Mathew952

Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it. It is like building a 1 foot high wall of toothpicks to prepare for a Tsunami when you could be running to higher ground. If anything, try to move early and get familiar with the new area. Get your home life in order, learn the bus routes, learn how to cook some simple meals, and wander around campus a bit to learn where everything is.

I managed to get in with very generous funding at a certain RAILROAD_MAGNATE university with nearly all my math classes "in progress" at the time of my application. All they knew about my math ability by January was Calc I- III, Business Stats, applied econometrics, prob theory I, and intro to proof writing. How? My guess is that showing I could take 5 math/ graduate econ courses at once and ace them all. Or maybe because I took my senior econ seminar/thesis class in my 2nd year. Or maybe my LORs were great. Point is, If you're in classes where you primarily study Lastname-lastname Theorems, then you've probably got enough math already, even if you'd like to do theory. Most useful class for theory in Micro/consumer stuff is real analysis. The crazy stuff is mostly for macro.

And, to represent a stranger view- I feel blessed that I get to do this at all. I get to spend 5-6 years studying a subject I love, and as an added bonus I'll get a really good job (private sector jobs for PhD's are not too shabby). Most people never get a chance like that, and so I feel like I should be thankful to even be doing this, even if I can't turn it into a cushy job in academia.

I guess if you want to be a really "influential" scholar who gets asked things by the NYT or runs institutes, you might have to. But if you think about it, if the ONLY people who got academic placements each year were graduates from T10 or T15 schools, there wouldn't be enough to fill most departments. Even at my undergrad, which is very, very far from the top, our graduates got academic placements at small private schools. Sure, it's not ideal. But If you're really in this because you're a scholar and you want to contribute to the field, then the opportunity to do so, even if it lacks the prestige of being posted at a top school, should excite you. If you seriously feel that you won't be interested in life as a researcher sans prestige/rank, then don't do it. Plenty of people go to T-15s and end up teaching micro 101 at state colleges.

Your program, once i starts in earnest, will likely use MWG as it's main text, and it's game theory section varies from "decent" to " utterly incomprehensible" . I really liked the game theory section in Jehle and Reny's Micro text, which is also an excellent supplement for Micro I as well. It gives some very good intuition behind what the Bayesian elements of game theory really mean, and a just a lot of good explanation in general. You may or may not find a PDF of it online.

Honestly, from when I spoke to the Adcom/Professors at my school, They said that generally a lukewarm letter shows that the professor really has nothing substantive to say. The grade you got is on your transcript, and Econ Adcoms know what's covered in Intermediate Micro. They said the important thing is some *specific* information about your skills, about your talents, passion, work ethic- Not just "he's a hard worker" but something like "he put in close to 50 hours a week working on this project with me, met every deadline, and exceeded my expectations". Vague letters, even letters of strong praise, are inferior to detailed letters.

The course overlap between the MA program and the PhD program at my school is pretty minimal- there's a small handful of people voluntarily taking some PhD courses as a signal/prep, but for the most part it's a separate world. But taking stuff in advance definitely helps- I just graduated undergrad, and my last year I took grad econometrics, took upper level math department stats that covered the same stuff as my stats class now, took Math for Economists, etc - and this stuff is still really hard, though partly because the focus of the classes at each school is different.

