student93

Would you say it was mostly because the Americans came straight out of undergrad, or was it because they spent several years doing something else than a masters? (e.g. work as a full time RA, econ consulting, etc)

I think it would depend a lot on your profile PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Undergrad GPA: Type of Grad: Grad GPA: GRE: Math Courses: Econ Courses (grad-level): Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Other Courses: Letters of Recommendation: Research Experience: Teaching Experience: Research Interests: SOP: Concerns: Other: Applying to:

Would you be able to expand on that a little bit? In particular, for which situations would it be more appropriate to choose the glowing letter from the younger writer, and when would it be more appropriate to choose the less-glowing senior writer?

If anyone corrects what I'm about to say, then you should take that person's advice over mine since there are users in this forum who are much more informed than I am. From my understanding, the marginal benefits to high-level coursework decrease the more you take them. It sounds like you've already hit all of the essential courses and are taking math classes above and beyond the "typically" required level. If you haven't taken any of the important econ courses like econometrics/game theory or have taken very few econ electives, then I think this might be beneficial to you because 1) people look for signals of economic intuition just as much as hard mathematical skills and 2) if some of those electives are taught by well-published research professors, this could help you get an additional letter of recommendation (if you already have 3 economists to get letters from, then this benefit should be ignored). If you are most definitely set between taking either functional analysis or analytic number theory, then I would be surprised if any particular choice mattered for the sake of "usefulness" in admissions: both would send stronger signals of your mathematical ability. However, if your previous math courses are perceived to be just as challenging (if your analysis courses were already PhD-level, for instance), then I can't imagine either course sending significant extra signals of your ability. So in that regard, i think that whether you decide to take this class or not should be based on your personal interests. But then again, this is strictly my own personal view. Please make sure you take other peoples' advice!

If you weren't taking this class, what would you be able to take instead? (by the way, much wow's to you. I don't think I'll ever get on your level)

If those are the only math classes you took, then I'd be inclined to say that they'll matter. If you've taken much harder math courses and got A's in them, then your C in linear algebra won't look that bad (they'll think of it as a fluke) My suggestion would be to take as many hard math classes as possible and convince the admissions profs that the C isn't truly reflective of your abilities. Have you taken real analysis yet? that's one of the must-take preparation courses for an econ PhD program

You could also take econometrics while working on your RA job if you work near a university (most RA jobs should be at or near schools I believe)

definitely either econometrics or the basic proofs course, probably the latter. Is applying next year an option at all so that you can take real analysis + more math/econ courses during your senior year?

If you must choose one, I'd also say the RA position. These MA programs are usually for people who want to make up for lacking coursework, and it seems to me at least that the only 'essential' one you're missing is econometrics, which means the marginal benefit may be smaller to you than it is to another person. Also, although I wouldn't exactly know from first hand experience since I've never been in one, I'd expect these MA programs to be quite stressful especially if it's one of those 'econ PhD prep' programs. A very significant chunk of those people are gonna be talented students shooting for PhD programs, all ready to work their butts off to pull off stellar grades, which you're gonna have to fight for. Personally, that competition isn't something I'd take lightly. That being said, I think you should most definitely apply to both RA positions and masters programs. The question of which is better than which depends on their reputation and previous history of sending people to grad school. A stellar masters program would definitely take precedence over a mediocre RA job, and a stellar RA job would take precedence over a mediocre masters program (obviously). With those two options, you should be busy with plenty of applications to fill out :) Good luck! (I'm also applying this year)

With your math coursework, I think they'll be aware that you would have gotten an A if your school had offered econometrics. Econometrics would mainly be for your own benefit, since it's so essential to empirical research. Also, try to learn STATA on your own if you can! sorry for not giving you advice on the recommended range of schools. I don't think I know enough to tell you What I do know is that for those who have very strong profiles (with good grades and some research experience) but come from an not-so-well-known school, those full time RA positions can be a big boost to your applications. There are jobs posted at the NBER website, Stanford has some, U Chicago has some, all the Fed Banks have some, US Treasury Dept, Council of Economic Advisors, think tanks, etc. The first wave of RA recruitments happen around Sep~Dec, and the second wave happens somewhere around Jan~Apr (these are very rough ranges, so I might be wrong). They'll help you strengthen your letters and also give you an opportunity to take more classes if you'd like (if you end up working near an university, that is). Best of luck!

From my understanding of the process, GPA is more like a "necessary but not sufficient" condition. So for those who currently don't have the grades, GPA would be the priority. For those who currently already have good grades (in hard classes), research experience would take priority since the additional benefits of an extra A are small. However, these priorities are only defined in a technical sense, just to answer your question. In a practical sense, I think you would need to do well both in terms of research experience AND classes to get PhD offers. The same applies for GRE. It's more of a "necessary but not sufficient" condition, and you would need to get a nearly perfect score on the quantitative section. However, this should be much less of a concern than doing well in classes, since those math classes you'll be taking will be much harder than the GRE

You should do economics and history, since these are your true interests. Economics majors also have good job prospects (in consulting, i banking, marketing, start ups, just to name a few), given that you have the appropriate recruitment skills (solid resume and cover letter, good with behavioral questions, good with unraveling cases, etc). Even if you were to do civil engineering, you would have needed these skills anyway in order to get a good job offers as a post-BA. Do keep in mind that this is an economics PhD admissions forum, so you won't get as much information about what industry recruitment is like for econ BA graduates. The career advising center or any student-led business clubs at your school will have more information regarding those matters.

