DrEsq

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Small Liberal Arts College in Top 100 Liberal Arts Colleges Undergrad GPA: Overall = 3.76 (Graduated in three years, so all of the 4.0's I transferred in didn't count. If they did, it would've been about a 3.9.), Econ = 3.9, Philosophy = 3.9 Type of Grad: Top 25 Law School (95th percentile on the LSAT) Grad GPA: 2.37 (Don't laugh... I had a C+ average because I found myself uninterested and exerted minimal effort. I know people who worked their butts off for that GPA.) GRE: 159V/163Q/4.5AW (Don't ever use the legal IRAC method for your GRE essays. It's apparently too direct.) Math Courses: Calc I-III (A's), Linear Algebra (expect 3.7), Real Analysis (taking next semester) Econ Courses (grad-level): Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Intro Micro/Macro, Environmental, Econ Stats, Econometrics, Math Econ Other Courses: relevant from law school: Fed Tax, Int'l Business Law, Antitrust, Law & Economics, Insurance, Estate & Gift Tax, Int'l Tax, Bankruptcy, Trusts/Estates Letters of Recommendation: 1 former undergrad econ prof (Stanford grad) who I had for 3 of the aforementioned courses (Econ Stats - 4.0, Environmental - 4.0, Math Econ - 3.7) and who had two other students in our eight person math econ class go on to PhDs in economics at MN and American. The remaining were work references, but very good ones. (Yes, I know, it's awful and probably damning. You do what you can with what you have.) Research Experience: None in economics, though I did write a 100+ page thesis in law school regarding state approaches to implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Teaching Experience: None. Research Interests: Political Economy, Environmental, Health, Education, Inequality, Gender... I'm more of the interdisciplinary type. SOP: Concrete research ideas, noting math courses I've taken recently, explaining law school grades Concerns: I know I don't have a truckload of math. Law school grades. Other: I've worked in litigation since my summers in law school and am a licensed attorney in my state. (I know that means very little here.) Applying to: UCLA, UCSB, USC, Michigan State, CalTech, Michigan, Brown, Washington, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Rochester, Johns Hopkins, Boston University, George Washington, UC Irvine, Maryland, American.

I'm not really one for being able to comment on a profile, but if you're interested in Ag it might be a good idea to look at Michigan State. The school as a whole has a history of association with Ag, so there may be some interesting opportunities for interdisciplinary research. Just a thought. Good luck!

Thank you for that and for the advice you have given me. I think we both sort of talked around each other, as I was taking your statements as discussing more than just the top ten schools and you were not. I apologize again for causing a stir and hope that there are no hard feelings between us.

I really don't know, but I've learned to be doubtful in general. When a school gets 600-1000 applications and most of them have near-perfect GRE's, great grades in math from math majors or even people with a Master's in math or stats, our applications with calculus, linear algebra and maybe a couple of other things aren't going to stand out. It's a weakness, that's for sure. All we can really do is get as much experience with more math as we can and try to show that we do have the ability to do even more. Do I expect to have a shot at the best schools? Nope. Do I think I can get into somewhere maybe in the top 25? Yes, I believe I can and I believe I can be successful there. While I think there is some value to having had the experience of law school, I do think and have heard that it is largely irrelevant. Having publications is a great thing, but they're still legal publications and don't have anything to do with graduate economics. I don't really think that the top five schools are going to be somewhere that will welcome us. I also think that there is a big possibility that getting in one may result in biting off more than we might be able to chew - not in innate ability to do the math if we were to take it, but in the sense that we may be so far behind their expectations that catching up could be a bit unlikely if not impossible. There's picking up a the next step on the fly and then there is picking up something entirely different that you haven't encountered or something that is four steps ahead of where you are on the fly. I'm not saying it's utterly impossible, but you'll want to really consider all of the other things you'll be dealing with. It is intense for anybody to be in a top five school, but when you add in trying to pick up a lot of things in addition to rigorous studies, it's really something to give a lot of consideration to. After all, we want to actually be successful in our programs. As Team3 mentioned, it's more about the mathematical thinking and some people have it while others don't. It's about the concepts and really understanding what is going on rather than computing things. I'm rather confident that I will have it and will do fine in analysis, but that is because I've at least had an introduction to some of the proof-writing and that area of study through the logic courses I've taken in the past. Some people seem baffled by proofs, whereas I find them fun. The proofs I've encountered in math thus far have been the same way with the use of definitions and rules to move from one thing to another and back. Someone I know has a Master's in theoretical math from a very good school and who knows me well has the impression that I won't have a problem with it, as that is how I tend to be able to think. That's me, though. You have access to the math department at your school, so go talk to them. Explain your situation and ask for some advice on how to approach things and make the best of the time that you have available. Also as Team3 mentioned, people have a different concept of law and economics before they've seen it. I did take a class in law school and even I found the instruction there to be incredibly lacking in any real economic data or analysis. It was mostly just reading a few papers from Coase or Calabresi (or others) and hearing someone who didn't have the economic training try to talk about it all in some lofty way, as all law professors do. I think looking at it from the law side makes it seem far easier than it likely is in reality. I also think that law faculty without the economics training tend not to have a full understanding of what it is about. Many times, it becomes reduced to some sort of philosophical position about what one side of the spectrum might think things should be like, rather than a methodology that is more about examining things. Even though I have the law background, I have no desire to get involved in the "law and economics" side of things. Let me learn the methods and I'll find things I want to apply them to without getting into that whole 'movement'.

Deleted

Deleted

We're in the same boat. From what I understand, you'll need calculus I-III and linear algebra before you can take real analysis, though I could be wrong about the linear algebra. (Personally, I'm in linear algebra right now and it's so ridiculously easy that you could probably teach yourself or maybe take it concurrently with calculus III or real analysis, if you're good at math. That'd be a question to ask a professor or at least someone who has gone through all of the courses.) Also, every school I've checked out says that "business stats" or "stats for economics" classes don''t count as "real" statistics classes and that you need to take a calculus-based mathematical statistics course (if not two of them) and/or a probability theory course. I'll repeat the advice I've been given about how competitive you might be: It's all about the math, even if our law degrees might look nice. The top schools have their pick of people who have much more experience in mathematics than we do (we're talking a Master's in statistics or mathematics at many of the schools you've mentioned), so it will be stiff competition. If you can't get enough math in before you are planning to enter, you'll have to pick things up on the fly, which can be done (I've spoken to people who have had to do just that because they were in a similar position) but requires a good deal of talent that none of us can assess. You know your own abilities better than internet strangers in that department. Feel free to get in touch whenever and we can compare notes. :)

Deleted

I said that even before I started studying to get reading for applying to a PhD program. You have no life in litigation, ever. The only people who are allowed to have lives are the guys at the top, but they're usually so obsessed with their jobs that they often don't bother (other than their disproportionately large amount of vacation time). If I hadn't drawn the line and said that I'm taking classes and won't be available after-hours, you can bet your rear that I'd be expected to be available anytime. As it is, I still get emails at 10pm from my boss to tell me that he wants me to research something in the morning, if not right then at home. The US has no concept of personal or leisure time. Work never ends. I get two weeks of "paid vacation" in my job, but it's not as great as it seems. There's no forgiveness for two weeks of billable hours that I'd miss, which means l have to work double-time for two weeks to make up for it. I wouldn't call it a vacation, more of a time-shift.

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted

Thank you to all of you who offered advice.