I don't normally Necro-post, but if there's one thing I've learned, both when I was working two jobs as a full time student and as a 1st year PhD student at RAILROAD_MAGNATE University ,quality always counts far more. Yes, the hours need to be there. But if you go in, phone on silent, laptop closed, and really sincerely focus for 6-8 hours a day, you're going to be fine. No playing around on the devices. If you can, find study partners who scowl at you if you so much as sneeze. Develop study plans that work for you. Constantly assess whether something is an effective use of time. For example, I used to read the textbook sections and take notes, then go back later and make flashcards, but I realized I virtually never went back to the outlines I made, ever. So I stopped doing that. But, I realized that forcing myself to do each and every proof/example in the text helped a lot. Avoid the temptation to get stuck on minor details- I once spent 3-4 hours trying to understand what the heck the transversality condition really meant or did, when I could have gotten just as many points by just writing the thing out and quoting Sargent. You get far, far more points for managing to answer everything pretty well than if you get some questions perfect and leave the rest blank. Also, chunking is vital. Suppose you want to spend 12 hours studying for micro and 12 hours studying for macro over the weekend- you're better off going through things once kinda roughly for 6 hours each on saturday, then coming back fresh and reviewing on sunday. Sleep is kinda magical like that. There are many problems where I was tearing my hair out to find the solution, only to realize the next day that the answer was staring me in the face. Finally, what everyone else has said about not worrying about what your classmates are up to is true. Maybe you think you're earning some kind of masochistic swag by showing everyone that you're torturing yourself till 11pm every night in the lounge or your office, but chances are your productive juices dried up hours ago and now you're just limping along. There's a massive variance in study hours at my program, and it seems relatively uncorrelated with performance. I know that's likely due to unobservables, but it also throws a real wrench in the "you need to study 90 hours a week to have a chance" argument. We have some people studying like crazy and still doing bad, some people who barely study (on a relative scale) and do fine, and a lot of people in the middle. Really the key is to just be honest with yourself. Be self-critical, but constructively, and you'll figure it out.

Think about it like this: What you do as an *economist* is very, very different from what you do on an exam. When people evaluate whether someone is "good" at economics, they rarely say "I wonder if he could use recursive methods to solve 3-4 finite horizon optimization problems in 75 minutes, " or "I wonder if he can prove rigorously that if a production function satisfies the flimity flim flam theorem on page 99 of MWG, this implies the profit function will exhibit properties 1a through 1d !" You learn the skills, and they throw some exams at you to make sure you keep grinding. But the actual averages on the exams tend to be low, and the curves generous- usually, a grade less than a B is the professor indicating that she thinks you really need to retake the course. Otherwise, you get a B.

There are strong diminishing returns to additional GRE study time. I spent an entire summer studying 4-6 hours per day, and budged my math score by 1 point. It's not worth the stress or cost or time. You're more than fine.

I think 165+ is a good cut off. I got into a good range of 20-40th rank schools with a 165.

I have bipolar disorder, and the way I look at it, is that I want to be treated like anyone else. I want the same rights and privileges and respect. So I must take the same responsibility for my actions and the same blame for my problems. I push myself to perform very very hard, because I want to be defiant, and defy the odds, and overcome my struggles. I can't do that by begging for special treatment. Figure out a way to resolve things and build your profile up. Like others have said, you have plenty of time to improve grades, to study for GREs, get good letters of Rec, do research ,etc. You're the captain of your ship, and you've hit rough water. Do you figure out a way to persevere, or do you lament the tides and turn back?

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Urban, Public University Undergrad GPA: 4.0 Type of Grad: N/A Grad GPA: N/A GRE: 170V, 165Q, 5.5W Math Courses: Honors Calc I-III (A), Differential Equations (A) Linear Algebra (A), Probability Theory (A), Mathematical Statistics (A), Basic Concepts of Mathematics (A) Econ Courses: Intro Micro & Macro (A), Intermediate Micro/Macro (A), International Trade (A), Health Econ (A), Money and Banking (A), Senior Writing Seminar (A), Econometrics I (A), Mathematical Economics (A) Other Courses: A random smattering of relevant Poli Sci classes and stat classes. Letters of Recommendation: Two econ professors, one public policy professor Research Experience: Won a grant to do independent econ research over the summer, got very good feedback from my mentors/program leaders. Teaching Experience: Math,Stats, and Econ tutor at the Tutoring Center for a year. Research Interests: Labor, Applied Micro SOP: I put a pretty good amount of time in, because I figure this is the one place I have to convey my reasons for wanting this. No idea if they were ever read, Other: I had a lot of little things that I think gave me a boost. I was done my BA in 3 years by my own effort, I was in Phi Beta Kappa, the tutoring gig, etc. Also, I had *fantastic* relationships with my letter writers. These were people who genuinely wanted to see me succeed, and that helps a lot. RESULTS: Acceptances: University of Houston ($), Clemson ($$), Rutgers (No $), Univeristy of Pittsburgh (No $), Ohio State University ($$), Vanderbilt ($$$), UC Boulder ($$) Waitlists: Rejections: Johns Hopkins , University of Michigan Pending: University of Washington (If they liked it then they should've put a ring on it. Too late now.) Attending: Vanderbilt! Comments: I got a really, really good return. When I got my first acceptance at Clemson in late fall, I thought that would be it. Never did I think I really had a chance at Vanderbilt or OSU. Most of those gleaming, glimmering As you see above I completed the year of my application- the only math I had grades for in the fall was Calc I-II and some stats. What would you have done differently? I would have started my math trek earlier- Not that I didn't do well, but taking 4 math courses at once is *miserable*.

