snappythecrab

I'm not sure that I would put in among the top schools. There is certainly a push for micro-oriented folks in the dept. One's survival in the dept is based on your micro ability, and specifically theotritical game. It isn't unheard of to have most of the prelims based on game/info. Bill Sandholm, who is a driving force behind the micro push, asked a question from his second year game theory class on first year prelims. Sink or swim.

edit: I've spoken my peace both in the community and with Erin. Cheating is something which I feel strongly about. I think it is obvious to many that cheating, academic dishonesty, whatever, was taking place. That has no place here, and I want to commend those that have stepped up to do the right thing. While generally I agree with Erin, and think that he has done a great job building an internet community, in his attempt to make this place inclusive, in this instance, he has missed the mark. Allowing dishonesty to the point of nearly encouraging it(nor is it to say that it's unethical) does not make the forums inclusive. I do not know much about what goes on outside of the Economics forum, but ours is populated by very serious students, PhD students, and Professors. I cannot immagine many of those people being willing to stick around if this is to contine. I for one am not going to stick around for it. After three years here, I quit.

You should call. They've very nice over there, and they've got much more money than the econ dept. ;)

I think the big thing that they're going want to know is "why econ". You're going to have to convince them that you're making the move for the right reason(s) and that they should invest in you. Given that you've got only one econ course under your belt, I think that may be a pretty tough sell. I would try and get on as a research assistant, continue to work through Mas-Collel, and pick up other books, say, in macro and econometrics. Find something that interests you and be able to talk about it and demonstrate that interest.

First off, there is no way of us knowing exactly how many questions there are on your exam. For all we know, it may only be six. Your word, especially since you were cheating, is rather ...worthless? Secondly, you only posted what you thought were the correct answers, or subset of answers, after you were pressed to do so, and after you had already received the answers to half of your questions, and after you had already been admonished by myself and others. Your ex post rationalization or attempt at justification does not nullify your actions. You posted your exam (in exam format!) and asked for answers. You weren't interested in rationale, terms, definitions, etc. You simply solicited answers and were attempting to represent the work of others as your own. I don't know what college you attend, however, I have a hard time believing any college would not call that cheating. Overall, the board has proven to be welcoming community to new members, a and is very quick to answer questions. That being said, somebody that registers with the sole purpose of leaching answers to a exam probably won't receive the kindest response. You deserved no warmth, and respect is earned...and I don't respect cheaters.

Dear snappythecrab, You have received a warning at The TestMagic Forums. Reason: ------- Inappropriate Language There have been other instances where moderator's actions in this forum have been questioned. These are causing concern to Erin and it is unfortunate that you have chosen to act in a way that may increase his concern. ------- Original Post: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/showthread.php?p=560465 Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by wasleys http://www.www.urch.com/forums/tm_images/buttons/viewpost.gif I'm going to suggest that if anyone wants to help archuleta7, they help. And if they don't want to help, they keep quiet. Michael And I'm going to suggest that you stick to moderating your own forum. This has no place here, and if you think it does, then you've got no business being a moderator. Period. Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow. All the best, The TestMagic Forums

And I'm going to suggest that you stick to moderating your own forum. This has no place here, and if you think it does, then you've got no business being a moderator. Period.

There are no sufficient conditions for a top 5 admit, but an NSF is pretty darn close.

I don't think that the dept is underfunded. Antichron can probably shed some light on this. Every dept has their criteria for admissions, and as you said, MIT can afford to be picky. My gut tells me that it is a signaling thing, but I'm not sure.

Not sure what's stupider - not being able to figure these questions out, or admitting that this is an exam and thinking that we'd actually help you cheat. :rolleyes: ...lock 'er up

You seem to be lost. Allow me to redirect you to the appropriate forum. http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-business/ Thank you. Come again. BTW...I'm sure that the finance folks would love to talk to you about math requirements. :rolleyes:

Aye..but rumor mills never close. ;):p

That all depends on what you're doing. Students generally aren't expected to know it in their first year, but that doesn't mean that it won't come up in various, albeit small, capacities., eg: stochastic dynamic programming. It certainly doesn't hurt to have seen a bit of it.

Your work seems relatively similar to the situation at Wisc. for the minimum, less pay. Sections are ~25 students. So for ~$925-950/mo., you teach roughly 75 students with similar hours to the above, give or take. This is of course excepting that Wisc students, teaching those hours, get paid less than half as much. My W2 for 2007 was $3156.01, teaching three sections in the fall semester because my class received **** for funding in their fiirst year, unlike the last two classes, apparently. But I'm not bitter. Really. :whistle: I'm honestly not sure what the dept is doing with their money. Let's see...given recent faculty losses over the last four years with net entrants, off the top of my head, it seems as though the faculty should have been able to save roughly $600-700k+ at a minimum. Mich, Minn, and Wisc are probably a decent cohort. Andy, what are they paying you for similar work? Right, but as you pointed out that is per year, which, especially as a first-year, you won't have the opportunity to teach. Thus ,that leaves you with roughly $7400 or so for the year at best. I really hate to come across like this for the dept., but I honestly feel little shame in doing so. I know that there are others out there that would echo similar sentiments. This place is rough, and it doesn't discriminiate. I had nearly two years worth of publication-quality research, co-authorship, and a math major, all from a top university. Look where that's left me. The class before me had a student ace (think ~98%) stats and econometrics for his first year, which, to say the least, is no easy feat. The dept. failed him. Wisconsin is no joke.

