HowDoIUserName

I just wanted to chime in as I worked for one of the companies mentioned, and while I don't want to go so far as to say the information here is wrong, it isn't quite on the money either. This is correct. Such a path would be abnormal, but not unprecedented at my firm. It would require being truly exceptional, at a level that absolutely no one should bank on ex ante. That being said, see below for the points about returning with an MBA. This is incorrect, at least at my firm. Outside of those acting as firm counsel, there was only one person with a JD that I am aware of, and he was a lateral hire at the partner level when opening a new office. A JD would be very abnormal in this context. The lawyers know the law and have the legal pedigree; they don't need the consulting firms for that. Among the partners that I knew personally, MBAs outnumbered PhDs. However, it was (in my office at least) rare for an MBA to be hired at the graduate degree level who did not have previous experience with the firm. Everyone that I can think of over several years with an MBA was a returning employee (there is now a formalized and very generous program for convincing people to come back). One guy got a part time MBA while working. So, you certainly do not need a PhD to 'max out' per se. As you mentioned, soft skills are important. In my experience, the economics and finance PhDs on average seemed to struggle more moving up the ranks due to some combination of soft skills issues and the disadvantage they were at regarding institutional knowledge compared to returning employees. This is true but perhaps overstates the case. At my office, they actually had two separate hiring tracks for finance vs "econ" people, with approximately equal volume. I worked at the office that hired the most finance people, however; my impression is that it is more econ-heavy elsewhere. Note, that "finance" includes actual finance PhDs, economics people with finance focuses, and some related degrees such as accounting. Within econ, yes, maybe marginally more IO than other subjects, but only barely and plenty of other degrees. Off the top of my head, I can think of people with dissertations and/or JMPs in almost any empirical micro discipline that were, if not hired, given fly-outs (development, health, labor, political economy, etc). I also got the impression that metrics would be viewed favorable but they would be grilled a little harder in the process on intuition. There were exceedingly few pure theory (none come to mind), and almost no macro people aside from macrofinance. So I think as long as you are doing empirical micro or finance, it tends not to be as important as you may imagine. A lot of value of the employee also comes from credibility, so there is a top-heavy bias in terms of institutional quality that arguably goes above and beyond that in academic placements. I don't mean to be excessively discouraging here, but an economics hiring from outside the top 20 at my firm was rare. Other firms, perhaps this is less true. At my firm, an economics or finance MA would be an abnormal route. I can think of examples, but they count on one hand. They generally enter at a lower level than MBAs or PhDs, sometimes at the same level as BAs. That's an uncharitable take to both the gig and the lawyers obviously, but certainly hitting at an important point: if you think economic consulting is like traditional academic research, you will be disappointed. I could go into more depth here, but the responsibilities are indeed very different. The primary difference is that research is looking into what you think is important or interesting, whereas in economic consulting, it's what the client thinks is important and will aid their arguments. Usefulness trumps novelty or interestingness, as far as arguments go (in fact, novel is often not the goal, because you are supposed to be operating within the established practices of the field). Perhaps obvious, but important nonetheless. If you are the sort who really values freedom and/or directing your own efforts, this is probably not the gig for you.

From talking to people, the norm is leaning towards non-submission outside of Chicago. Thus, not much is read into not doing so. That being said, my sample here is largely American and non-masters; whether it would be counted against a master's student, I don't know.

Second what sam said about this. I worked for several years in consulting before grad school and have been on the other side of the application-reviewing process there. All else equal I viewed math minors favorably; one of the key things I'm trying to ferret out of an application is "are they capable of doing quantitative work?" I would say don't do it if it'll result in bad grades given your inclinations and aptitudes, but the bar for that given the rest of your profile is likely something like a B/B+. If you think you can do better than that, then it is 100% a yes.

They're very competitive, but along with NGOs, look into RA positions with development professors (I see Donaldson is hiring through NBER), and think tank orgs like the JPAL. Search | The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab Employment at NBER Research Assistant Positions not at the NBER

You're massively overreacting. Shrug it off and check the box next time. There's no need to do anything here.

Your program should have a written policy somewhere that they explained to you orientation. A typical requirement might be something like maintain an overall 3.0 GPA with at least a B- in your core courses. If you are in serious danger of failing after your midterms, the program director will likely try to reach out to you. What happens then will vary. If you really seem to be poorly suited, they may advise you to move to a master's track, but at least at this point in the year, they will try to see if they can get you back on track. I don't wish to overgeneralize or disincentivize you, but a thing to remember is that in general, your professors very much do not wish to fail you. See the quotes on page 1 for evidence. Plus, kicking people out is a real pain in the butt for the program director. Most people teaching first year courses are doing so voluntarily, and would prefer to see you succeed. They want to pass you, and want you to make it easy for them to do so by demonstrating that you care and are putting in work. Help them help you, basically.

