Cerealist

Hi! You mention work-life balance. Given that you want to break into the top 10/15 US programs, i don't think this is necessarily that dependent on which program you enter. There are certain things you just need to do, like ace most of your classes, take impressive-looking classes, impress professors via RA work and/or a paper,.. and so on. In my experience, the people who had the most work-life balance were the people who came the best prepared to the masters program. The people who were the most relaxed were typically the people who had already taken a real analysis-like course, or mastered it on their own. They took the lemma-proof style presentation of microeconomics easier, and were more easily able to deal with convergence concepts and so on in econometrics. People who also had to put in additionally long nights where those who hadn't had linear algebra before (metrics). So long story short, if you are planning on taking rigorous econ courses at your masters degree, the best way to get a work-life balance is to really know your proof-writing and (relevant) linear algebra. In terms of recognition in U.S. econ departments I'm pretty confident that LSE>UCL and LSE>Warwick, and I would guess that UCL>Warwick, thus LSE>UCL>Warwick. What you really want to do is look at the placements into US PhD programs from these masters programs. And make sure you don't confuse LSE's MSc Economics placements with LSE's EME(?) placements. Then try to get more info on the candidates that placed into top programs that you'd like to go to, and see if it's possible for you to replicate their success. For instance you might find that one or more candidate placed at a top 10 US econ program, and had a similar background with you, and took courses that you are allowed to take, and RA'd for a professor that will still be around when you are there. Now that's a good sign. Or you may find that the only candidates that placed into top US PhD programs had "routes" that you can't replicate. E.g. a student did his undergrad at Harvard, before going to LSE for a masters, really just because he wanted to live abroad for a year while he considered whether or not he wanted to do academics. But he may already have built a solid profile during his undergrad, so LSE had no treatment effect on him, and thus you won't be able to replicate his success. Now that's the ideal analysis you should perform. But it requires information not always readily available, but it's my experience that if you get the placements with names, and you contact the students they'll more often than not give you the information you want. Remember that if placements aren't name-specific, the masters program administrators may be hesitant to give out names per e-mail, so it might be better to ask over the phone or in person. When it comes to placement, having one successful placement whose success you can replicate could be more important than multiple successful placements whose profile you cannot. Best of luck to you!

I know one person with what I believe to be almost the exact profile (also international europe/latam), except maybe slightly weaker on the letter front, and no masters in economics (but masters in industrial engineering). I assume that your school is not a nationally low-ranked university. The person I know applied to various programs in top 30, and got into one US program ranked between 15 and 20. I believe his GRE quant was 168/169/170. I'd think you could replicate his success, or do somewhat better if you have strong letters. I'm sure others will give you far more conservative estimates of where you might place. My sample size is only n=1, but it's better than n=0, or estimating based on a pure american applicant sample. On that note, I'd encourage you to find current PhD students who came from similar comparable programs to your own, with respect to geography, field of study and prestige. Some people are adamant about not contact professors in advance. However, it might be a good idea to reach out to Chilean (you were Chilean right?) professors at Top20 schools asking them for advice. If you listed your profile in the same format as here, they'd be able to get a quick overview of your profile as well. I think the important thing here is to compare yourself to similar people also in terms of geography, (i.e. not U.S. applicants). I'd say apply to 10-20 (if you can afford it, and your letter writers don't mind) PhD programs in the Top 25 or so range that you'd really like to go to and ideally also places where your letter writers had some connections (e.g. Yale?). Then apply to the top 5 or so pre-PhD masters programs as well. Also look at non-UK masters like BGSE, CEMFI, Bocconi, Tilburg, Duke, NYU, Canadian programs, etc. I wish you the best of luck!

TraderJoe is probably knows better than me, but I'll offer my 2 cents: I have taken almost a full top 10 PhD finance sequence, and I barely saw a differential equation. It probably has some good signaling value, but I wouldn't prioritize PDE over say real analysis for preparation purposes. ( This is based on my sample of n=1. ) Real Analysis I would say is spot on. I'd also consider a stochastic calculus/stochastic processes class which may be very useful for CF theory. your other options (Linear algebra, prob theory, calc III, differential eq, math structures) also sound very good. Just make sure your plans are realistic. Personally, I spent a considerable amount of time on my first analysis class. It took a lot of time and energy to get into that way of thinking. I made real analysis my priority, and I barely had any mental energy left over for my other courses. Best of luck!

