corpfin2006

All econ.

Dear all: I am filling out MIT's application form and do not find a single possibility to submit an electronic CV (in, say, PDF format). Without a CV, what kind of application are these people going to view? Just courses and recommendations? What do you guys do about this? Should I, or am I forced to just copy and paste my CV in ASCII format in the "additional comments" section? Also, after having filled out Princeton's forms, I realized that I had not been asked to enter my GRE or TOEFL scores - anywhere. Was I blind?

I believe any type of student would be better off if s/he went to an elite college. The thing is that elite colleges such as Harvard offer gifted students opportunities to grow, excel and outperform anyone (be it in terms of coursework or research activities etc.). These opportunities are rare at "normal" colleges. And even if you are just not that smart, you are better off at Harvard because a 3.5 GPA from H looks better than a 3.5 GPA from nowhere simply because the admission to Harvard is supposed to be a strong signal. But, as always, true talent is what lasts, not the brand behind which you attempt to hide sometimes. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are incredibly intelligent guys at Harvard etc. - nevertheless, there are other talents who are looked down upon for their 4.0 GPA at whatever not-so-elite institution, especially in the admissions process (for graduate school). So, my conclusion is that a brand helps a lot - no matter how smart you really are.

What skill set?! Staying awake for more than 16 hours? There is always coc...okay, you don't want to hear it.

ekonomiks, sorry for being harsh here - but, as long as you haven't gone through both types of jobs, you should refrain from telling us what to think about the difference between i-banking and academia. You can easily be recruited by any top-tier investment bank as long as you have (very) good grades in a relevant subject (business, economics, mathematics, statistics, finance, physics etc.) from a target school (of the respective bank) or a school with a very good overall reputation (highly correlated with being a target school, though). That's all. Internships are a plus - but, e.g. in the UK, most undergrads haven't done more than one internship prior to starting their permanent employment in investment banking. So, if you apply for top PhD programs, I would be astounded to hear that you do not have the ex-ante productivity signals investment banks are looking for! Secondly, have you ever spent 16 hours in the office doing nothing but drawing dumbed down slides for some pitch about which some random MD thinks that there might be a deal going on? And have you ever actually wondered HOW these guys do firm valuation? I can tell you - all these errors taken for themselves might not move the world but it is the accumulation of bullshit you see in investment banking that generates veritable social costs. Of course, hardly any economist will save the world. But at least the top economists are aware of what they are doing, which is something I highly appreciate!

Dude, have you ever been to a top-5 econ department? Meeting assistant profs in the bathroom at 2am on a Friday night is not unusual. These people work incredibly hard for their dreams. I worked (on average) about 80 hours in investment banking, 60 hours in strategy consulting, and I peaked at 120 hours in grad school. To me, it is not about WHO you are working for (or with) but rather what your heart desires most. My heart is obviously pumping for academia. On top of that, it is in academia that I get the feeling that my education has any meaningful contribution towards my intellectual progress, whereas I believe that in investment banking I would have succeeded with my high school degree alone. I do not know what your preferences in life are but, if you are looking for intellectual fulfillment, going for investment banking is the wrong choice (by that, I mean all departments - M&A, ECM, DCM, Principal Investing).

Yes, you better. There are students in the one-year route of the above-mentioned programs who have a somewhat weaker background than some guys in the two-year route, the only difference being the reputation of the undergrad institution. That's life. On the other hand, you are right in assuming that someone who has studied hardly any economics beforehand will certainly end up in the two-year route.

@nauru: That is certainly not true when it comes to LSE's decision as for whether you get into the one- or two-year route of the respective MSc program (say EME or econ). Stellar grades from a well-known institution get you into the one-year route, whereas stellar grades from a completely unknown institution (for whatever reason that institution might be unknown!) will almost certainly get you into the two-year program.

I must say that this contradicts what professors from top 5 schools told me. They even said that the GRE verbal is not even included in their admissions formulae. So, I am a bit confused here...

