T5mafia

At the end of the day, despite people saying trite and obvious statements like "just work your hardest!!!" OP is correct. Sadly, the missing data matters for the admission process. If you think you can't get an A at a top school => select into a less rigorous school to guarantee an A. Here you use the missing data to your advantage (We don't know what the student would have gotten at a top school if they went there, but they maxed out their realized outcome!). If you credibly think you can get an A => go to top school. Adcoms do have some vague understanding of grade inflation/deflation, so you will have higher odds of acceptance given an A from a top school than an A from a lower school, so this partially compensates for the gamble of getting a B. But they do not have precise info on grad deflation/inflation and even if they did it's hard to put an exact weight, so this adds to the observed "randomness" in admissions (sometimes the 3.7 kid from a top school is accepted, sometimes the 4.0 kid from a less rigorous school is accepted). This effect operates with not only selection of undergrad universities, but also with respect to coursework selected within that school. Sadly the incentives are now to play it as safe as possible and get a GPA as close to 3.9-4.0. I went to a T15, took very difficult pure math and computer science classes (abstract algebra, functional analysis, measure-theoretic probability theory, operating systems, software engineering) and hurt my GPA. I got into a T15, waitlisted at a few of the lower T10's. A friend of mine with basically the same profile (both of us predoc'd at T3, similar rec writers at home institution), but took easier classes than I, was much more strategic about spacing out hard coursework, and took "hard-sounding" courses where the professor was known to be lenient with grades. Basically got into every T10 school including the holy grail (HMS). On the one hand those classes have definitely helped me tremendously with challenging year 1 coursework; even for econ PhD students my mathematical maturity is high, PhD econometrics is much easier for me now with such a background in analysis, and the computer science coursework has made any programming in macro much easier for me than classmates. Yet it's hard not to conclude taking these classes have hurt me in the admissions process.

- T5 vs T10 doesn't really matter as much as the name of the advisors themselves, and maybe you'll get a marginal bump in admissions at that school at which you did your predoc in. - It's not great to not be interested in the field of the predoc you're going to do to be honest with you. You need to "go above and beyond" to get into top 15 program nowadays. The places they did their PhD matters less than the networks and coauthors they have. Are they working with big names? That will help you in admissions. - I don't know much about the UChicago masters so definitely ask around for other opinions but unfortunately I don't think it's known as a great feeder program to top PhD's. My prior (that could be very wrong) is that master's students are simply not a high priority for professors, so getting a coveted letter. But please do more research on placements of the master's program/how accessible professors are to master's students before making any decisions. On the flipside Chicago has a huge amount of predoc positions so you may get lucky that a prof in a class is also hiring predocs you may benefit.

It reads to me that you'll regret not doing the predoc, so on that basis I'm leaning towards the predoc. Also, depending on how low you got on the GRE, it is used as a filter at many schools so you will definitely have a better shot with a better score. However, before you decide to do this, there are two things you should think about: I think you need to deeply examine why you're not passionate for the two programs. Is it prestige or to fulfill a dream to make it into the top programs? Is it fit? Is it the location? Is it rank? Is it the program structure? Rank is undeniably important unfortunately, but it's also important to not overweigh it. You may get more attention at a lower ranked school from your advisors at a lower ranked school than you would at a higher ranked school, which is a massive deal. And bumping up a couple of spots in rank is not worth the extra uncertainty in outcomes two years down the line. The top 25 all have top class scholars and (most of them at least) well-organized PhD programs that, with hard-work, creativity, and intelligence on your part, will lead you to success at the job market. Also, the predoc very much matters. Do not be mesmerized by the rank of the department. Is it with profs in fields you are very passionate about? Is the research very interesting to you? Do you know their past placements (NOT the bschool program in general but those two specific profs placements?) Nowadays, the top schools have many predocs and they are hardly the golden ticket to admissions like they used to be; I was a T3 predoc for a fully tenured econ prof in the prime of their career and could not get into their school. Your PI's subfield in business may not be one that is very well-known or respected by econ adcoms. Finally, if you do not do well, you will have hurt your application. Keep in mind that admissions is getting harder and harder year by year. Sorry to be rather gloomy but I just want to make sure you know all the options before making a decision.

