Edgar

Just one thing: I know for a fact the number of applicants given on NYU's website is correct, contrary to what some postings here suggest (I am a student at NYU). One reason for this is that, as already mentioned here, NYC is just much more attractive than the locations of most other decent schools. Plus, NYU has a big number of very good professors who've only come here in the last few years and are thus not yet reflected in many rankings, making NYU a "steal".

You should keep in mind that if you want to do something at the very "frontier" of research then most likely you won't be taught that in courses (maybe except in "reading groups") anyway.

Hm, so I guess you are already in a top 10 program, since you know that much about the strengths of the people there? If you are, I'd be really curious to know which one it is. Let me tell you, almost no one entering a top 10 program has done "amazing" research. Sure almost all people have undergrad or master's theses, but that's about it. And not everyone has done huge amounts of math.

One major disadvantage of a fulbright hasn't been mentioned thus far (or I missed it): with a Fulbright you need to leave the US for a certain amount of time (I guess 2 years or so) after graduating, so you can't get a position in the US straight away.

Sorry, but why do you come to that conclusion? I know many people at different top 10 universities in Econ, and many don't have that outstanding profiles.

Hi corpfin 2006, I think in general your profile looks great, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. Real Analysis would have just been one additional factor, but math preparation is not everything (at least from my experience, but I am kind of an "outsider" since I do an Econ PhD). What you can do in Germany (at most universities) is to ask the instructor of the first analysis course in the math department if you can take the course and he can give you a "Schein" (that's at least what I did), but again, don't worry too much.

That might be true, but then these people probably had other strengths to compensate (which you seem to have as well). If you have the opportunity, one Real Analysis course would however strengthen you application. Considering my experiences at Stern (NYU), all guys there have a really strong math backgound (often undergrad in engineering), so at least that school seems to look at math courses a lot. However, good letters of recommendation (especially if those letters state your level of mathematical ability) can certainly compensate quite a bit. And one more thing: you can't compare the German "Vordiplom" to a complete undergraduate education in the US (this is also the official point of view of all American universities I know of).

Well, Usecon, your background really seems strong. I don't know the grade system in the UK, but I assume your one of the best students at the LSE? Then going to a top ten program should be your aim. One thing that might work to your advantage is that you have a degree from the UK, which will make you stand out in comparison to many other chinese applicants (there are always a huge number of chinese applicants, and most programs don't want too many students fom one country).

I wonder why you would want to take both. I think only very few programs accept both the GMAT and the GRE (basically some PhD programs at business schools). I think the GMAT is also more expensive (at least it used to be a few years ago).

Sorry, but if someone is into "mainstream" macro, that person should definitely choose BU over UBC. At BU, they have Baxter, King, Gilchrist plus a few junior people working in macro. At UBC, there is Devereux if you are into international macro and maybe one or two junior peple.

Sorry, but that must be Carnegie Mellon instead of Northwestern ;) But anyway, NW is a great school, congratulations!

Hi, I would really urge you to write an email to each of those departments. Last year NYU had waitlisted some people without telling them and they got in at the last minute (with funding).

One thing to remember with these rankings is that some rank universities (i.e. including the business school), while others only rank econ departments. This makes a big difference for some universities, such as Chicago.

Floplo, I just looked at the placement when I applied to grad school last year. Sorry, you are obviously right about the Harvard placement, but still that is one case in a few years. Really, someone is working with Sargent at NYU? Hm, I wonder if NYU students can then also take courses at Yale...

Honestly, I would strongly suggest that you go to LSE.That is a rigorous program. The NYU master, on the other hand, is a joke (barely above undergraduate level, mainly adjuncts teaching...). If you want to do a PhD, definitely go to LSE as preparation.

I have to say that looking at Yale's faculty does not really convince me of their strength in macro. None of the big names in macro is there and I can't remember any macro-guy out of Yale doing well in the job market in the last few years. Having said that, if you are not 100 percent sure that macro is your thing, then Yale might be attractive because of its strengths in other fields (econometics, theory...). If you are very sure that macro is your thing, I would prefer Harvard, even though I heard the same stories about them. However, if you got into Harvard and Yale, aren't there any other offers you can consider? (if you really want to do macro, there are better places than both Yale and Harvard).

Well, Northwestern certainly has the better placement record over the last few years, not only in their specialty, IO, but also in Macro. However, UCLA has more prominent Macro people (Aziaridis, Atkeson, Farmer, Hansen, Ohanian...) than Northwestern (basically Christiano and Eichenbaum plus Rebelo in the Business School). Anyway, I think you can do very well in both schools, so as floplo said, you should probably have a personal look at both programs.