Okay, okay, I sense I am in big trouble for having mediocre English-speaking skills, so I barely speak two languages. As funny as that is for a European graduate, I do not want to be cut off at certain schools for that. So, can an impeccable TOEFL score compensate for the low GRE verbal? Or is there anything else that people will look at to understand that I simply did not take the verbal section seriously, i.e. the English used in my SOP or statements by my recommenders commenting on my spoken English?

I had two days to prepare the GRE, so I asked professors whether the verbal score counted for anything. All of them (top 5!) said no. But I guess they were being attentive to the fact that I studied in both the US and the UK.

I also thought that the verbal part were useless, so I just skipped all the questions and got V320. My other scores, however, are Q800 and AWA6.0. On top of that, my degree is from England. So, do I have to re-take the GRE?!?!

You will certainly NOT be able to take MA412 in your first year. But MA203 might work out - it did for me...

UPenn PhD. Immediately. Anyone can get into investment banking with good grades from a solid university (I used to work in investment banking as well).

I thought you would enroll in an MSc program at LSE?

Peter Kondor (Chicago GSB).

I was more or less reminded of this thread: http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/67234-very-silly-musing-sops-math-etc.html However, if a certain portion of sarcasm is not your cup of tea, I can truly understand that and I apologize in case you all feel that Karina's comments were indeed on-topic.

Karina 07, why don't you just publish your CV here? That would save you the time you spend on bluntly incorporating (oftentimes irrelevant) details about your academic track record (going back until high school...) into a significant proportion of your posts. Thanks for listening. Back to the topic: You need two marks >=70 and another two marks >=60 to get a distinction at LSE (MSc). For further info: http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/schoolRegulations/schemeForTheAwardOfATaughtMastersDegree.htm As for BSc: http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/schoolRegulations/classificationSchemeForTheBScBADegreesForStudentsEnteringInOrAfterTheAcademicYear2004_05.htm

MSc Management & Economics is a new program starting this year, so no one can tell you right now what it will be like. However, the web-site states that the program is also trying to prepare people for PhD programs in economics.

I took the GRE back in January 2006 and scored Q800, V320 and AWA 6.0 because I simply did not care about my verbal score given its SUPPOSED irrelevance (I simply clicked through all questions and did not look at them). I speak and write in English since I am nine years old - besides that, I studied in the US and in the UK (LSE MSc). So, given all these factors, would my verbal score count against me? I am definitely very dedicated to my PhD applications, so that I would be willing to re-take the GRE but, after talking to a myriad of profs and grad students, I never got the feeling the verbal score would matter (and I explicitly mentioned mine to these people). Having read your posts, though, I got a bit worried...

Honest advice: If you truly want to become a professor in the US, accept a one-year position as research assistant in the US immediately and re-apply this winter (with more research experience and another recommender). If you want to get a PhD to enter some non-academic organization, accept the LSE offer.

I think he is currently doing the MSc (Research), cf. http://www.www.urch.com/forums/graduate-admissions/59541-please-evaluate-my-profile-application.html. In case the funding is good (14k-17k for the candidates LSE really wants), you should still go to LSE and do well there. Make some connections, get to know the top professors (many PhD candidates at LSE I know are way too passive in that respect).

af1981, first off: Are you so sure that you will get a distinction on your MSc? Secondly: If you get a place at one of the research centres, your working conditions are way better (I am at the CEP, for example - yet not a PhD student). Thirdly: EUI is a nice place; but if you plan to have at least a shot at the US job market (did you apply to any US programmes?), you should stay at LSE.

Bonn has some of Europe's finest professors in microeconomic theory, contract theory, game theory (Shaked, Moldovanu, Schweizer) and behavioral economics (Falk). As for the placement, the most recent job candidates had strong ties with other professors (from top 10 schools in the US) and last year Philipp Kircher was placed at UPenn (as Assistant Professor). More than that, Bonn is affiliated with the renowned Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA; it is actually located right across the street from the economics department) where you will be able to gather with many good labor and behavioral economists.

It is for me (two-year route for MSc EME).