1) Not just saying this to make you happy, but not at all. You are competing with some of the smartest and hardest working undergrads in the whole world. Some of the T5 are known as grad deflation schools (e.g. Princeton and MIT). For applied your background is more than good enough. Even if you go towards theory, while not a great signal, the stress and pressures of exam-based grading is quite different to the process of writing theory papers. 2) you are a very wildcard profile. To put it lightly, your GPA is very low for top PhD programs in econ. However, you have letters from very famous academics that can really shoot your application to the moon. My view is that unfortunately econ PhD admissions are very close-minded and obsessed with GPA (unlike, say, computer science PhD's), so you'll probably be shut out of the very top programs (but still apply in case). If you can get past the initial filter, I think a few programs in the 8-25 range will take a punt on you though, so apply widely in the top 30 range. Of course, you should adjust this depending on how strong the content of the letters will be; an excellent letter from a very renowned professors might overcome all barriers. ( I'd politely ask your letter writers to note or assuage concerns about your quantitative skills. I might even suggest asking your advisors (in a very polite and careful way) to reach out to adcoms to prevent your application from being filtered out in the first stage due to the low GPA. (maybe you can ask them "I'm worried my application won't even go past the initial filter, what should I do?") Make absolute sure you get 167+ on the GRE to ensure people's doubts about your skills are reduced. 3) I think you should take the analysis II class, unless there is a substantial chance you get B or lower. Why? Because the upside is good if you get A or higher (as in you'll be showing an upward trajectory and this will compensate for some of your other grades in other classes), and if you get B or B+ again, it fits with your prior pattern. Of course if there is a substantial risk of lower than that then it could further tank your GPA so don't take it in this case.

I will be a little more harsh than the other posters so you can calibrate your expectations and plan accordingly. Your math background is good (read necessary but not sufficient) but I applied this year, with similar GPA and coursework at a T15 (both usnews and econ), and I am a current full-time predoc at a T3. My three rec writers are all top 0.5% ideas repec, and I have done extensive research with all three or took grad classes with them. I got rejected from all T10's I applied to, and got into 1/4 of the 10-16 range of schools I applied to. The fact that your program is a T50 usnews econ grad program does not bode well for you, even if you have glowing letters. (of course, there are always exceptions, and there exist many great faculty with good connections/name recognition at lower ranked schools). Unless the IMF economist is very well known, I'm also not sure that will hold too much sway. And it is unclear from your post what kind of research relationship you have with the labor econ prof. Now of course, I expect next year admissions to be easier, but it is unclear by how much since a lot of the predocs in my cohort are thinking of deferring for another year because they did not hit their admission targets, and there is a secular trend towards more and more predocs making it harder to get in each passing year. Your letter writers may be excellent and well-known. And your interests may be more valued than mine at certain departments. But absent this info I do not think you are competitive for T15; you are basically competing with predocs, and ~3.9 math-econ undergrads, usually with research experience, from T5-T10 econ programs. Definitely apply to T20 programs, you never know where you'll get in, but I would also heavily encourage you to apply to more schools in the 20-50 range, and/or apply to predocs. On predocs, while there are many serious issues with the system (not least the power differential bw your supervisor and you), it also gives you a very deep glimpse into the nuts and bolts of research. It's one thing to be able to read and parse papers, but actually seeing how the sausage is made will give you a big boost in writing your JMP in the PhD program. Converting a dataset to a full fledged econometric analysis is a difficult task. You're a bit lucky that you have a labor interest, as there are many predocs available in this subfield.

Also one more thing, while the range of T10-T60 makes sense to me, I wonder if applying to thirty programs was too much in the sense that you weren't able to curate personal statements specific to the program; made mistakes that give off a bad impression, not adhering to word limits etc. I applied to thirteen and looking back I made some mistakes on a few of the application forms, like typos, grammatical errors, misunderstanding/forgetting to answer some questions or not curating personal statements to the strengths of the particular programs. You may be far more diligent than me but something to think about as well. (Maybe those who have experience sitting on adcoms can let us know how important it is for the application packet to have this property.)

My opinion is that continuing to do predoc research with your current bosses might not do much for you, though if covid downsizes are reversed next year the extra gap may be sufficient to get you in. Since it seems you have a lot of research experience in public/labor/applied micro, I would recommend you to apply to other predoc positions, such as OI, SIEPR, Tobin etc. While there is intense competition for these places, I think they are a bit more flexible regarding grades, and I think your research experience can be leveraged as an asset for apps for these. I also think you are one of those candidates who would benefit from a rigorous masters program (like the European Master's or stats MA programs), since, despite your upward trajectory, your early grades may unfortunately have been a drag (econ admissions have become so competitive and ruthless that even early mistakes like this could be punished). I don't think taking individual difficult math classes will help unfortunately, as you've already taken two semesters of analysis and done well; for you I think you need a master's at a known rigorous program and blow it out of the water. I know that the usual advice here is to do RA'ship or MA, but I do think the specifics of your profile point to these two options are particularly beneficial for your profile. Hang in there, this is a very tough admissions season. I am very sorry that you are going through this and please prioritize your health.

