Deekdeekerson

It's important to note that Berkeley has had very good placements in recent years. It also heavily depends on your interests. If you are interested in Public Finance or Labor, Berkeley is the way to go I'd say. Otherwise, you're right in that it is a toss up.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether there is any consequence for reneging on a deferral. In other words, say I get a 1 year deferral but decide to apply to other universities the next year as well. If I placed into a Boston school, I would be inclined to go, but would that be deeply looked down upon or simply, "oh well, have fun."

It seems that they didn't email anyone, though. VNM was accepted and received no email; he/she just randomly checked the website. GC survey seems to suggest the same thing. They'll probably email at the end of the day following posting of results, if I'd have to guess. Someone is probably going through updating all of the applyweb statuses now.

Yep, checked the applyweb site and still nothing.

Not out for me yet, maybe others can give input as well.

I think most students taking RA are math/physics/cs/econ regardless of when you take it. I think I was the only Econ student in the course and there did seem to be a lot of pure math majors, but that might have been coincidence. As to whether the grading was more intense, I attended Berkeley as an undergraduate and the grading is far far harsher at Berkeley, in my experience. It was much more difficult to get an A in linear algebra than it was getting an A+ in RA at UCLA. Of course, 1 course is a small sample size so I wouldn't put too much weight on my experience.

I had taken math econ (matching theory-esque), all of calc, discrete math, linear algebra, differential equations, advanced lin, and a few probability courses. I think most students had either taken linear algebra (with proofs) or at least discrete math. If you want to get a jump start, I'd suggest reading about how the real numbers are constructed and get a feel for basic delta-epsilon proofs, as that is a large part of the course.

I took Real Analysis at UCLA over the summer while doing research ~30 hours a week. It was a pretty easy class if you've taken other proof-based courses. I think Weisbart taught it when I took it and he was fantastic. We used his book and Rudin, if I remember correctly. Definitely doable in a summer.

Yes, the first letter of my last name is fairly late in the alphabet. It's possible that is a reason, but I doubt it.

You guys might want to chill out on the "implicit rejections." I just received an email from Michigan after 4pm EST, which is way after some of you are assuming they've contacted everyone. I don't know whether Princeton is the same, but it looks like last year there were a few acceptances emailed days after the initial batch as well. So again, chill out.

Emphasis is mine, of course. And jesus christ, if you seriously think that there is no difference in understanding material between a B+ and an A, then you are out of your mind. At most schools, this isn't the difference between 88% and 94% as you're likely inclined to believe. The reality is that in most math/stats courses (upper-division in particular), the average grade was around 40-50% at my undergrad. Someone that got a B+ in real analysis or abstract algebra likely had a weighted average of ~55% in the class. Meanwhile, someone that received an A had anywhere between an 80-100%. That is an extreme different in conceptual understanding.

I don't understand how you can do research involving regressions if you don't have calculus and linear algebra, at a minimum. Without calculus, how do you solve any minimization problem that is remotely complicated? Without linear algebra, are you restricting yourself to 2 dimensions with simple regressions? I am confused. Either that, or you are just typing in "reg y x," as yankeefan stated, and copying the results onto your paper, hoping they are somehow significant. As to your claim that a B in a subject indicates understanding it well enough...sure, you'll understand it reasonably I imagine. However, using math in research requires more than passing knowledge. I'd venture a guess that mathematicians whose specialties lie tangent to calculus can still muster up an A in real analysis. Why shouldn't economists?

Source for the first statement, or is that conjecture? Also, calling him a "sheep" because he's advising someone have an economics-oriented background if they want to pursue a PhD or career in economics is...uhh...weird, to say the least.

Are there any schools that DO take your combined best score? So far, looking through how you can send the GRE, it doesn't seem that is the case.

Thanks to both of you for the advice! I will definitely be around the forum a lot over the next few months, so thanks in advance for any other help you provide :).