If the answer for an applicant is yes, no one will mind you just stating that. Saves them from reading. This question seems more intended for people trying to explain why their ability is better than their grades/test scores, and yours are fine as is.

Sounds useful, but given that it sounds like you have a decent math background in general, it isn't a necessity. I don't know what your opportunity costs are; it definitely wouldn't hurt, but what would you take if not this?

Agree about top ten (maybe twenty). Your grades appear excellent and subjects well chosen for relevance. I would apply broadly top to bottom in that range to according to taste. The one question I have is who an honors coordinator is ,and what exactly you hope to get out of that letter. If he or she is a working researcher who knows you in some capacityl, that's all fine, but if all you want from him or her is "this is what our honors program is like and as you can see, YiliangLi did well in it," I wonder if that isn't a bit of a wasted recommendation slot since that information could presumably be included as a paragraph in your other letters and/or is implicit in your transcript.

(1) It is not "such a bad grade." Get a sense of proportion, man. (2) The grade will hurt things a little. Emphasis on a little. But no, it won't wreck your profile. (3) That seems a little silly/wasteful and I am somewhat surprised that your university lets you do that when the grade is that high. I have only heard of retaking when you fail a class. But it's your time and tuition money. Couldn't hurt, will probably help a little on the margin.

OP, I second the above. Between this, the tone of your previous posts, and your frankly kind of obsessive posting history, it has become increasingly clear that you need to take a step back and rethink how you approach your academic career (and perhaps more). You seem prone to anxiety fueled spirals that lead more frequently to stress than productivity. I imagine this is exhausting both mentally and physically. I am not a psychiatrist, so I won't attempt to advise you about how best to move forward, but truly consider what chateauheart has said, and perhaps discuss the issue further and frankly with your school's professionals.

You should look at this from the perspective of an adcom. If you're grades were slipping because of a physical ailment or family matter that had been resolved, that would be less worrying once they were satisfied with the evidence that it was passed. But this is quite different: your anxiety issues as you describe them are ongoing. An adcom would reasonably be concerned about whether they would affect your future studies. I think there is little to be gained here, and echo Econhead's advice.

Some things are year-long vocations, my friend. Currently I'm trying to figure out how long I want to stay at my job. On one hand, a lot of decompress/travel/brush-up-skills time before school sounds great; on the other hand, with graduate student stipend life ahead, so do paychecks.

Better is always better, but no, not really. It is among the least important parts of an application by reputation.

Now that most of us are decided with respect to where we're heading, I'm curious how you all intend to spend the time between now and your first day. Bonus points for saying whether you're coming out of undergrad, master's, work, or something else.

Yeah, some could have been asked earlier, but this is very unsurprising. A few reasons: (1) As econdoc notes, that's just how humans with deadlines work. (2) You mention asking the school. Many of the questions I'm seeing are not necessarily questions that one could expect a graduate school to answer honestly and/or informatively, and are really hard for an uninformed party to accurately evaluate (relative reputational strength in field, for example). (3) Sometimes, comparative questions (Strength of A vs Strength of B) only make sense when the options are actually know. Why waste people's time with options that aren't on the actual table? Or, simultaneously, why waste people's time when you have an outstanding application that is dominant? (4) Based on the sample of myself, some of these people are probably thinking about this earlier / more than you're giving them credit for. When they solicit external opinions doesn't really match when they start thinking about / researching them themselves. As econdoc says, a lot of it is rationalizing and making sure your thoughts aren't crazy. (5) Not everyone is aware of this forum's existence.

Doing well in your other classes will be sufficient signal.

Hi all, I wanted to solicit your opinions prior to the deadline crunch of next week. My profile is here. I ended up applying to 12 schools (and truth be told, seem to have aimed a bit too high with most of them based on results). I was admitted to BU (full funding) and UBC (no funding as of yet), and waitlisted at UT Austin. I'm currently anticipating accepting BU, even if I were to receive funding from UBC or a funded offer from Texas (on my way to BU's visit day as I type, actually). However, I wanted to make sure I've adequately considered my options. (1) Given my interests (applied micro, labor, behavioral, contract theory, little bit of game theory. All rather weakly / loosely held, so don't give them too much weight), it strikes me that even were Texas to give me a funded offer, there is no obvious reason to have a strong preference for them over BU based on faculty, overall and field reputation, etc. While the weather and vibe in Austin sound lovely, BU has a slight advantage to me in that my family (and friends) reside nearby. My dad is quite old and not in the best of health, otherwise I might give this less weight, but I also know it would deeply depress him were he to know I turned down a superior option for his sake. Is there any major virtue of Texas that I am perhaps overlooking? (2) I intend, were I to go to UBC, to later reapply to PhD programs. I know Canadian masters are very helpful for poor profiles, lesser known international undergrads, etc., but it has been suggested to me that the signaling impact is less for someone who already has a US degree with reasonably good standing. What would the delta on an MA with my profile be? I'm inclined to say that it is relatively little, but could it reliably vault me inside the top 10 / top 20? I've written their director to ask about their placements, but who knows how forthright / informative their answer will be. (3) Most of the people I have told have been congratulatory, which takes some of the sting of nine rejections away; one close advisor (with a BU degree himself), while he says he encourages me to do whatever is best for me, thinks I could do better were I to reapply. The implicit compliment is appreciated and it would be nice to be somewhere with a little better of a placement track record; on the other hand, I think he is overstating the improvement that could be made in my applications at this point (four years out of school) and underrating the pure competitiveness of the process. Plus, bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Is this logic sound? Thank you for your time and opinions, all!

