills, which are very applicable. Also at some universities the OB program is part of the Management Dept and requires taking courses in other fields of management (that may be more econ-based) in addition to taking OB courses. If you had 3 recommendations that were econ and nothing to demonstrate any interest in OB or psych, that might be concerning, but I think 2 in OB/psych and 1 in econ shouldn't raise any flags.

I am not really sure how to answer this question without knowing what your country is. I am in the US, so the international conferences are usually (although not always) in the US, so I guess for people in the US, the international and national conferences are basically the same. If you're in the US, I think you can get away without attending conferences in other countries (possibly w/the exception of going to Canada once or twice, which isn't really much more difficult than travelling in the US). If you're in another country, without knowing the country and field it isn't possible to know how the hiring is done and whether your field even has any conferences in your country. I think this question is really impossible to answer. In some fields, preliminary interviews take place at the conferences. In others, non interviewing takes place, but it still may be an opportunity to demonstrate interest in a school. Top programs like Harvard usually assume that many people are interested and there is a high chance that applicants would seriously consider their offer, but lower-ranked schools or schools in less popular locations may prefer a candidate who has demonstrated serious consideration of their school such as by networking w/them at a conference to a candidate who just sends in an application. Even if the latter candidate is well-qualified, there is a risk the school might assume the candidate is just applying to tons of jobs and not seriously interested in their school due to not having met them at the conference. Overall I'd say not going to conferences has a high chance to hurt you, but I wouldn't say that you would definitely not get a job under any circumstance without attending a conference. There are really too many factors that are impossible to predict + not knowing what country you are in, that make it impossible to give a definite answer.

I think you need to get the syllabus to answer that question. Probably different topics but hard for anyone to give you a definite answer if they haven't attended the specific camp. I would also see if you can talk to any grad student in the program who has taken the camp recently (although of course keeping in mind everyone's perceptions may differ based on differences in prior training and learning styles). In the event that you think it's too challenging and fast-paced and aren't confident you can jump in after reviewing the 1st half on your own, that could be an indication that it would be safest to just go for the 1st half.

I would say that how helpful it is depends on the program as well as your prior background and ability to review on your own. You might be fine if you don't go, but it's kind of risky. Many students will have had RA + attend the camp. There is also some variation in the expectations of professors across schools, so theoretically the math camp should make sure you are prepared for your specific program. I think the safest thing would be to do the camp.

Additionally I have some friends who work in international affairs and have said that studying abroad was not only enjoyable but helped them gain entry to their field.... So I am definitely not saying that a study abroad cannot be useful for some career paths or wouldn't lead to any opportunities, just that the 1st two options you listed don't seem to be the best path to what you've said is your goal (econ phd).

I think you need to learn more about prioritizing and not being able to take every opportunity that sounds worthwhile (based not only on this, but also on your previous posts). I agree with chateauheart that the Warsaw plan might be good based on what you've said, although I'm not familiar enough to say for sure. If your #1 priority is to get into the best PhD that you can, that might come at the cost of not being able to pursue all things that could be an interesting life experience or that might be relevant to your other interest in international affairs. We can advise you on what to do for an Econ PhD if you've decided that your #1 goal is to get into the best PhD possible... But we can't tell you whether or not that is the right goal for you in the first place. This comment is intended to be helpful rather than harsh. I personally am someone who has a range of interdisciplinary interests and also enjoys having a range of life experiences, but I have definitely made an effort to evaluate trade-offs and realize that I cannot do everything.

In my field, it is important to attend the field's annual conference (usually in the US, sometimes in Canada) if you are interested in the US job market. At my program students usually attend starting in the 2nd year, although the year that it would be really important to attend is the year you are on the job market. Also universities will usually fly out a small list of top candidates to give a job talk before hiring, so you would probably need to be willing to travel to locations that you are considering for your job. Since I am at a US program, I am not really familiar with job markets outside the US, so I am not sure whether it is essential to attend if you are outside the US and not interested in the US job market. If you are in a non-US country and interested in staying in that country, you might need to look into the specifics of that country (rather than asking very general questions), but (depending on the country) it might not be essential to travel much in that case. I would also say that in my experience, there are not many formal requirements beyond passing classes, passing an exam, and submitting a dissertation. However, there are many things you can do like conferences, seminars, workshops, etc. that can increase your chance of success. It isn't the case that it is officially "required" in the sense that anyone will track your attendance and kick you out of the program if you do not attend. However, if you only do the bare minimum official requirements to graduate from the program, the chances of success would be lower than if you take up non-officially-required opportunities at least sometimes.

