erckle

Folk wisdom is that a university medal should get you into the top 10, say. That folk wisdom though is pretty old, and the new equilibrium of very many applicants having one or two years of full-time RA experience might change the competitiveness of people straight out of undergrad/honours. I would be quite confident about top 20, cautiously optimistic about top 10, and any higher really depends on the reputation and strength of letters. If the writers are not known in the US this would pose a problem. But I am student, have never been on an admissions committee, so take all this with a grain of salt. I wouldn't worry about the one 6 given the 7's in the math courses. Also, apart from the weird cache around Oxbridge that still exists in Aus, why are you applying there? LSE is good (not sure about stipends) but I am not sure you can argue Oxbridge would be in the US top 20 or even top 30. Might still be a good fit, but don't apply just because it sounds fancy.

I am not sure what the outside option is, but perhaps Prof3's letter won't be all that amazing...

Alright I see. The advice commonly given on this forum is still true: ask your letter writers where they think you might get in / should apply. Potential for quite high variance so I would apply quite widely.

There have been 5 in one year at Sydney Uni? That sounds extremely high. I thought two was the absolute upper limit. In any case, I don't completely buy into this obsession with uni medals that people assign to getting into graduate programs. Also consider that (at least in UNSW's case) uni medals were only awarded a few months after applications were due. So if you are graduating this year, given this can't be known until maybe January or February, perhaps it is less of an issue. But one thing that is a bit unclear from your original post: what are you counting as an A/B/C etc? ANU grades out of 100 with HD/D/etc I thought.

Apart from letter writer availability (about which I don't know much), the piece of paper from USYD is just as good as the others. USYD placed someone at Harvard this year, for example. There is no upper bound.