"former degree should be on the transcripts from the latter degree?" I think you are overgeneralizing based on some US phenomenon. If I had attended two undergrad programs in my home country, and only chose to report one of them, there would be no way that anyone could legally find that out. The second undergraduate degree would not post anything about it on my transcripts unless I chose to transfer credits, and the first school I attended wouldn't be allowed to reveal information about my previous attendance without my consent. What QuickShare would ideally avoid is listing the first undergraduate in the application forms along with it's grades etc, which may lead to risky outcomes with respect to filters/pre-screening. The main point is that QuickShare has an undergraduate degree, which is the prerequisite for attending graduate school. I also think moneyandcredit's suggested range is very pessimistic, given that we don't know how solid the recommendation letters might be. I know 4 people with similar profiles as QuickShare. They entered grad programs over the last 3 years. They attended nationally top universities for econ at non-UK/France european countries. They had far far worse math credentials, and were also interested in Macro. None of their undergrad/master programs would be ranked higher than say Top 70 internationally (IDEAS Economics Department rankings). They all only had one internationally recognized letter writer each (Top 3-4% IDEAS). None of them even considered applying to unranked schools, and they all applied to Top25. that means they applied to every school in the top 25. The four of them got offers from and are all attending a subset of: {Duke Econ, UPenn Econ, UCLA Econ, Northwestern Econ, Princeton Econ, Minnesota Econ}.. I'm trying, but based on the information set we have, I cannot see that s/he is a worse candidate than those people.

What, I really doubt that anyone would kick anyone out due to leaving out a degree. Definitely if you make up a degree, but not leave out.. However, they might wonder what you did for those three years? But if you did it part-time, you will have worked during that time period. Your poor GPA from your first undergrad, could hurt you in the algorithmic filtering process that a university might apply. So if you don't really have anything from this degree that's relevant, mention it in your CV, your SOP, or whatever, but don't include it in the actual forms. Then it won't really play a role in your application, but you will have notified them. Your age shouldn't be a problem either, I frequently run across econ/busecon/finance students who have worked for 2-3 or even 8 years and are successful applicants. If you do well on the GRE, maybe something like Q>=165, V>=150, AW >=4.0, you won't (hopefully) be screened out due to that. You say your letter-writers are well-known. Now that's not very specific. But based on your background, and stellar grades, I'd say your placement is more or less just dependent on how good your letters are: (1) how warmly they write, and (2) whether or not their names will be recognized by adcoms. (2) is decently satisfied if your recommenders every now and then publish in top international journals.. probably including the field journals. Even better if they personally know or co-author with people at schools you will be applying to -- you should just ask them about this. If say your letter-writers say they would warmly recommend you to any top 10 programs, and they know people at these programs -- or would be known by them -- I would reckon you have a solid chance of getting in to programs in the Top10 and Top 20.. if your profs are more regionally as opposed to internationally well-known, and/or their letters aren't very warm, I'd be looking at T10-T30..

BGSE: Are the placements for BGSE Comp&Market Regulation really just related to the title of the program? Or could you do their program and place into something else? Tilburg: How fixed is the curriculum? Can you take a lot of econ courses, and kind of turn it into an econ degree?