By "as many as possible," don't take more than you can handle. You don't want to do poorly due to taking much on. The math minor + 1 or so additional courses should be plenty. CS is good but is not required; many people get admitted without any CS courses. I think that 1 CS course can be helpful if it fits your schedule as it will help you gain a strong understanding of programming fundamentals, but I really wouldn't take a high # of CS courses unless you are confident that you have room in your schedule and it won't risk your math/econ grades or your well-being.

Also agreed that your best option is to do just one major + one minor, not two majors. Why are you only considering a double major and not considering any options with a single major? A major in econ + a minor in math is the best combination for your goal of a PhD (or full-time RA followed by PhD). If for any reason you end up not doing a PhD, a major in econ + minor in math would still qualify you for private-sector jobs as well. If you can do the international relations minor without too much extra coursework then keep the minor, but the important thing is the econ major + math minor.

I think this is common. I went to a top 10 econ dept for undergrad, and the econometrics class did not require linear algebra as a prereq. Many econ majors don't take math beyond calc, so the econ dept often caters to those students. In my opinion, it might be better if econ depts offered separate econometrics classes for those students who took linear alg and those who didn't, but I don't think that is very common. Even if linear alg isn't requited, it's still possible that you might get more out of econometrics if you take linear alg first, although that might depend on how the course is taught.

Are you sure you want to take that many classes? Based on your other posts, it seems like something that could make you stressed. Assuming you have finite hours in the day and you need sufficient sleep to perform at your best, you can only increase your effort to a certain point. If I were you, I would take 1 fewer classes or turn down the job. In my opinion, it is better to have a normal number of classes and really put your best effort into each while getting enough sleep and staying healthy than to take on too many classes + other commitments and strain yourself too much.

I am in a top 5 program, and I am pretty sure that most students didn't have a published or publication-quality paper before enrolling. Of course if you have a publication it helps for the few people who have one, but the vast majority of students don't, so not having one isn't something to worry about. From what I'm aware of, when students have had a publication, it's usually the result of working closely with a professor as a full-time RA post-undergrad. Learning how to actually write up the paper, how to situate it in the prior literature, etc, is pretty difficult to just do on your own prior to actually being in a PhD program (when you learn how to do this). I think it's kind of unrealistic for most people to learn this themselves prior to entering the PhD unless working closely with a faculty member. Also, the process of submitting, waiting for reviews, revising, etc can take a long time, so if you're planning to go directly from the MA to the PhD, even if you had a good idea, it's not that likely that you'd be able to complete the process of publishing in time. I wrote a paper in my senior year of undergrad for a course that involved coming up with a questing, gathering data, running some basic regressions, and interpreting the results. If I recall, I mentioned the paper as something I enjoyed and that helped further my interest in research and pursuing the PhD. But the paper wasn't at the caliber required for publication. So I guess my thought would be that if you have the opportunity to write a paper, it's usually a good idea to work hard and take it seriously, but that having a publication definitely isn't required for admission.

It probably should be openly discussed. The faculty in my program recommends that all PhD students discuss before beginning the project and to reach an agreement (either agreeing in advance what the order will be, or agreeing that it will later be determined based on who contributes the most and how contributions will be assessed if using the later method). I'd say in reality sometimes grad students may feel too uncomfortable and just hope for the best rather than discuss if working with faculty. There isn't any one universal unstated convention that everyone shares, although there are cases when an individual may have a personal convention and just assume everyone else shares the convention (when maybe not everyone does......). Assuming the coauthor is approachable, I'd try to discuss in advance.... If you are coauthoring with someone who is easily angered or non-responsive to basic questions, I guess you're in for some difficulties and not sure what to advise in that case. The benefit of deciding in advance is that it prevents misunderstandings and hard feelings (e.g. if someone contributes a lot assuming he/she is first author but then someone more senior claims first authorship), but sometimes isn't feasible if it isn't clear how much someone will contribute in advance (e.g., faculty may be open to sharing authorship with the grad student IF the grad student ends up contributing a lot but doesn't want to give a promise and then the grad student ends up not actually contributing much).