I am glad my somewhat gratuitous reference to 'the best university in NSW' has been correctly deciphered. I agree with all of the above. I just want to make a few points. 1. It is a non-trivial choice as to whether to move to Melbourne/ANU/UNSW for Honours from a weaker department. First and foremost, you need to do well in the courses. And if your undergrad was at a lower level than your desired Honours program, or just in a different style, then a few poor marks in the coursework can easily wash away any advantage from more reputable letter writers. Take this n=1 sample lightly (that applies to basically everything in this thread) but the few Honours students who moved from to UNSW for honours typically did not thrive. Honours is as much about the culture and camaraderie, and so there is another benefit from staying at your original undergrad institution. 2. I expect going to the US to do full time RA work for well-connected professors to increasingly be the highest probability avenue into the top departments. I don't think this trend has yet taken off for Aus/NZ applicants, but I think it will. It is not only Americans who currently take this route, but applicants from other countries that historically have had success sending people directly from that country to a US PhD are increasingly going down the US RA route. Think France, Italy etc. Although I guess such countries send more students to the US in general, and so competition within the pool of French applicants can more easily drive this than within the pool of Aus/NZ applicants, given the very small size of the latter. If the pool of Aus/NZ applicants were to increase in size, I would expect US RA's to become the primary mechanism of discrimination. That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of the advice about finding well-connected LOR writers, since getting such an RA'ship in the US would be much easier given those connections. 3. I am also hesitant to endorse the view that lots and lots of maths is the optimal way to get into a top department for most people. If you have a math degree (I do) then it might help if your marks are sufficiently high. But given the gap between US grading and Australian marking, and sometimes the difference in grade distributions between faculties in a University (combined Law students are typically on the wrong end of this, for example), it's quite hard to properly judge the effect of more maths. It seems to be neither necessary nor sufficient for the top departments. Overall, if you want to sell yourself as potential theorist, then probably the maths is needed. But it's not clear that you should sell yourself that way, even if you actually want to do theory. Aptitude for theory is more closely correlated (although still not that closely) with math ability than aptitude for empirical work. And, ex ante, even if my comparative advantage with other Australians was math, I am not sure it was with the applicant pool in general. But again, I don't know what was in my LOR, so who knows. Conversely, if you want to go in with the standard empirical and/or vague idea of what you want to do, then Econ Honours is probably enough. Australians (and I think Australian education) seemingly have a comparative advantage in econometrics. I am not sure about NZ, for which clearly the small sample problem is even more pronounced. 4. Finally, certainly RA is very important if it is attainable. I will point out only that doing good RA work is a substitute for high grades in Honours courses to some extent at least, and funding limitations generally reduce the number of full-time RA positions available that could be taken after the Honours year. Perhaps this will change, but it speaks again to the importance of taking into account my points (1.) and (2.). If only at UNSW, there does seem to be increased interest in pursueing international graduate study recently. I hope this trend continues and that discussions and information such as these are of use.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: B Sci (Math) and B Econ, then Honours in Economics from top (3?) unis/eco departments in Australia. The best university in NSW, if that's not enough of a hint. All future Australian applicants I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Undergrad GPA: ~93/100, also 4.0/4.0 for 1 year exchange at top 50 USNews (an original public ivy) Type of Grad: Honours in Economics, not technically grad but i'll list it seperately Grad GPA: 97/100, 1st in cohort, university medal. GRE: 170/165/6.0 - Q/V/AW Math Courses: Intro Calculus and Linear Algebra combined (2 subjects). Discrete Maths. Several Variable Calc, Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Abstract Algebra, Complex Analysis, Intro Prob/Stats, Symbolic Logic, Modern Geometry, Number Theory, Real Analysis, Measure Theory and Probability (grad). All 90+/100 or A's, except the very first two subjects I did back in first year, which were in the 80's/100, so somewhee in the B+ to A range depending on your conversion. Average of ~91/100. Econ Courses: Micro 1 and 2, Macro 1 and 2, Game Theory, Managerial Economics, 'Organizational Economics' (really a course on monotone comparative statics), Mathematical Economics, Politics and Economics, Intro Metrics, Applied Econometrics (basically IV's, logit/probit and all that), Stats for Econometrics (a straight stats course, covering sampling distrubutions, bootstrapping and similar). All 90+/100 or A. Average ~95/100. Honours Econ Courses: Micro Theory, Macro Theory, Microeconometrics, Micro Theory 2 (grad). All 95+ Other Courses: The first year computer science sequence= two subjects in C programming. Top mark in both. Letters of Recommendation: For students from countries trying to send students straight out of undergrad, these are likely very important. 1. RA (2 years part time) and Thesis supervisor. He was top 2 PhD and Assistant Prof. Visiting Professor at top 2 for a few years. Now full Professor. Very well known. Would have been very strong letter. 2. RA supervisor(intermittent projects) and in charge of the course I was TA for. Top 2 PhD. Relatively junior, but I would hope still quite recognizable at top 2. Strong letter. 3. Professor for the grad Micro Theory class I took and got 100/100. Very famous market designer. Would have been strong but couldn't speak to any research experience with me. Research Experience: Honours thesis was submitted (now R&R, but this wasn't in application) at GEB. 2 years of part time RA with LOR writer #1, cumulatively maybe 1 year part time RA with #2, intermittent RA work with other professors. Teaching Experience:Extensive, although not emphasized all that much. I taught approximately 7 or 8 tutorials (~25 students) each semester for 5 semesters, ranging across 8 subjects. Research Interests: SOP was quite narrowly focused on theory of an applied flavour (game theory motivated by politics, theory incorporating behavioural aspects). Actual interests are less well-defined going into grad school. SOP: Quite specific as to all projects I worked on, otherwise just sort of rehashed interests and highlighted strong parts of resume. Very long though, although I doubt that's a real issue. Other: To everyone like me who somehow managed to not google this, always waive your rights to view submitted LOR's. I cluelessly didn't and this caused a little friction between me and one LOR writer right before applications were due. All worked out OK in the end, but still it was silly (and had no upside). RESULTS: Acceptances: MIT (funding waitlist), Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, Northwestern Kellogg (MECS). Waitlists: MIT for funding, was eventually funded in the days before deadline Rejections: a Harvard Econ, Harvard BusEc, Stanford GSB, Wharton Applied Econ, Chicago Booth. Pending: NA Attending: MIT Comments: Clearly business schools didn't like me. Given the particularities of my LOR's connections and reputations, I would have guessed Harvard would have been the top 3 place with my maximal chance of admission, more than MIT and perhaps even Stanford. That was clearly wrong. About the MIT funding waitlist I would speculate the following: you need to show up to visit day to have a chance, you don't need to treat it like an interview (in terms of selling yourself) but do need to seem very interested and keen for the department. Telling them, if true, that you would certainly accept an offer were funding to materialise I think does increase your chances a bit. Direct appropriately your enthusiasm and ***-kissing to people that matter for admissions. To Australian applicants (perhaps all non US or top European masters applicants): Small sample sizes make prediction of admissions prospects quite difficult. And since RA experience is relatively scarce in Australia it's quite easy to think you've done a lot of it before getting to the US and realising many, many people admitted to top places have at least a year or two full time, often at top departments. On the other hand, the Honours year (and probably coming 1st is close to necessary for top 6 departments) is a relatively easy and cheap substitute for a foreign masters. Some time at RBA might also help, unless like me you were doing micro theory. What would you have done differently? In hindsight, since MIT worked out, almost nothing. But three days before the deadline, when I had no funded top 2 (or Stanford GSB) offer, had you asked this question I probably would have said: more RA experience for more professors (my fortune was quite directly tied to the reputation of #1, which is good at most places but perhaps some adcoms don't weight his letters so much). Perhaps if you are going to profess quite certain and narrow research interests (as I did, although that's broadened already just from visit days) then don't make those interests theory, or specifically applied theory, which has a bad reputation for placements. Oh, and to repeat, waive your rights to view letters. This was extraordinarily stupid of me, with no upside and almost a lot of downside.

