goreds

I completely second this statement!

It could help you to get a better letter... at the end, as the paper itself is not a very clear signal (as they don't know what part of it was made by you) they will rely on the information provided by your prof. But, even if the letter from your potential coauthor is already stellar, it would be a good idea, as you will learn more about the research process.

not 90%, but if your grades are good enough and you have taken advanced math courses you can discuss with Prof. Hidalgo and get upgraded (provided you didnt apply to EME and were rejected)

AWESOME!!!!! i want to watch it haha

If you get distinction, you get the offer for the PhD. But it is, in general, unfunded. You have to apply for funding in a process very similar to the one for external applicants. On average, they fund between 5 and 7 of those who get distinction.

My prior is that, ceteris paribus, those students would have been, at least weakly, better in Stanford. Both places are exceptional. I don't think it would make a huge difference. But, for me, Stanford is better in theory than MIT hands down

If you are more theory oriented Stanford is the place to go. If you want more macro, specially new keynesian, then MIT will be a better place. As you said, it depends a lot on your interests and preferences. You can't go wrong with the decision. Go to the visit days, get as much information as possible, and go the place you find you fit better.

Institution: UBC Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: TBD Notification date: 03/07/16 Notified through: Email Comments:

I think the situation in UCL would be very similar to LSE. Even if you are a stellar student, the faculty might want to push you elsewhere, this also contributes to the prestige of their program. But if you are confident that you will perform very well, I will not worry that much, you can always stay from the beginning your interest of staying, etc. The answers to your other questions are pretty much idiosyncratic. I have a very positive opinion about LSE and London, and I guess the experience in UCL should not be a lot different. Whether this outweighs the risk of not getting in directly or the opportunity cost of going to CEMFI is something I ignore. Btw, CEMFI is also an excellent department, especially if you like metrics, they have Arellano.

In LSE-EME (or Econ) getting a distinction is a necessary, NOT a sufficient condition, to get into their PhD WITH funding. I think every year more or less 2-3 students from the EME go to the PhD with funding. Other outstanding students are placeed in stronger departments in the US, but it is not unlikely that you get distinction and then has to apply to other schools and wait one year.

I think Catrina is talking about the professors that now work at Rice. They placed people in those universities while working for other departments. However, as the placement process depends a lot on your advisor this is a very positive sign

No idea what are your other options, and whether they dominates Columbia in theory. But, Columbia does not look like a bad place to do theory. In fact, they have very interesting people that are very very active producing research of the highest quality. M. Morelli, Chiappori, Karkik, Prat, and Ortoleva come to my mind

Institution: Texas A&M (TAMU) Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: TBD Notification date: 03/01/16 Notified through: Email with attached letter Comments: I will decline

That is because one of the most important parts, the letters of recommendation, are an unobservable factor. It does not only include the quality of the letter per se, or the quality of the recommender, but also the contacts of the recommender, whether he is contacting colleagues and “pushing” the candidate, etc.

Same here... yes, it hurts!