Ivo

RAND has been an excellent research center for many years. It's not known among the general public or even among less informed academics, but it's definitely well-known for those who are seriously interested in PE, IR, Public Policy studies etc. Getting a PhD there would have it's advantages and disadvantages: great training, possibilty of focusing on one's research, working together with dynamic scholars/researchers etc. The down side of it is that it's truly not recognized in the broader world of academia. Still, I don't think any of the good schools would frown upon a RAND graduate.

I totally second that. Even CMU and Stanford are reachable with the profile of yours. Make sure that you get excellent recommendation letters and write a superb SoP (tailor it to the top schools). As Peiann suggested, I would also expand the list with other top-notch universities. In my opinion, you have a great shot on one of them for sure. Now if luck is on your side, next year by this time you'll be preparing yourself for one of them.

I find your "econ analysis" very sympathetic and logicaly coherent. It seems that that's what economics is about these days...using very precise terminology, mathematical tools, statistics etc. while following a clear-cut, well-thought logic which cannot be avoided, nor defuted...if.........if all the assumptions that economists make, were coherent with the reality in the first place. And that's exactly the catch here: even perfect methodology and precise analysis can in the end earn very erroneous results (we see it in economics every day). In my opinion, one of the biggest assumption that you make is captured in the following sentence of yours: sorry, but do you have any experience with the education overhere?Have you ever been to a country whose development was hindered by a "less liberal = communist" societal environment for some 40-50 years? I can tell you that social sciences in particular suffer under such conditions. So your assumptions are not really applicable to the case of my friend. I should also make it clear once again in order to avoid further accusations: my friend is not trying to get his PhD in the U.S. because he's afraid of getting a real job, because he's slacky or poor in publishing etc. What he aspires for is a world-class training and challenge, something which he can receive only at institutions where science has been treated well and where people are motivated, competitive and progressive. He's not interested in staying in the U.S. any longer than necessary, he's not interested in studying forever, he's not afraid etc. anyhow, CreativeDestruction clearly shows how adcoms can misinterpret someone's intetions...as I say, if they judge the applicants from a "U.S. point of view" they will be unlikely to fathom the whole scope of my friend's decision to apply to the U.S. And that's why I am coming to the conclusion it's better not to reveal that he's started already a PhD at home.

I think Peiann is right that getting an outside funding is good ...especially in terms of a good indication of your skills. If someone is ready to invest in you, be it in your country or elsewhere, it already shows that you've got what it takes to be admitted..or at least it points into that direction. This is so because usually only those who are very capable, motivated and willing receive these funds. But I think that "getting a funding from outside sources = great for the school as they will save some money on you" is a big stereotype which does not fulfil in all situations. take my example> I am a Fulbright grantee who was admitted to UC Berkeley. Still, I received a full aid offer from UCB. In other words, they did not try to save any money on me even if they could have. As a matter of fact, UCB covers all my expenses and it will not utilize the money it would otherwise receive from Fulbright. I know couple of others who are in the same position.

If I can add to this debate with my two cents: As other stated, it starts with preliminaries: GRE and grades in the first round (+ checking your application for formalities which are, not always, fulfilled by all the applicants). Second round, looking at schools from which one graduated and your references (=they count a lot even in the third round). Third round, SoP and research (your research proposal, interests, background, experiences etc.). All in all, you need to have a comprehensive profile in order to get into a top school. By comprehensive, I mean not being weak in any of parts of the application described above. On top of it, you need to stand out somehow = ie. have luck with addressing issues that are of interest to profs. at the department, fit into the department's research direction, come across as someone very promissing etc. I think that admin. commitees look for various sorts of people to create diversity. So there's no single way of getting in - ie. by fulfilling certain criteria. Therefore, I'd try to concentrate on creating an overall good impression while emphasising my own strengths (good research proposal and experiences, outstanding scholarly achievements or unusual experiences that could contribute to scienctific performance). Don't forget, you'll be selected by profs who are, after all, also human beings that fall prey to whim. They do pick people according to sympathy.