Regarding your 'concerns': 1. Yes, your school will probably be unknown, and they will probably not understand how tough your grading system is, unless you find a good way to explain it. Either in your SOP, in your CV, or by your letter-writers, or ideally all 3. 2. No shouldn't matter. They will likely just look at your most advanced ones. 3. Don't worry about publishing. You'll be just as well off finding some reputable economics professor who will vouch for your skills. Try to RA for a professor that you think will (1) write a warm letter and (2) have connections at US schools, or at least have a good track record publishing articles in known journals. 4. Ask if you can do some small scale RA work for them, then they will be able to see your skills and comment on that too. 5. Your GRE scores are really good already. If you have the spare cash, and really think you can improve your scores without having to spend much time on it, go ahead -- since you can send the score of your choice. If not, you'll probably be better off spending your time on other things. Other comments: You seem very motivated, and based on your track record you seem to be very capable. There is some positive probability that you can get into a program like NYU's, however, not having well-known recommenders and not coming from a well-known program may make it hard. Typically, internationals who get into top US programs, like NYU, have taken master degrees at known programs (BGSE MS Econ, Oxford MPhil Econ, LSE Econ or EME, Stanford, Harvard, Michigan, Duke, Toulouse, CEMFI ..) and get letters from very well-known faculty members in economics. That leads me to my main point here. Do you have the opportunity to pursue a masters degree before going onto a PhD? If you don't have large financial constraints (you might get full or partial tuition waivers, and in some cases living stipends) I would recommend doing a masters first, and trying to get into your dream school. Another option would be to get an RA position at a research institution where you would interact with top researchers. If you apply to PhDs out of your current state, I would agree with Catrina: Top10-30 for your main goal, then add some T30-50 (if you feel there is a good fit), but also some Masters programs. Or you would just aim for top placing masters programs, like the ones I mentioned, and also RA jobs, and then I would reach for the very top, including NYU. I know people who will have done very well at foreign universities, already having taken many PhD courses there during their undergrad, but then go to a reputable masters program, and take the courses again just to show that they can do as well as at a known program. These will typically be people aiming for top15 programs. Best of luck! I definitely think you can end up succeeding, either way!

I'll take a look at your profile assuming that you're looking at the Top10-Top20 US Econ range in order to stay with what I know. Math looks good, you have real analysis, matrix theory (aka linear algebra?), and probability. Equivalents of US A- or better in these courses would be important if you're thinking about the Top10/Top20 range. The fact that your math is unstructured shouldn't matter if they can just check off "Good grades in real analysis, probability and linear algebra" GPA looks good, you should probably try to find some conversion into US GPAs.. most application systems want you to input both the raw GPA and a US conversion, and make sure you don't sell yourself short. e.g. a UK 70% feels like an A- or better US GPA to me. Research also looks very good, that should def be a strong signal GRE might very well get you filtered out at most Top20 schools. Most Top10-20 profs I've talked to have said that you should have 90th (165Q) or above to be competitive. I believe this has most do to with the filtering. Other people I know say you'll be "safe" (meaning your GRE Quant won't filter you out) if you are in the 95th percentile. My GRE Q was 164. I applied to top finance and top econ programs. I was rejected by all the econ programs. This doesn't prove that they filter out a 164Q GRE, but is aligned with such an hypothesis. If you want to get into a top program, you should definitely invest some time in getting your GRE up. A solid profile is of little help if it never gets looked at by the admissions committee because you were filtered out due to a low GRE quant score. Of course your current Verbal and AWA I would think is more than sufficient for any top econ program. Letters .. Students I know who got into top 10-20 programs all had very strong letters from very recognized professors. This means that the adcoms would recognize the recommenders and know that they were good researchers, and thus respect their recommendation more. If you are at a top UK program you really have a good chance to network (RA, take classes with, supervised research ==> letters) with profs who may have good connections at other top programs. Don't waste that. If your undergrad teacher is not an active researcher, his word likely won't carry much weight. If it's very strong it might still be useful, but you should also have some reputable profs About your Top 50 US range… Before you go to far down on the US ladder, you'll probably want to consider picking a european program instead. So if you are applying to something like 25 schools, perhaps do Top15 US + Top10 Europe. What i've heard from profs is that you might get more attention on the US job market coming from a #5 European program than a #15 US program, even if the #15 US program outranks the #5 European program in a global sense. Some european programs you might want to look at: UPF, Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, LBS, Stockholm School of Economics, Toulouse, Tilburg, Bocconi... Edit: Also wanted to know whether I might be better off choosing Business PhD programs than strictly Econ? Perhaps.. (1) if you can't get your GREs up very high. I would theorize that since a typical busecon program gets 100 applicants (my sample size is like n=1, sorry) they might actually look through all applications, which means that you won't get filtered out as easily (2) funding is better (3) for some reason I feel that business school profs have better connections to europe. I've met many econ profs who had no idea where my european undergrad school even was, but most the bus school econ/finance profs knew, or had even visited there. (4) maybe the most important reason: your research interests seem to be very well aligned with what they do at bus-econ departments.

