pookchen

If you have questions about WUSTL, I'll be happy to answer them (I'm doing applied Health stuff and in my 3rd year). Also, the hiring freeze is a bit of a misrepresentation because all WUSTL B-school profs are jointly appointed in the Econ dept and they have most definitely NOT stopped hiring. (This joint-appointment is not just window-dressing: my main advisor is in the B-school, I attend a weekly seminar in the B-school and a good deal of my summer funding comes from there...)

Strong in Macro, micro theory, Gen Eq. There is a misconception regarding applied fields because people only look at the econ dept, which is overwhelmingly theory. However, keep in mind that all b-school fac are jointly appointed, so although there is one structural metrics guy in the econ dept., there are several in the b-school, all of whom we can work with. For example, I do health and my main advisor is in the b-school... Hope this helps.

THERE IS NO HIRING FREEZE AT WUSTL. I'm a 3rd year student at Wustl. I asked. I know.

not true.

Contgrats Pevdoki on your admit. Good luck in your decision and wherever you end up!

They're coming, but Junior recruitment sort of pushed everything back a couple of weeks. Good luck guys: maybe we'll meet at your visits... pookchen

oh wow, really my bad. I totally missed that.

sorry - my bad

I don't agree with a previous post saying that "you'll never get hired if they see you got a B" In fact, we all come here with different backgrounds, so some of us, inevitably, will do better than others in the courses. If, however, you get it together in time for prelims and make it through, your research is all that matters. A job mkt. candidate told me that only 1 school actually wanted a transcript of grades (out of the 100+ he appled to) and that the school making the request was off-the-radar low ranked We are told time and again that our ability to do research is what counts and that grades are an imperfect signal of this ability....so why would hiring schools look to the imperfect signal if they have your research in hand?

Bartle, The Elements of Integration and Lebesgue Measure. Best Mathbook EVER.

It's official.

Well, they're certainly not good at sharing, like sharing being in the top ten. And I learned to share in preschool (well, mostly), so if they can't do what I learned to do at age 3, then I have to ask myself how good they are at (slightly) more complicated things like Economix.

Anyways, now onto Econphilomath's questions. Like I said in the previous post, I don't think I am a hardcore supporter of Wash U, though I will be the first to admit that I am biased in favor of the program -- probably because I am here and it is very much to my benefit for me to talk up the program. So, keep that in mind when evaluating my comments. I think that for Micro Theory, Wash U is one of the top places to be. We have star power in the form of David Levine. He is one of the architects of our changes. Haluk Ergin is a top decision theorist. If you are at all interested in big auctions, you can't not deal with the work of Jeroen Swinkels who is, (I must add) an amazing teacher of Game Theory. We also have John Nachbar and, of course, Uncle Marcus (Berliant) who, in the strange little world of GEq, is one of the big guys. Our Macro group is strong and solid, though not quite as much as our Micro group. This is because we are missing some pieces. Whether we fill in those gaps is up to the fates, tho if Rody shows up in September, we'll be well on the way to doing so. Our Applied Micro is still "unfinished." For those interested in Freakonomics/Natural Experiments/Microeconometrics/clever IV's , we have Sebastian Galiani (and a couple others). I know we are bent on hiring a couple of others, tho, again, success will be up to the fates. I am more in this area and realize I took a big gamble by coming here. However, I will claim that I am well taken care of for two reasons. First, there are good people to work with. Second, my Micro Theory training is top notch, which is of the utmost importance if you're a structuralist (which I am). Weaknesses: you can imagine that a program in such a state of upheaval has its issues. In my cohort and especially in the new one, students got into programs with higher official rankings, that is to say, we've taken a gamble and hope it doesn't go to hell. Hence, there is a bit of nervousness. Moreover, one or two students came in thinking this would be an "easier" program to get through (in fact...a recent post said something about easier prelims here?!?!?) and then are embittered by the amount of work, mathematical intensity and are surprised that they failed prelims. So, there is a bit of wierdness at times....it's like we're still trying to find our "personality" Any other questions, let me know....

Um, I did not confirm the move. I have no idea who is coming to Wash U. If I slithered around the profs' offices long enough and asked enough questions, I'm sure I could find out. But I'm not really the slithering type, so I guess I'll find out more or less when the rest of y'all do. Nor am I a "hardcore defender" of Wash U. Our program, as any other, has its positive and negative aspects. These might be more pronounced because we are so publicly and obviously going through a lot of changes, which brings energy and optimism, but growing pains as well. (If anyone cares enough to reread the Rody exchange, they'll note that I merely took offense at another TMer's characterization of the _POTENTIAL_ move as "shameful").

I hadn't disputed the m.cacl part, but whatever. Anyways, gisdude, I also took some years off before going back to grad school. (However, our situations are different in that I did have multivariate calculus and linear algebra). I was confronted with two problems. First, I needed to prove that I could still handle advanced coursework. Moreover, my math background was a problem. I remedied both of these by taking a Masters and, shortly before application time when the Math issue became clear to me, sitting in on an analysis course. I am not sure what, exactly, got me in. However, I will say that every classmate minus myself and one other has had at least an analysis course. In the incoming year (I'm a second year), I think virtually all have . And it's only getting more demanding: whereas we needed to jump into Micro with some knowledge of open sets and sequences, the first years were told that a working knowledge of Lebesgue Measure will be necessary to get through prelims. So, if I were you, I would try to take a real analysis course. (It will also give you a chance to see if you really like this kind of stuff......)