Just a suggestion: maybe you also want to post this thread in the "PhD in Economics" section. By doing so, you´ll surely increase the probability of addressing other grad students going to UChic. Btw. congratulations to all of you, great school for economics.

Hello Psylocybha, how are you? Hope you're ready for your new adventure at WUSTL. Send me a PM once you're there and let me know how things are progressing. As to the issue I've raised on behalf of my friend> I guess you're right. It's about getting the support from his profs. Fortunately, he's on very good terms with them and that should not be an issue for him - we talked about it just yesterday. Besides, the commitment one has towards universities in the Czech Republic differs greatly from that in the U.S. or elsewhere (in the U.S. you get funded and involved personally with the faculty.....here you can do your PhD without being really involved or even known by others....and the department does not invest huge money into you either...in other words, it's truly a differnet matter overhere ). Now, I just worry that some adcom can hold it against him that he's already started a PhD at home. If he succeeds in the admission process, he will terminate his studies at the Czech university. The question is now: is it better to acknowledge that he's already a graduate student or pretend that since his graduation (he's got master´s in psychology) he's been working only as a psychologist on a clinic with ongoing research activities carried out in cooperation with his former alma mater? I know that the latter is not a truthful version of his full career path, but perhaps justifiable if one wanted to eleminate him in the admin. process just because he's already started a PhD (under conditions which adcoms, I presume, do not really fathom). Or he might indeed stick to the truthful version and explain what makes him apply for a PhD in the U.S.> "I went to an int'l conference in England where I had the opportunity to meet colleagues from the United States (UCLA and Stanford profs). I was impressed with the level and quality of their research and academic performance. It was there where I again realized that becoming a full-fledged scientist with the proper training requires from me, besides other things, to attend a respectable psychology program in the US".What do you and others think about this?

Peiann, thanks also to your for your response. I feel though that there is a lot of naivity floating around - or I am myself very wrong!!! Can one really believe that someone stands a chance of getting a postdoc position at a good university in the US if one has not graduated from a well-known school with good recommendations? Of course, if you are an ace in your field, then it does not matter anymore. But who is an ace? Most of us are just intelligent, hard working scholars trying to make a break through. And doing this with a degree from an unknown school is simply way more difficult (but not impossible, I agree with that). Let´s look at the distribution of postdoc positions in the U.S. - it is no coincidence that most the scholars come from the best U.S. schools. So again, it is not about reputation "per se" (and ideally, we would not care about it at all) but about equal opportunities. If you graduate from a good school, you won´t be disqualified in the first rounds of the selection process. Your application will be looked at. Secondly, getting a PhD at a good university raises your own level...if not for anything else, then for the people you meet and can learn from. Also, if you study in English, it helps you publish English papers later in your career (this applies, of course, to us - non natives). So the question here is not whether his idea of pursuing a PhD is a good choice or not. Rahter, I hoped to ask you if schools look at it in a bad way - ie. applying to a doctorate program if you have already completed one?

yes, I totally agree with you OneMoreEcon. Indeed,degrees do not transfer over well. Especially then if you are a social scientist. Unlike mathematics, physics etc. which were free of the ideological bios of a communist state, development of social sciences suffered a lot in pre-1989 Eastern Europe. Sorry for the generalization (it might make angry some people for there have been exceptions exist) but overalll we´ve lacked behind other more democratic countries. To be realistic, I don´t think that the US and other developed countries would respect a degree from less developed countries (that is quite common and we do not need to whine over that, there are also good reasons for it, even if not always). I mean, let´s face it guys. Unless you are already a well-known researcher in your field, you would not stand a chance when looking for a postdoc position in the US in the same area if you compete, say, with people that obtained their PhD from top-30 US universities (of course, other things being equal). Peter, thank you for your valuable opinion. I still think though that you tend to overgeneralize about the intentions of my friend. He is definitely not a "degree hunter". Actually he´s far from it. He´s been working as a psychologist in a clinic while attending university and writing papers for Czech journals. Doing a second PhD in the U.S. has, according to what I know about him, the following reasons: he´d truly like to be challenged and pushed to even greater effort by sophisticated people and scientists. He´d also like to learn from the US education system. I´d allow myself to presume that you know really little about the Czech education system. Getting a PhD here isn´t a big deal, the effort and the quality of disertation which is needed for it equals to a normal Master degree at some good quality US school. No kidding. Also, not all the professors here can really teach you new things. Many of them do not even do their own research (they do not speak English) and\or publish in impact journals. I am sorry to say that, but the gap is still pretty huge and the difference in the traning you get from a top-20 US institution and those here is too big.