I think it's really more about the signal than the content. and given the massive rankings gap, I think it's worth the trade off.

I think Oxford is one of the top European schools. I'd check the Fed's RePec ratings (They rank waaay more institutions than US News, and more rigorously acc. to my grad director). According to the Fed, Oxford is #5, So I think that would be a good choice. By comparison, Toronto is 43rd, and Queen's is 40th. Plus, getting through any master's program at all shows a good degree of ability- at least to stomach the first year of classes, if nothing else.

There's also a practical consideration- There's a greater number of Econ PhD programs, with a lot of diversity in terms of size, structure, location, etc, and the funding tends to be better. That research experience plus good math grades and some good letters from your econ profs (make sure you participate a lot! Your letter depends a lot more on how well the prof knows you than just on your grade. A letter that says "Jimmy got an A in my class" is useless) Means you're most likely going to get some funded offers. Even "low ranked" econ PhD programs still place pretty well in terms of organizations like World Bank, IMF, Fed, etc. My school has a completely unranked program, and even we manage to place people at the Fed and the like.

For those of you thinking about taking the plunge in the fall, I thought I'd share what I'd learned in this painful, arcane process to save you just a little suffering. Start your math journey early. You're going to need at least Calc I-III, Linear Algebra, some serious stats classes (not gen-eds), and some proof-writing courses. Since math is highly sequential, you want to at least get Calc I- II done ASAP so you can begin on those other courses. However, don't get stuck on the idea of "I NEEEEEED to take Real Analysis or Advanced Calc, if I can't take it because of course sequencing/pre-reqs/scheduling/bad luck, I'll never get in!" This is totally false. What you "neeeeeed" is proofs courses. I took an intro to proofs class, and a course called Math Econ which covered the necessary components from RA. Proofs courses require a certain mathematical maturity; you'll frequently feel lost, frustrated, and annoyed. Take them when you're ready. Do stuff to stand out. I don't mean volunteering at tuba club or whatever high-school style things you did to stand out. I mean, give schools a reason to look at you. There are dozens and dozens of more or less "ideal" candidates who apply to each school; people who majored in Math and Econ and got really good GRE scores. You want those things, but try to show initiative. Seek out research opportunities of all kinds, not just RA positions. I was able to get funding to do independent economic research, something which my schools were very interested in. Take grad courses if possible. If you can get into the honors program, do it. Each of these things is only one feather in your cap, but with enough feathers, you can get a pretty impressive headdress going. PARTICIPATE!!! You need to participate in classes to get good letters of rec, plain and simple. If you're part of the "faceless blob" as my professor calls it, you're going to get a very lukewarm letter. Go to office hours, ask questions, participate, go above and beyond on your projects. The letters of rec are easily the most important part of your application; this is where you're getting tried and true economists to say "yep, he has the right stuff, accept him!" Show that you're passionate, and more importantly, that you're competent. These people will also be excellent mentors to you as you try to pick the right programs to apply to. Find a Mentor. If your school has a grad program, try to make friends with people there. Ask them about the process, what they liked/disliked about different schools, etc. Don't be a pest, but don't be shy either. Grad Coordinators, Professors, Grad Students ,etc can all give you valuable info that you can't get anywhere online, particularly about program quality. Don't get trapped in the top 10 bubble. For some reason, people frequently get really stuck on the idea that they absolutely must go to a top 10 school. This might be true if you really only want a PhD to go into Academia at another top school. But If you look at the placement records for most schools, the placements aren't too shabby. Even schools way down in the 70s, like Clemson and UHouston, place people at fortune 500 firms and the Fed, and in the mid-range, people still do get placed into academic positions, but maybe not at the most prestigious schools. You should probably also evaluate, why do I want a PhD? Is it because I love Econ and I'm passionate about it and I want to learn all I can? Or because I think it's a stepping stone to some prestigious, influential position? If you said yes to the first one, you have *far* more options than just the top 10, and you should seriously consider all of them. The job market even for completely unranked programs is not bad at all. Hopefully you find this helpful! Feel free to comment with your own advice as well!