I can give you some up to date info regarding applying to Economics at the Graduate School and also the Finance program at the Business/School of Management. Most likely if it goes for Econ+Finance it probably goes for Econ+Econ too, for example NYU Econ + NYU Stern Econ. Definite No: Berkeley, Yale, Northwestern Definite Yes: Harvard*, MIT, Stanford, Chicago, NYU (even two programs within Stern is okay), Columbia Likely yes: Duke (*) Limitation for Harvard is maximum 3 applications to their Graduate School over your lifetime, and the HBS BusEcon program counts as being offered by the Graduate School in this context.

I applied to 22 schools, and my most busy recommender wrote(uploaded) letters to all 22 of them. As cheateauheart mentioned, the marginal cost of sending another letter is low. If he is "quite famous and very busy" he may just write a PDF file with a general letter, then he may have someone else (staff assistant) upload it for him onto the 22 different webportals, with broad instructions on how to rank you when faced with the typical questions like "How would you describe the candiates academic potential relative to your previous students (in percentile)?: Best ever, top 90%, top 75%, median, top 25%", of which there may be 3-4 of per webportal. Just ask him honestly, and say that you realize his time is valuable, say that you will be applying to 22 schools, and if he has the capacity to recommend you to all of them. In advance, send him an e-mail with a list of all the schools that he will have to upload to. He will receive separate e-mails from each school, and some may get lost -- so a list from your part will be helpful for him (or his staff assistant) to make sure they got all the schools. In my case, almost all my recommenders forgot 1-3 schools, so I had to remind them a time or two. One recommender was also 2 weeks late on average for the apps, but no problems materialized.

Maybe we should try to help erh instead of trying to be witty (.. and succeeding). For all we know his econ profs truly were uninspiring. In any case, I think PhDPlease's response really sums it up. Perhaps pick one (or two) prof(s) that you think will write the best letter, use him/her/them for your econ quota, and then use other profs that you feel would write better for your other letters. If your relationships with the econ profs are too weak, you should perhaps consider mending that before you apply. Even if you don't think highly of them, make it seem like you do.

I got a B in Calc IV, and a B in PhD level probability and measure theory, and I got offers from top places for finance. If you're aiming for the top 10 places a B or two won't hurt you, unless your GPA is still high and your profile displays a solid quantitative preparation. E.g. a bunch of other math courses with As, and some other technical courses with good grades. and as mktingapplicant said, take real analysis and get an A, and you're good. (it's as easy as that, haha)

Hi. I took a PhD level statistics course in Probability and Measure Theory, and the next semester a standard (T20 department) Econometrics I course. I first thought it would be a good course to prepare, but really it's almost the other way around. It was a good prep, but came with a lot of sweat. I was however extremely well prepared for my econometrics class, and it has given me a very useful vocabulary. The prereq for the course was a rigorous undergrad analysis course covering the first 7 chapters of Rudin's Mathematical Analysis. After having taken it, I regretted it since I didn't get a very good grade. But when I started Econometrics I, I realized how useful it was -- I'd more or less covered half or more of the syllabus beforehand. Also, in more theoretical seminars and in other metrics courses when someone throws out fancy words like "Lp convergence" etc, I know what they are talking about. If you are going to do applied empiricalresearch, very little, if anything of what is taught in a PT/MT course but not in a rigorous PhD metrics sequence will be directly useful to the extent that you can't pick it up on the go. But if you'd like to read and understand the theory behind your methods it will go a long way.

Hehe, that's kind of you. You'll probably have a chance to reciprocate my pushing of the red button some time in the future when I'm operating outside of my information set.