Hi folks, I have not been here for a while. Hope everyone is doing great. I'd like to ask for your opinion: There's this good friend of mine who's major is psychology. He's currently doing his PhD at a home university in the Czech Republic. In the process of completing it, he's decided though to go for another PhD in the States (psychology again). The reason for this being the better quality of education and training one gets in the US and the international recognition of an academic title from an american institution. He's a great student, with research experience, 27 years old. I believe he'd opt for some top 20-top 30 uni. What do you think, does he stand a chance in the admission process? Or will he automatically end up in the reject pile because of his PhD already (actually he's still in the progress of completing it)? I know that generally, universities aren't likely to accept such applicants, still what do you think? Thank your for your advice in advance, ivo

I know Mankiw is big, but his advice seems quite bizzare to me. It sounds like "well if you want to do econ but can't handle math, why not trying law instead" as if law would be a minor and easy-to-do major complementing economics. For sure, they are related as most social sciences are, but I can't see how an econ devotee would fall in love with law even if one finds law courses that could be of interest. I really feel that econ and law are, after all, quite different and doing a PhD in it isn't easy either. But if we insist on suggesting a substitude for econ, why not political economy then? It's got certainly a very close link (much closer than law) to econ and one doesn't have to be so competent in math either (pol.sci. departments usually run this type of courses). Quite honestly I almost had the feeling when reading the blog that he was trying to sell himself in a flaunty style: "you know besides economics, I've done law too and I could even get back to it if econ doesn't work out for me":). If it wasn't Mankiw, quite a huge name in econ, I'd almost say he's really showing off. But this guy doens't have to do it. So I am puzzled. Mankiw's words: "I spent 1 1/2 years in the early 1980s as a student at Harvard Law School, and I think I could have forged a happy career with a law degree instead of a PhD. In the end, I decided that my comparative advantage was in economics rather than law, so I suspended my law studies. But I can always go back and finish the law degree if this economics thing doesn't work out for me."

With that profile and your obvious focus (you know exactly what to point out that matters to admission committees), I'd humbly presume that you're well aware of the unis you'd like to attned (even their rank:)). Pls. correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be on the right track, that's for sure:). Good luck.

It's weird, pathetic, funny, ironic, inconceivable......:D . but maybe it got stuck somewhere on the way, especially if it was a snail mail.

Jhai, contact Freethinker, he's a Fulbright nominee doing Economics(he's going to Cal this fall). He'll help you for sure. As to your question, I've discussed the advantages and disadvantages in one of my older threads. Just look it up, you might find the answers you're looking for.

well RCs are tough to practice, that's for sure. I advice you to do all the RC texts in the Big Book. Have you done that? By the time you finish the last one,you'll get a feeling for it, I can guarantee that.I definitely felt at the end of my preparation that my RCs skills got much better (that was also due to my enlarged vocabulary at that time). Also, do analyse the texts in BB once you finish them. Don't just check for right or wrong answers, this won't help at all. You really need to take your time and try to figure out the logic. As for more practice, I'd go for LSAT (if you've got access to some prep. books) - yes, texts for lawyers. They tend to be pretty convoluted and harder. Getting back to GREs will be very easy then. Of course, you need to get into a habit of doing several RCs a day. It'll just help set up your brain for functioning the way you need it. Generallly speaking, on RCs you are not allowed to panic...and you need to learn how to skip questions that are hard to crack. I know, that's the most common rule ever for taking a CBT GRE, but so many of us aren't able to move on before this one is solved:). Also, try to understand the basic tenents of the text when reading it - ie. reading slower isn't always bad. these are my two cents. Unfortunately, there are no miracles, no great advices. It's all about practice, you've got still plenty of time, I am sure it'll get better if you work on that.