Four sections is pretty standard. Off the top of my head, I don't know anybody that taught more than four, but that doesn't mean much. Either way, the pay for three sections really sucks ~$7500 for an academic year. I think you're looking at a 15-20% increase over that for teaching four sections.

Very few things in life are that simple. Few people really struggle with the work itself. The hardest thing for most is the research stage. Often, it is easy to solve other people's problems. The larger challenge is to find and solve your own. I'll echo the small school/LAC comments. It was probably one of the smartest decisions I ever made. That being said, coming to a grad program where profs are less interested in students was a bit disheartening. I still wouldn't change a thing though.

Apparently the Econ world is wondering. There was a bit of buzz this last month at the AEA confrence. Lots of musings about Wisconsin, as I heard from a former undergrad prof. Not much good was said. :doh:

My reasons were varied - some personal, others having to do with the dept. My priorities had changed since I first applied and I hadn't been putting in the effort that's really required to do well. I was also pretty burned out, which contributed a lot to the effort thing. I really should have taken some time off between undergrad and grad school. The dept situation really centers around faculty - faculty retention, faculty attitudes toward students and teaching, and prelims. Losing (potential) advisers is tough, and I had lost two. The dept can't even offer international econ as a field right now because of losing faculty. Losing Rody was a big blow too. Grad school is a tough place already, and there's little-to-no faculty support here. The teaching by some can really be pretty bad at times, and attitudes of at least one prof toward students can be very negative to the point of being insulting and blatantly rude. Makes things tough when overall morale is low.

First off, congrats to all that have been accepted! Getting the first big admit is always takes quite a load off. It is great to see so many of you getting funding...back in the bad old days.... Let's see if I can give a breakdown. I think we had 28 entering...one left in the first week; three or four left before first prelims, including one transfer to Penn; and two decided to leave between first and second prelims, including myself. Overall, I know that fourteen sat for the second round of micro and six passed. Assuming those people passed macro, that leaves my class currently sitting at 13 people with the seven that passed micro over the summer. They don't usually give retakes for a third prelim. I think it has to do with my class losing so many people. Typically they like to graduate around 15-16 people. No doubt they're also counting on losing a few as dissertations, so that's why those retakes are there. And Bob Staiger and Jim Andreoni as well over the last three or four. You should always be careful about going anywhere for one person. There's still a fair amount of volatility at top privates as well. Just the nature of the beast that is economics.

You say that...but given your posts, I'm quite sure you don't really know what a finance PhD program is about. You claim that you've "always wanted to do this," but you clearly don't even know what "this" is. Seems odd. Your aversion does not bode well for you. And yes, there are people in programs, top programs, that haven't taken every course necessary. But those people are becoming fewer and increasingly far between in the discipline. Doing your best to prepare is generally the best policy. You're going up against some of the best and brightest in the world when it comes to applying, vying for funding, time, etc. It pays to be prepared. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you really should start doing some research about what you'd potentially be getting yourself into, because honestly, I don't think you've got a clue.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. The one finance oriented class I took was pretty heavy...lots of stochastic calc, etc. NeFall. You may want to email some finance profs at schools that are at the level that you're interested in. See what level of mathematical sophistication that they really recommend - not for you to just get in to a program, but do well in. Take a look at PhD-level class notes to get an idea of what really goes in finance courses, for example, John Cochrane's notes on Portfolio Theory. His notes are a good example about what you'd be exposed to. Take a look at his notes for other courses too. This stuff is pretty heavy and really requires a fair mastery of a lot of different areas. It really would require I would say, two to three years of full time math the get there....at least. My impression and honest opinion is that what you're looking for, you won't find in a finance PhD program. Ideas and concepts like "investment thesis, the fundamental analysis, the pros and cons of CEO pay disclosure, FED policy, the pricing of volatility, the effect of news on the market, why the market has crashed, etc" really won't be what you'll be looking at. The above notes provide a good example. If you don't really love math, I honestly don't see you even being able to complete the courses that you would need to get in, much less succeed in a finance PhD program. You'll be doing nothing but crazy mathematics all day long for 4-6 years. And add to that another two to three years just for prep. I think you want an MBA.

roflcopters...country fella? http://www.imflyn.com/images/PingHat-1.jpg

oh...something about children and how parents use them for slave labor. It was a flippant remark, but it is a subject which Rody has some research on. I bit my tongue once I said it because I knew what was coming. :D

Rody Manuelli once accused me of thinking like a sociologist. Then he added, "to be clear, that was an insult." We lol'ed.

I think you've forgotten the most important benefit of all, or at least potential benefit - a LOR.