IMB8000

If the assumption is that they'll make it their mission to reduce the class size this year, then by the time he will need faculty interaction, this years class size would already be greatly reduced, no? tm does make great points about what it means to defer and what the opportunity costs are. But I tend to agree with Fantinity that he shouldn't completely rule out a deferral, as 26 is a lot of people specially as Brown is normally a very small program. I would again recommend talking to brown and seeing where they are at, and see what it means to defer. and what are your alternatives for this gap year?

Thanks! I guess I'll just have to wait then

Does anybody know how the reimbursements work for visiting days? I sent them all the information that they asked, but i never got a response even when I followed up and asked some questions. How long does it usually take? and does your decision not to attend a program affect any of it?

I maybe naive here, but why not ask brown directly? I feel like they can easily tell you if the size of the incoming class will be a problem for them and if they consider giving you a deferral. They have no reason to lie as your decision can help them out. I like the idea of a deferral year if you have something to do during this year (work, take extra class, prepare more, whatever) and feel you aren't the strongest of candidate (not the normal, pre phd anxiety and self doubt). However, if you know that you wont do anything productive with this year off, then my advice is just to start now.

for what its worth, I put i wanted to work as a researcher in a think tank on SOP (and in some applications) and I got into top programs. I think the SOP counts for so little that I don't see how being honest will hurt you (just don't insult being a professor as a career). And every year PhD programs place into the fed/IMF/ World Bank, so its definitely an achievable goal. With a PhD your options aren't limited and you get a pretty good deal if you are wiling to put up with all the work. You get really good training for your future job and you know for a fact that you are pretty much prepared for any position that you might like.

I didn't mean to belittle research and if you can, definitely do take that opportunity. I just tend to stress getting great LOR over research because i find them to be more important and a good lor can make up for lack of research experience while the reverse isn't true. Plus you mentioned that you are planning? to do RA in the summer and do a Senior Thesis (which if you can do it your junior year that way you have the research experience and if its good enough you can submitted with your applications) and that would should be enough (however again more is better).

You seem to be in very good shape (if you were to apply now, I would bet that you'll land somewhere in top 10 or 20), and I wouldn't necessarily consider your GPA to be low. The B in calculus can be worrisome but the rest of your grades, specially those in harder and higher classes, will show that it was an outlier and I wouldn't worry too much about that. If I were you, the one thing I would try to focus on is creating relationships with professors. Ask for their advice, take more classes with them (even if they don't necessarily greatly improve your profile), and try to RA for them. In an ideal situation, try to get them to be well known and that they really know you; as you LORs will be key if you want a top admission. All of this is given you dont slack now and you do well enough in your GRE (165+ in Q). And Another Thing... try to take all the feed back you get here with the grain of salt, since none of us work in the admission process. The best way to truly evaluate your profile is to go to results of previous years and see how you compare to your profile, and what your professors say and steer you towards. best of luck

My understanding (from a current student there) is that Rios-Rull is leaving to Penn, Pat is going to Stanford but only for a one year visiting position, and Chari is staying. I wouldn't be too worried as its really just one person thats leaving and Minnesota has a history of being able to hire good people and replace those that leave.

Ill be coming out of my undergrad and I really haven't decided. Im either going to rest and get caught up in movies and shows and generally just rest, or learn matlab / R / Latex(Im debating whether it'll be worth it).

I never got a clear answer for this. It is my limited understanding that it really depends on what business school you are talking about. Some focus more on applied and industry, others on macro and the public sector, and while others are basically the same thing as the regular degree. So just try to see what the faculty are working on and where they place.

I think its more panic mode. We (at least I ) had this idea that after visiting one or reviewing something the decision will just be completely clear and make perfect sense. However, when people realize that the deadline is impending and they haven't had an epiphany of where to attend they panic. So they try to gather as much information even if its repeated information and asking all kind of questions. It lends itself for someone to say "X is clearly better than Y" or something of that nature.

I don't think you are going to find the answer you want here. It sounds like you have all the facts, and it is just a difficult decision. Rochester is better at macro and theory and seem to be trending up. They devote a lot of time training their PhDs and have a history of being a great program. Penn State, for my understanding, is better at applied micro. Penn State is above rochester in ranking right now and their placement indicates that. What is your feeling about rochester? do you think they'll climb significantly in the next 5 years? How sure are you that you want to do macro? Would you mind doing micro? Would you be happy with the mean placement at both schools? All of those will help you figure out an answer. Plus remember, you have no bad choice between the two. And neither school places a ceiling. So its not that big of a decision even if it feels that way.

If you are truly considering going to Columbia for an MA, then go to UPenn. UPenn is a top 10-top15 school. Acceptances to top 15 are very difficult to predict and a MA wont improve your chances greatly (specially an unproven MA, in which you have no idea who is going to teach you or the direction they'll go with the program. And columbia's stats MA has a reputation for being a money grabber so be careful that the econ one doesn't follow suit). And so if you are willing to pay for one year MA, why not pay what i imagine is about the same money for the first year of a PhD at a top 15. With all of that being said, I agree with Mathman22. UCLA is the better option (if they fit your interest). UCLA has a good department, their placemnt hasnt been the best but its still good and you can be placed in any of the top departments. And its funded. So ill rank them as UCLA>Penn>>>>Columbia

Its not the same for every school. Your offer/fellowship letter should say by when you have to accept it. I plan on sending it by the 14th just to make sure it gets there and there isnt any problems with it.