I mostly agree w/the other comments. 1) I'm not sure how you can be confident that you want to do econ theory if you haven't taken any math beyond AP classes in high school. It's good that you did well in your AP classes and your GRE score is excellent. However, in my undergrad experience studying math, there were many people who did well in AP classes in high school and then took 1-2 more math classes in college, and then realized they were not interested in continuing one they got to the theoretical math. I am not saying that would definitely happen to you, but that you can't really know for sure whether you'd like the more advanced math that is necessary for an econ phd until you actually get there. 2) As others have said, the econ academic job market is probably better than philosophy, but still not very difficult. Statistics that show that almost all phd economists are employed include many jobs in government and industry. How do you feel about jobs in government and industry? If you do an econ phd even at a non-top university, you can feel pretty confident that you'd get some sort of professional job, but there's a high chance you would not get a top academic job. A lot of government/industry jobs involve things like running regressions, performing statistical analyses, analyzing data, etc. There isn't really anything in your profile that indicates that you have interest in that sort of work. 3) I am not sure if the reason you picked theory as your econ field is because you think it is similar to philosophy moral theory or some other reason. I am not an expert at moral philosophy but I think it's very different from econ theory. 4) Of course, this isn't to say an econ phd is DEFINITELY a bad idea for you. It is just to say that based on the info you've provided, there isn't really anything that convinces me that you know what you'd be getting into and that you have enough knowledge of econ to know whether or not you want to pursue it. 3)

What is your ultimate goal? If you're going for a competitive academic placement, you'd be competing against people who spent more years on their dissertation/research, and thus may not be advisable even if your university would allow you to graduate. In terms of feasibility, my guess is anything below 4 really isn't likely to be feasible. Many programs require everyone to take the core PhD-level requirements regardless of prior coursework, although this may depend on the particular school. Your coursework sounds impressive, but if you end up in a top program, probably other students would also have similarly-impressive coursework.

I would wait to ask until after you've been admitted. If you ask before you've been admitted, you might face discrimination. If you make it to the interview stage, you've already paid the fee, so I think it's better to wait and (hopefully) receive an offer and then you decide whether or not to attend, than to risk that you could get preemptively rejected due to discrimination. Some schools post information about the student health insurance online, so you can probably figure out information about some schools without asking.

It seems like your issues are mainly related to anxiety/medical reasons, and I don't think anyone on this forum is really qualified to provide the sort of advice that you need. It seems that advising you would require more of an understanding of health issues than anyone here is likely to have. With that caveat in mind, if I were you, I would certainly consider trying to work as an RA or some other sort of related work experience after undergrad. Personally, I felt that I really needed a break from being in school, and really enjoyed working as an RA for a few years. While working as an RA allowed me to stay in an academic/research environment, I found it much more relaxing than being in school, and while RA'ing I was able to learn a lot without having to take exams and think about grades. While some people RA because they couldn't qualify for a phd immediately, there are also many RAs who wanted to take a break from being a student even if they could have gotten into a grad program directly from undergrad. It's important to keep in mind that it isn't a race, and not going immediately to grad school doesn't mean you are a failure. The data/programming/research skills I gained from RA'ing have been really valuable in grad school, and those RA's who decided not to do a PhD were able to use the RA experience to provide a career foundation. Even though I took a few years off, I am still within the normal age range in the program. After students enter the program, students who took time off to RA are not looked on any less favorably than those who went directly from undergrad, and the experience sometimes results in good opportunities to collaborate with professors once in the program if you've gained useful skills. Is there any particular reason why you want to enter the phd directly from undergrad?

Do you have the opportunity to write a senior thesis and/or work as an RA for an econ professor?

I think you really have to ask an adviser at your specific university. At my undergrad, unless you were a transfer student (which you wouldn't be), you could receive a maximum of 1 semester worth of credits for previously-completed coursework... so that would still leave you with 3.5 years worth of coursework given that the BA is 4 years. In contrast, a Masters is usually 1-2 years, so I could see how it is more feasible for a student to complete an extra masters in the PhD program, especially if a few classes can overlap or double-count. But policies regarding credits really vary a lot from school to school, so I think you have to ask someone at your specific school. IMO I agree with ^ that the extra master's (or BA) won't do that much beyond what a PhD would do for you. If you're going to be taking most of the courses anyway, it is always nice to get a degree for it. But if it would require a lot of extra classes that you wouldn't otherwise take, I wouldn't go for the degree, and instead would just take the specific courses that would benefit you even if you don't get the degree out of it. Remember you will be very, very busy as a PhD student. You should definitely take courses that will help you develop skills to achieve your goals, but any courses you take that aren't required and aren't essential will take away time from important things like research.

If you do an entire undergraduate degree, wouldn't that mean you have to take a bunch of general education, electives, and distributional classes as well? Is there a reason why you need the degree (as opposed to just taking whatever # of CS courses interest you and fit your schedule w/o officially getting a 2nd degree)?

I agree. I did a short course on VBA, but everything covered in the course seemed to be things I'd do in a statistical programming language so I haven't used VBA for anything. I mean it certainly isn't harmful if it is something you enjoy, but in terms of skills that will be most valuable, I would say VBA isn't the best use of time.