I'm not sure how it works in other fields, but at least for economics you need to take a lot of economics and math classes. If you're not sure whether a PhD in econ is the right path for you, I think it makes sense to explore. But if you're 100% sure about getting an econ PhD, then I think it makes much more sense to pursue econ and/or math majors rather than civil engineering. Other people in this forum know much more than I do, so make sure you take their advice as well!

I may be wrong, but I think many RA job opportunities should be open to international students as long as they have the appropriate work authorization documents (which in your case would be the OPT visa). However, many government-based research groups (like Federal Reserve Banks, US Dept of Treasury, etc) do require their RA applicants to be US citizens. But then if you look hard enough, there are also some Fed Banks that take international students as well (like the Boston Fed, I think). NY Fed is pretty strict about the US citizenship requirement. However, since the OPT lasts only a year after you graduate, you wouldn't be able to work longer than a year as a RA unless your employer/professor is willing to sponsor your visa. Also, do note that these RA positions tend to be quite competitive. But then again, this is only what I heard from other people, so I may be wrong. So if someone else says otherwise, you should follow their advice.

I also agree that calc 2 is very essential across all econ/finance disciplines

you'll be fine. In my humble opinion, I think the fact that you retook it and got a drastically better grade will be a signal that the D+ was a fluke, given that you take more advanced math classes and do well in them as well. From my understanding, it's not the GPA that matters, but it's what hard courses you took and what grade you got in those, so make sure you do well in them!

I see. I guess I just wasn't sure how often I should be keeping in touch with them, and I didn't know that once / twice a semester would have sufficed. Thanks for the advice! :)

The prof I worked for told me that he was very impressed by my grades (which led to me working for him as a RA for around 6 months), and he gave me some general advice about which additional math classes I could consider taking (which I have). He told me I should be able to get into very good programs, but I think his character was also a lot more optimistic than most other profs I've met. Beyond that, he's always been aware that I wanted to go to grad school, but most of our relationship was developed through discussing together our RA work and a few random chats here and there. The prof I took class with also gave me general advice with regards to the courses I can consider taking, and that I should focus on letters, and that I should try my best to expose myself to research through RA jobs, senior thesis, etc. (this was before I took the class with him). Then he offered me a permission number to register for a game theory course he's teaching, for which I normally wouldn't have been able to register for since it's normally for some sort of "special econ" program that I'm not in. When we discussed again after I took the course, he mentioned that I had the sufficient coursework and grades for the top schools, but that many times it also requires beyond good coursework. He told me that he would be willing to write me a good letter and that he'd be happy to. He also gave me additional suggestions like taking grad micro courses or working as a full time RA after graduating (which I am). In such a case, what would you say would be a good way to maintain an organic relationship? Thanks in advance for your tips!

LORs! I'll be applying for full time RA jobs soon, and I'll also need them for grad school

Hi everyone! I hope I'm not asking too many questions around here, and if I am, I promise to keep this one short. So I've had a great relationship with the prof I've worked for until the end of last year and with the prof I took a class with last quarter, but what's been a dilemma for me was figuring out a way to maintain an organic relationship with them without being intrusive. Although I try to attend as many seminars as I can (mostly for my own personal development, but partly for this purpose), the ones that they attend to (for their subfield) usually overlap with my classes, so it's been difficult to meet my profs there. I've tried meeting with them to talk about grad school, but there doesn't seem to be much more to talk about after a meeting or two. I know that my professors would be willing to spend time with me if I requested, but at the same time I'm aware that they're busy people and that I can't just schedule a meeting with them just to talk about the weather or that "new movie that came out recently". I wasn't able to obtain a clear answer from my advisors, and I had a hard time finding threads that thoroughly discuss this question (although I'm pretty sure it must have been discussed at some point). All I've been able to do recently is drop by their office every now and then just to say hi and exchange greetings for a few seconds, but that's about it. Could anyone share their experiences in how they were able to keep up the relationship with their letter writers? (or maybe a good thread on this topic?)

I'll definitely take this into consideration as I try to make the decision! I'm also trying to talk to more profs / TAs and ask for their advice as well. Thanks for your input!

Are you pursuing an econ Masters? If so, wouldn't getting straight A's in your Masters econ classes (given that you take the rigorous ones) show that your C's in one semester was an anomaly? If you have the option of taking PhD classes during your Masters program, maybe that'll also be a way to prove that your C's in that one semester was a very unusual case. Although this is the impression I got from others around me, I'm also quite unexperienced here, so you should put much less weight on my advice

oh I see. You were definitely clear. It was probably just me who misunderstood haha thanks for the input!

That's an interesting point. After considering both views, I think it became somewhat clear to me as to what the intrinsic benefits of taking grad econ courses are beyond just signaling purposes. Just to make sure I'm correctly understanding what you've said, are you saying that grad courses do certainly help with the admissions process, but it's not an absolutely essential or critical part of my application? So I should take grad micro more for the intrinsic purposes of discovering myself rather than for admissions purposes?

I see. Thanks for the helpful advice!