Who keeps posting there in all CAPS? Very weird but somehow funny.

It's possible Stanford are doing them in batches. So I wouldn't give up on acceptances yet!

I didn't say it was positive haha, but I guess my excitement gave it away, so thank you! My surname starts with S

Just got my stanford decision!

Has anyone heard of anyone on the Harvard waitlist this year? It's not even clear if there was one last year...

As a strong signal I am spending too much time on this: I looked at the archived versions of Stanford's admissions webpage and found that in past years they listed the following dates as when they will release decisions: 2016: March 15 2017: March 15 2018: Feb 28 - March 1 2019: Feb 28 - March 4 But if you check against gradcafe, they consistently beat these. So we might be seeing things from Stanford before Feb 28...

The emails last Friday were real. Not sure if there will be any more.

Harvard is real, I emailed and got unofficial rejection. Rejections will get sent out next week.

I didn't ask unfortunately. Visit day is March 10 and deadline to RSVP for that is coming up fast as well though so I presume either all acceptances are out or imminent. And thank you for your congratulations :). Where else did you apply?

I posted an acceptance, not an interview. My interview was Friday 1 Feb and got acceptance letter Friday 8 Feb.

I thought it was, largely, a business school thing. And that, if there were interviews, everyone who eventually gets accepted had an interview. But perhaps I am wrong, are there schools that accept some people only after interview but accept others without one?

This is very helpful. Would you mind sharing, if you know, which econ programs have room for renegotiation, and which resolutely don't?

Could you expand a little more on the MIT situation if possible please? I was vaguely aware from reading past year's results threads that funding information is often not released for a while after admissions decisions in MIT's case, but I didn't know some portion of the class didn't ever end up getting funding. Are TA/RA jobs made available?

Right I see I wrote very ambiguously. I meant to ask: what is the range of funding WITHIN some of the top 15 programs or so. That is, what is the difference in offered funding between the admit, say, Harvard likes best, and 40th best (or however many they admit).

I am curious as to what sort of range (if any) exists in the funding offered to the admits for the top 15 programs or so. Perhaps this differs between the very top 5 or whatever and the next 10 or so. I am primarily talking about funding by the university or department itself, although perhaps it is the case that those admitted to the very top programs have a much easier chance getting external funding? Does anyone have some insight? Cheers

I am interested in people's opinions as to the criteria I should be using to choose my letter writers. If it matters, I am an Australian student finishing Honours (some weird concoction involving postgrad level coursework and a substantial thesis). I am applying to top 10 + business schools. I have four people who are my primary options as referees: 1. Main supervisor for my honours thesis. I have also been his RA for 18 months or so. Very well known. Harvard PhD + top 5 assistant professor early in his career. Now full professor with lots of top 5 pubs. Will definitely be writing. 2. Secondary supervisor for my thesis. I have been intermittent RA for last 2 years, although the projects were not as substantial as for 1. Harvard PhD + MIT postdoc. Now equivalent to assistant professor at my uni. Will write a very nice letter, although isn't that well known (perhaps is at Harvard + MIT owing to education there). 3. Very well known professor from exchange uni I spent a year at (US top 30 for economics). I took an undergrad class and came first with 100% by a large margin. I audited a very difficult graduate class and kept up quite well despite, at that point, having not taken real analysis. This was almost 2 years ago though. I have, however, kept in contact and asked (and confirmed and re-confirmed) that he will happily write a letter saying I did very well in hard courses and have research potential in his opinion. But I haven't done any research with or for him. Also slightly unreliable (ocassionally takes a while or forgets to respond to emails). But I hope for something this important he would do it on time. 4. Very well known professor from my uni, who I am currently taking PhD level game theory/mechanism design class with. My marks are very good, and he has encouraged me to go to grad school and happy to write, but I have not done any research with or for him. 5/6 etc: a few professors I have done very well in courses with, and have done one or two brief RA projects for, all less well known than 1 - 4. So, I guess I am asking in general (also specific advice here would be great) whether having three letters from famous people even with only one directly speakign to research abilities and experience is better than substituting one for a much less famous but probably stronger letter that can speak to research ability/potential. I have also intermittently been an RA for faculty other than 1 and 2 in the last year, so if the advice is that speaking to research experience and potential is paramount, than I guess even 1 + 2 + 5 could be a possibility. Anyway, any advice is very much appreciated.

Yes fair enough, I see your point. In general are departments likely to view my re-application less favorably than the original application? Is this different if I was offered a place the first time around?

I have considered that. But the situation in terms of career factors and timing for both of us would make 2019 optimal. Hence why it’s best I think I apply this year and hope a work visa for her is attainable. I’m just asking the above as backup in case things go wrong. Does anyone have any insight or info on the deferral criteria and process? Thanks