PhDPlease, everyone I know who have been to Barca absolutely loved it. I'm also pretty sure that your cost of living in barca would be considerably below that of D.C// the GT area. The UPF/BGSE PhD program is also very well recognized. I don't think many people without a preference for living in the US would choose GT > Barca for a PhD, or for a masters if they intended to do a PhD later. Note that someone on this forum with more knowledge about the BGSE program said that it was typical to do the masters over 1 year, then spend a certain amount of time working as an RA while preparing applications for PhD programs. Unless you get into and decide to go to UPF for your PhD having some extra time is advantageous.

ndjango, you might have already made your decision by now (my response is a bit late). You have a tough choice in front of you, but I think it only means that you can't go wrong either way. Did you end up getting a response from Caccavale? Same goes for you btr, did he respond?

Wrong. That statement is too general. If you want to be a pure corporate finance theorist, time series is far from crucial. It's useful to have some knowledge of it for reviewing literature, but not crucial. Even if you want to do empirical corporate finance, taking a pure time series class may be overkill. You'll learn about stuff like spectral analysis, ()ARCH-modeling, etc, which I wouldn't think someone researching, say capital structure and CEO compensation would ever use. If you want to be an asset pricing theorist knowing some time series is important, because you will often want to (1) test your own theories, and (2) be able to scrutinize others' empirical work. For (1) you might get away with just studying the last chapters of Cochrane's book. However, let me give an example of (2). You come up with a good theory and publish it. Someone else tests it and rejects it and calls it a piece of junk. If you have solid training in financial/time series metrics you might be able to detect flaws in their testing and "reject" their rejection of your theory. Now you might think that (1) and (2) apply to corporate finance theory as well, but it doesn't really seem to do so. From what I hear, within asset pricing the empirics are more closely related to the theory than in corporate finance. So if your time is limited and you want to be a corporate finance theorist, something like stochastic calculus would probably be more useful than a time series class. Now unless you are perfectly sure that you want to do corp fin theory, i'd strongly consider taking the time series class, it will make you more versatile. Edit: Again, if you wanna do corp fin theory, go and ask some corp fin theorists what they think you should do. If you're in an econ department, you'll likely want to reach out to some profs at your finance department (possibly at your business school, if you have one). Ask the people who know.

Can you provide a link to the McMaster MA student PhD placements? I know that Barcelona can place you anywhere, and has done so in the past. Last year for Barcelona wasn't fabulous though. Personally I'd never heard of McMaster before you mentioned it here. Without much more information, if you finances allow it, I'd definitely go to Barcelona. It has a strong name.

Economics is not STEM. Quantitative Economics is STEM, as far as I understand, and the Duke program is classified as quantitative economics for visa/opt purposes as of recently.. Will the working visa still be granted after 3 years? I'm not sure if I get your question. You will have an extended OPT period, (17months) + the normal 12. So 29 months. Before the end of those 29 months, if you want to stay in the country, you'll need to have gotten some kind of a work visa. Some jobs will sponsor you for a work visa right away, then you won't even need to use the OPT. Finally, there are at least 3 students who graduated in December from the MA program working at UN/WB. Maybe more, I don't know. Yes, both programs might be geared towards PhD placement. But a lot of the resources needed for that are the same that would benefit you if you want to go into development econ!

I would very much disagree with this. If you can defer, that means you can reapply. There's really nothing to lose by waiting a year. The school at which you deferred would never force you to attend their program, it's a lose-lose. Next year they also have the ability to put someone else in your slot if you notify them early on. I also don't see the point of rushing into your PhD? Where you go for your PhD matters, and if you can wait a bit and go somewhere better, that -- in my opinion -- is more likely to maximize your "career earnings potential".

there have been similar posts to this in the PhD Economics forum, i think some of them also asked about job placement results. Look at it. quick comments: 1. You will have almost 3 years of OPT after a duke M.A. on an F1, since the duke MA qualifies for some STEM OPT arrangement. 2. Non-MBA Masters degrees are better recognized in Canada than in the U.S. 3. From what I know the Duke program places very well into washington institution, like WB -- if you are interested in that.