This might sound harsh but don't apply in the fall. Try to do well this semester and all of the next. That way you can get your GPA higher and take higher courses that show your previous grades were due to (whatever they were due to). It will also allow you get a better 3rd recommendation (THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT ) If you are able to get close to perfect grades from now on and get 3 good recommendation letters you can probably aim at top 40-60.

i third Econhead

what are your other options? Are you interested in geometry? But to directly answer your question, it can be. All math can be useful, at the bare minimum it will expose you to more 'rigorous proofs' which seem to be necessary in grad school. Furthermore, Im sure there is no such thing as a wasted math class(assuming its a high level class). So if it seems interesting to you, take it. If it doesnt, then dont take it for its usefulness and as tm_member says, take something in analysis, cs, stats, etc.

CalTech is doing the same to me, but I'm honestly just proceeding as if it was rejection.

The adcoms recognizing the names would be very good and it would add a lot of validity to their letters. However, its not the only quality that they look for. They also take into account what the letter actually says, if your school has sent a student before, and things of that nature. The good/bad thing is that all of that is out of your control so try to not worry about it. (Also the adcoms are normally pretty knowledgeable in general economics so don't underestimate them)

Daerons sorry i didnt see your reply when i replied so ill try to answer point by point 1. I do think NW will places better in the US. 2. I dont know that much about how the Job market papers are done, or how to compare them other than placement. (Which NW has a better one) 3. A smaller cohort can give you better access to professors and more time to interact with them, so they'll be more invested in you . But the only one that truly offers this with its class size is Rotman. 4. No, when you have your other options 5. toronto seems to focus on IO. UBC basically focuses on your interest, while NW is more micro in general. 1) I think (personal belief and with little research) that people that do business econ are more inclined to enter the industry but try to do actual research on this (or someone else can answer this) 2) It can normally be a risky proposition but since toronto is a stablished program i wouldnt worry too much about it 3) Normally with stipens, you should be content with them as long as they both provide enough to live on. I wouldnt let them sway you one way or another, unless you are completely indifferent about the two 4) I would decide with UBC (they are good, fit your interest, are stablished, is funded, and are big enough so you have options), but you really cant go wrong with any of the 3. Good luck!

Can I ask what you are going to be doing this additional year thats actually going to be helpful in deciding whether to pursuit a Phd or not?

Econhead: I didn't see that thread before (I actually had to hardcore creep on you to find it), And I think we both more or less agree on the issue of unfounded offers. So I probably just miss read your comment, sorry about that. Daerons: the post (http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/154734-uchicago-unfunded-vs-ucla-funded.html) that econhead mentions actually has a lot of information that might be helpful to you. My advice to you is still that UBC or Rotman seem like the best options.

I don't mean to highjack the thread, but I have never understood this. They are signaling that they want you to attend by accepting you; they could have very well have denied you. Yes, no funding isn't a very strong backing of their beliefs (they have a budget constrain), but in the first year you do not really rely on their beliefs, and when they choose an advisor they wont look back and rate you based on if you had funding the first year. And people with funding fail prelims and drop out all the time. Even the best universities would admit that their admissions process is no more than an educated guessing game. I wouldn't recommend going somewhere without funding when you have other options, just because the opportunity cost is so great. But I find that people over amplify this noisy signal.

The general consensus on this site is to avoid unfunded offers like the plague. However, NW is a really good school so I'm not a fan of just putting them aside that easily, without really considering them. Only get the fellowship from your country if you are willing to go back and work there; your first placement matters specially if you are international and place internationally, so only consider this if your plan is to return after your PhD and you are willing to make that decision right now. Both UBC and Rotman are great schools, they normally place very well and are arguably the top 2 schools in Canada (I personally like UBC better, but it can be debated). They both seem to have a good departments that fit your interest. So the choice you are facing is if NW is 100k better than UBC or Rotman? I personally don't think so, as you aren't comparing a top 100 school vs NW. You can "easily" succeed in either Canadian school. Finally, to choose between Rotman and UBC go through their department and see which one you like better. The money they offered you is probably enough to live, so dont let a couple of extra thousand dollars really shift your decision (since you are saying its with funding, im assuming both UBC and Rotman are offering the PhD track masters. And you arent just doing a regular masters)

I would also add: 1. Look at the where your professors have connections when you are applying. If they constantly send people to a certain school, or if they co author with someone, or if they have another appointment there (or any close tie to that school) then their letter will be more influential there and you might have a better shot (I am very convinced that LoR are the key component in admissions). A corollary of this, is when choosing your LoR, do a little background check on them. 2. Look at old profiles and where they ended up as a true measure of what range to apply, I have seen many people in profile evaluations be really generous when they say what target schools should be. And speaking about evals, your teachers and professors are in a better place to give you advice than us. 3. Try to apply to a wide range and number of schools as there is really an element of randomness to the process that cant be ignored(I know many people might dispute this but if you talk to the admission people at the top schools, they'll even say so). 4. The institution which you currently are will factor into where you end up most of the time. So don't realistically expect to jump from a small unknown college undergrad to a top 10 grad just because you have a 4.0 GPA and 170 GRE 5. Finally, Master programs (specially in Europe and Canada), and RA jobs are excellent ways to improve your profile, no matter your interests. I encourage people that want to shoot higher than what their profile is to apply. Sometimes you can get an answer as early as December, and the people applying aren't as competitive as the ones applying to PhD so chances are better. 6. Reemphasis Mathew952 first point, START EVERYTHING EARLY. by the time you start to apply, it is normally too late to get to know your professors, get more math done, and generally improve your profile. You are competing against people who since their first year they knew they wanted to study economics, so as soon as you can start prepping your profile. One more thing, I don't necessarily disagree that Real Analysis isn't the be-all and end-all and it can be substituted with other proof based courses. However, if you can, do take it and make your best effort as it truly is a very strong signal. Real Analysis is typically the most telling class you can take.