My professor used to teach somewhere that LA was a pre-req for Calc III so I think I likely had the extreme case.

Also, why do these coordinators and whatnot always say "you'll receive an official offer in a few days" or "you'll get a letter shortly" when they actually mean 3+ weeks? I understand bureaucracy is slow, but just be honest with me so I don't panic.

^ Well, if its any consolation, I'm probably going to be turning down my funded offer to OSU to go to Vandy instead, so there will be at least one spot!

I think Linear Algebra then Calc III is a better way to go than Calc III to Linear Algebra. I was so confused with trying to understand vectors and mappings and inner-products in my first month or two of Calc III, it really made it hard to grasp the actual calculus.

I've made my decision already, but I recognize I got very very lucky to get the incredibly generous offer I got from Vanderbilt. I always mention this when I post a result, only because I want to open up my spot for someone on the waitlist ASAP. However, I can't stand the people who pressure either. Why ? I *almost* turned down Vanderbilt in favor of OSU. The day before I was going to send that email, I was informed I'd won a topping up award that suddenly made Vanderbilt my best option by far. If i'd given into the pressure, I'd have missed out.

Institution: JHU Program: Economics PhD Decision: Rejected Notification date: 3/12 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: By the time I'd gotten this , I'd realized that the cost of living in Baltimore was so high that unless they gave me a super-fantastic stipend , I'd be declining anyway. Institution: UC Boulder Program: Economics PhD Decision: Accepted Funding: 5k/year fellowship with 18k a year TAship Notification date: 3/10 Notified through: Email Posted on GC: No Comments: I've already made my choice, so at this point I'm just trying to respond to all the offers and free up my spots for someone on the waitlist.

I think you are very well prepared. If you want to verify this, You could probably find a copy of Simon and Blume's "Math For Economists" or "Further Mathematics for Economic Analysis" by S&H, and take a look through. I think you'll find that you'll be able to understand most of the content very well with your level of prep. I'm in a grad "Math for Econ" class right now, and Honestly, Calc I-III, Linear Algebra, and a proofs class or two is enough to get you pretty far. Diff Eq is useful in more advanced theory courses. I don't think there's any way you could be better prepared for the empirical side of things, given how much econometrics you have already. I think you've just got jitters, and I would too If I had gotten into such good programs! My only suggestion would be to brush up on some Calc III, particularly derivatives in 3D, tangent planes, etc. As far as fellowship vs. TA, I agree that you should try to leverage with Michigan. But I'd take the fellowship at UCLA over Michigan if they don't give it to you. Why? First year of grad school is the "weeding out" period. From what my grad class professors have told me, once you get through the core sequence, the field courses are relatively easy (grade wise at least). You want to have as much time and energy as you can for studying for these courses, not only to do well in them now, but to build the foundation for the rest of your program. Plus, if you realize PhD isn't for you, you'll have gotten an MA for no financial cost, which is a nice escape route! Other things to consider at a more practical level: 1. Cost of Living- Different Places have radically different cost of living, which will determine your quality of life on your stipend. Try this site: Cost of Living Calculator: Compare the Cost of Living in Two Cities - CNNMoney 2. Taxes- CA has very high taxes.

I'm waiting on hearing about fellowship at OSU (They told me results would be sent out monday), and hearing about JHU. But if neither of those pan out, I got a funded offer for Vandy, so I'm pretty happy.