Duke: Pros: Good placement records for Chinese students.This will be the case for 2014 as well More prestigious Higher recongnized in US? Yes, and as they keep placing well program awareness is increasing at adcoms Cons: Expensive Indeed, but cost of living in Durham is fairly low Not sure about the interaction with professors and recommandation letters. It's really up to you, and if you do not make an effort to attend office hours, be active in class, reach out to profs for research opportunities there won't be that much interaction. However, if you make an effort you can be very successful. Duke's program is very flexible, and there are many opportunities there -- however they aren't always thrown at you. If you are a resourceful person you may do great things at Duke, if you prefer a more set curriculum, where faculty attention is "guaranteed" you may want to consider another program. Especially for micro and applied micro I would think Duke would be a great place. There are many (applied) micro profs at Duke Econ and Fuqua Econ that work with masters students who end up being very successful. Usually you would take a class with them, discuss some of your research ideas, prove your capabilities, and end up doing supervised research under them or some kind of RA work.

I e-mailed Austin last year asking for placements. This is what I got: Some of the placements for students the last few years are: Vanderbilt, Brigham Young University, University of Mannheim, London Business School, Tilburg University, University of Pittsburgh and Rice University. Also if you are trying to decide between these two schools, you really should request a detailed placement list for the last 5-10 years.

Discipline/Concentration: Finance Admission Year: Fall 2014 Test Used for Admittance: GRE Test Scores: scores and percentiles? Q 164 (89%) V 158 (80%) AW 4.5 (72%) Undergrad GPA: 3.72 Graduate GPA: 3.82 Industry Experience: Some finance internships Research Experience: RA + Supervised research not resulting in anything but a good letter Range of Schools Applied: Top 14 Total Schools Applied To: 14 (in Finance, applied to some econ as well) Total Offers Given: 4 + 2 wait lists (All Finance) Final remarks: U.S. Grad program with good record placing at business schools. Solid letters from well-known profs.

Viri, I would ignore some of the more aggressive comments made here. I agree with Catrina who says that your plan B probably will not improve your odds all that much. However, there is some noise in the process, so reapplying with just a slightly altered package may change your results (but also for the worse!). Going to a program that you are not super excited about, in a city you don't really see yourself living in does not seem like a great idea to me. Personally I am super excited about the program I am going to, and very excited about the city. You will be spending 5+ years at the program you decide for, and if you don't like it from the beginning, odds are you may be an unhappy PhD student down the road. On the other hand, you may really like it. You just don't know. I would also consider a Plan C, an edited version of your Plan B: take a year or two where you significantly improve your profile. I'll post from your post in Profiles and Result: Type of Undergrad: Top 3 econ school in Germany; Undergrad GPA: ~3.4? (2.2 German GPA); Type of Grad: Top 3 econ school in Germany; Grad GPA: ~3.7? (1.7 German GPA); GRE: 169/165/4.5; Math Courses: BSc. minor in Math: Analysis I, II, Linear Algebra, Probabilty Theory etc. A- on average; Econ Courses: A lot, mostly on Industrial Organization and Macro; Other Courses: Some graduate level courses taken not for grades on empirical IO; Letters of Recommendation: Great to good letter of recommendation from profs from Arizona State, UWMadison and EUI; Research Experience: Very technical Bachelor and Master thesis on empirical IO; RA to professors and at a research institute for 2.5 years total; Teaching Experience: None; Research Interests: Empirical IO, numerical methods, growth theory; SOP: Talked about my extensive research experience, motivation and professors I would like to work with at the school; Other: First of all, as far as I know, there aren't many top placing schools in Germany, so if you want to do a second masters degree at say BGSE, LSE, Oxford, Bocconi, Duke, etc, that might add a lot of value. You could also get some more high-powered rec letters? Additionally you might be able to write another paper. So second masters degree is one option, the other would be to do get a research position somewhere that might be more well-perceived by the adcom, like a central bank -- someone else might have good suggestions here. Your GRE scores seem pretty stellar to me, so nothing wrong there. My guess is that you need rec letters from more well connected profs to break through. I have heard of cases where adcoms filter applications based on what schools you have attended. The extent of which this is true is a bit uncertain. However, if this were the case at some of the schools you applied to, I don't think many German schools would let you slide through that filter easily. I also don't think that the TOEFL held you back much, profs probably won't care much about that if your German, since Germans tend to speak very well English. Again, I want to stress the rec letters: at all my interviews (for biz schools) the interviewers knew at least 2 or 3 of my letter writers well, and I'd conjecture this is the case for most applicants who get into the top places. Best of luck to you!