Gear up people, it seems according to gradcafe Berkeley is sending out acceptances/rejections (Pretty interesting given it's 8PM Berkeley time). That's at least a week early.

Thanks all for the perspectives and comments, including the "harsh" ones. All great ideas, I will schedule a one-on-one meeting with my boss once I have all my results. I think, absent my boss saying something new, I will commit. Also I have some theory interests so maybe it is beneficial to begin grad school when my math skills are still relatively fresh from undergrad. Just one more piece of information that may be of pertinence: I received ~85% percentile on the GRE quant (I took it once and didn't put too much focus as I was going through some personal issues). (To give more context, I went to a T15 undergrad, with a ~3.8 GPA, took hard math classes (think point-set topology and PhD-level measure-theoretic based probability theory) but also got a bunch of B's (though I got A+ in Real Analysis I and point-set topology).)

Any info on Northwestern, NYU or Columbia?

Please don't make assumptions about me. I definitely did not make my mind up about reapplying, and I am struggling with this decision. I just want to hear multiple opinions on this topic, and be aware of information that I may not have considered (I have already updated some of my priors from some of the worthwhile comments in this thread and it is actually pulling me to commit more).

Thanks a lot for this response! very helpful and a lot to think about. Just a quick clarification on my RA position: I like it a lot, I am learning a lot, and my boss is nice; it's just a gripe I have with not being involved in the creative aspects as much as I want to (I think that's the case for most RA'ships so I'm not attacking my boss or anything, just comparing PhD enrollment vs staying another year as RA). Your comment made me think maybe if I stay for another year, I will further my own research skills, and maybe I will be able to make better suggestions leading to my boss listening to more "creative" side suggestions more. I don't know...

Yes, but there's a part in the paper where they discuss "incest coefficients" (see Table 8 in paper) of being in top programs and likelihood of publishing in T5 journals, which are crucial for long-run outcomes as an economist. (also consider that JPE is housed at Chicago, and QJE at Harvard, even if we do not want to say that there is nepotism in the process, being trained in ways that will be rewarded by those journals, e.g. because your advisor is also on the editorial board of these journals and hence they will help you write papers that are likelier to be rewarded by the top journals).

I am lucky to have an offer from a T12 school in this godforsaken season with a very solid fit. The location is also very good though funding is not excellent. But I have been rejected/implicitly rejected from most of the T10s. But I am wondering, assuming I have rejections from the few T10s yet to respond, whether it is beneficial for my long-run outcomes to delay for one more year and try again next year. I am currently an RA at a T3 for a fully tenured faculty member who is very respected in my subfield. I was planning to just do a one year RA'ship, but given this rough season I am considering taking more time to do research and extending my stay. While nothing is guaranteed obviously, surely my odds ought to go up (right?), because both I will have more research experience and also class sizes are projected to go back to normal post-covid (or at least be much better than right now). I am just weighing the tradeoffs and I was hoping to hear some of your opinions. On the one hand, I am a little tired of RA work as, while I am picking up very useful empirical skills, I am not able to do too much creative work. I have a few set of ideas from my RA work, and I want to enroll in a PhD program sooner to take grad classes in my subfield and adjacent subfields, so I can begin working on my projects and writing papers. I also do not want to spend another >$1.3k on applications, plus my mental health has taken a massive hit during the past two months. Yet on the other hand, there is much evidence that, even accounting for selection, that being in a T5 is very advantageous (see e.g. Jim Heckman and Sidharth Moktan's paper on the Tyranny of the Top Five). wondering if people had any thoughts to take into consideration. On average are advisors at T7's not available/there is a lot of competition amongst students for good advisors than at T15's? On the other hand, what are the peer networks like at T15's, are they as motivated and enterprising as those at T7's (both for self-motivation purposes and for potential coauthors)? Is being a star at a T15/T20 better than being middle-of-the-road at T7 (not saying I'll be a star but I'm just curious)? Should I take into consideration the fact that the job market in five-six years will probably be a bit easier due to smaller cohorts? Have I overestimated the likelihood of next admission season being easier (maybe because top students are thinking of deferring/delaying)? (please don't say past your first job nobody cares about your degree. Sure, conditional on that first job your degree won't matter, but it's precisely getting that first job that is very difficult and where I'm sure pedigree matters, see Heckman and Moktan 2020 as above.)