okay, if you guys take this thread serioulsy, then I'll reply to it in a "serious" way too:): what is the difference between driving a Mercedes and a Renalt? both cars will get you safely from A to B, so what's the point in buying the super expensive German? obviously, people aren't rational, nor are those who'll recruit you. Btw. even if they wanted to be, their customers wouldn't. If a school hires someone who graduated from "Rabbit" the chances that an undegrad. student will consider applying to this school (and pay a hefty tuition) are rather on the rabbit's side. To speak in a clear language: it's quite common that less known schools are looking to boost their image by hiring PhDs from well-known schools. So being rational means for them to look at the brand name too. Of course, this doesn't count so much for the great schools where output rather than image (which they already have) is what they seek. Even then though, looking at the profs. profiles at the best schools, it seems that most of them got their PhD in an institution of a similar ilk.

hello Toodlesmrlot, well, I used to have troubles with finding good sources for the math section too. Big Book has been out of print for years now, it's impossible to buy it. What you can try the following: visit your local Fulbright's office. They tend to have materials which could help you prepare for the test (at least that's the case of our Fulb. commission in Prague). Secondly, I know some people uploaded BB on the web. If you try to search older threads (i definitely recommend that), you might get hold of it. I can't really give you any advice on GRE math section these days as I really sat the test almost a year ago. You know, things change. Anyhow, my advice for improving your quant is: do as much math as you can, you don't need to do just prep. books. Calculate, go over some high school math etc. Just get the practice of doing things fast,that's very important. Good luck.

of course, I couldn't agree with you more. Just look at the starting post in this thread.

We need 23 votes to close it out at 100:).

Shaque2000, my knowledge is a bit obsolete at this point. I took the GRE almost a year ago, things have changed since then. Anyhow, doing BB is a great exercise, I definitely recommend that! It's unlikely you'll get any single sentece from the old BB tests, but it's a great help and preparation. Do as much as you can, the more the better. RCs used to come up everywhere in the test; in my case I got them at the end. As to SCs, sorry but I couldn't recall any even a week after I took the test.:)

Wow, you have revived this thread. At least some people will get to read it again. It seems to me it's been ages since I wrote this (almost a year now). I hope it'll give courage to others. Btw. for those who'll read it: as you see I was definitely a normal guy struggling to get a decent score on this silly test. Despite that, I was able (most likely with heaps of luck) to get into some fine schools with full aid (Berkeley, UCLA, UVa). The bottom line is: work hard, try hard, do your best and don't give up your hopes. It can really work for you.

i'd would endanger the Rabbit's sure victory. Don't you know the fairy tale? I am definitely against this move on all the evidence available to me.

Hey guys, for those who're disappointed with the thread. As I stated in the opening post, it's more for the sake of fun (you can see it from many indications such as Rabbits in the race etc.). And I agree that there are too many deficiencies with such a generalized approach. Especially if we want to be academcialy correct. Having said that, I do think Freethinker has got a point. Besides it's quite normal to make such judgements..even for the general public. Maybe that's why people do enjoy voting on it. So keep it up, go Rabbit go!!!

It seems we'll have to replace Yale......Uh, I am quite surprised it's doing so bad. Replace it with Caltech? Or what other schools? Don't be shy to propose?:) And Rabbit is beating Princeton, Chicago and Columbia. My dark horse is still in race. btw. I am also surprised that as of now Stanford isn't doing great either. There have been many TMians who got admitted in there. Hence, I expected more "unbiased" votes for that school:). but Boston combined, what a force! As I stated before, it's biased toward social sciences:tup:. And true, English school have been left out too. Just simply because the majority of people on this forum, I presume, are applying to US.

oh, I didn't mean it to be rude. A bit "ironic", that'd be in!:tup: Notre Dame is very good in my field of intereste, ie. Political Science. What are you going to study there?