At the risk of underselling myself, yes, that is not too far from what I am saying about my current rusty state. Obviously picking this stuff up again will not be rocket science; these are courses that I, for the most part, received As in without too much effort, but that sort of stuff fades when not used on an every day basis and four years is a long time.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation and am also curious what the crowd thinks. My math background is probably about median - technically a math major w/ analysis but at school with a less than great math department on the balance, individual instructors aside. Like OP, all my math dates back at least four years, though - I graduated in 2011. While my daily work involves economics, it's not as if I'm using calculus or linear algebra much if at all. Full profile here. The one luxury I kind of have is I have built up sufficient savings that I do not need to continue working right up until grad school - in fact, I might be quitting shortly. While you get occasional people saying otherwise, numerous people here and in real life advise against going overboard on prepping - don't exhaust yourself before the race even begins in earnest! However, for my own comfort and out of genuine rust, I feel like I need to do something. My current plan is to buy Spivak's texts on calculus and multivariable calculus and Sprang's on linear algebra to reteach myself what I have forgotten, and then peruse, but with perhaps a bit less intensity, Rudin. Maybe The Art and Craft of Problem Solving by Paul Zeitz. Does this seem sufficient? Is there a better way to go about it? Would I be better off sticking to a more econ-specific text such as Simon and Blume?

Easiest way to know is to look at old Profiles and Results threads. My gut says you want to aim to be in the 3.6-3.8 area to be competitive out of undergrad. Below that is a disability.

Cutoff is an overly harsh word and this doesn't take into account known grading differences (i.e. everyone in the business of looking at transcripts knows Princeton GPAs are depressed by almost a third of a letter grade compared to, say, Harvard), but yes, that number is about right for top 10. A GPA in the 3.7-3.9 area will not help you compared to other applicants, but below that is a disability.

On consideration, yes, on the margin, but it's a difference of degree rather than type. I don't want to come off overly pessimistic on UCD or too cheerleadery for UW; I'm just saying that it's not "good vs utterly hopeless" slam dunk kind of case. synthxdill is right that both have actually placed at UCR. As far as I can see, neither has placed anyone on tenure track to a top 50 in the last few years (UNC for UCD in 2011; Arizona for UCD in 2012 is close. Carleton for UW is a very nice liberal arts place if you like that atmosphere, though, and they also placed at UNC if you go further back. If you're willing to go really far back, UW had a guy at Booth, which is the best of either). Those schools you mention all fall in the ballpark of "respectable but not blowing my mind" placements. And I'd personally rather not go to Moscow or take a visting position in rural Indiana, but tastes may vary. I'm not especially eager to pack my bags for Morganville or Norman either, but hey, it's a large flagship school in a relatively fun college town. There are worse things in life than tenure track in such a place. I'd agree that UCD is slightly better; I just think the difference is less dramatic than the MR14 suggests. The UW placements are by no means the worst I've seen.

It is not clear to me why you think UCD's placement utterly dominates UW. For UCD in 2014, they have 1 government, 3 US/Canadian tenure track, 4 international, and 2 visiting appointments. I'm certainly not blown away there. For UW in 2014, they had 7 US placements, 4 international, 5 private sector, and 3 government. UW had a smaller cohort this year, but 4 US tenure track positions. Additionally, the strongest UW placements (Emory? LSU, WVU and Oklahoma are all flagship large state universities...) are at least as good as the strongest at UCD (Simon Frasier? Riverside? UConn in 2013?) De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, obviously, but I'm not seeing this the same way you are. They look similarly mediocre placement-wise to me.

Fair enough, I was going off the other poster's statement of cohorts of 10 (which would mean six-ish by job market time). Looking at their site, you're quite right. Brown only put out 6 this year, but after a closer look, the last few were larger so you may be right. Their website still says only 12 enter each year, though, with 3 of those from the master's track. That's quite small compared to peer institutions.