hoper

Hi Reactor An excellent cite for GAUSS: http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae636/main.asp

But Gauss light version (student version) is free to download! (Legal one)

Angel de la Fuente is really a good book. But it takes time to plough thru it. I could manage to finish the 1st 5 or 6 chapters before semester starts. Other than the books the others suggested. You can also read some notes of other universites. For macro, Per Krusell's and Dirk Krueger's are good for a starter. Those are easy to understand. For micro, read MWG. For econometrics, reading the first 5 chapters will do.

Hi, Mishal, if you want to take more maths courses, better choose a longer Master program coz the basic economics courses already take you most of the time. You may start your math preparation only in the 2nd year of the above east asian programs. Since I am from HK, I may provide you some info. about the schools on your list. CUHK - only offer 2-yr. Mphil program with decent scholarship. But it is not suitable for you because I never see there is a foreign students (i.e. other than mainland Chinese and HK students) in the program. Some Math courses are conducted in Cantonese! This policy may change in the near future. HKUST - There is a 1-yr. M.Sc. program. They like admitting students from all other countries. This program has no funding but the cost is only about USD10K which includes tuition and housing. HKUST is known to most of the US universities. You can switch to Ph.D. (not automatic) after the M.Sc. Math Professors are mostly from top univerisites. All courses are taught in English. Actually, it does not offer M.Phil. program. There is only M.Sc. and Ph.D. In the recent years, they sent their students to Harvard, Chicago, Rochester, UCLA and Boston. Of coz, good grades in Econ and Math are important. HKU - If you want to find a job after graduation, HKU may be the best choice due to its excellent network. But if you want to go for Ph.D., then it may not be that suitable given there is only a weak connection with the US universities. It is also a 1yr program. The cost and course structure are about the same as HKUST's but less rigorous. CityU - It should be a 2yr M.Phil program with full funding. Its reputation is not as good as others. You can get a place in US only if you have a good Mphile dissertation and course grades. Good luck for your school search!

I replied in action!:D 1 out of 38 should be counted twd me.

Hi, Klimano and Cliff I am grateful that you are willing to give me honest advice. But, I am afraid that my final choice will make you feel surprised. Perhaps I didn't mention one point. Financial aid is indeed a critical factor. That's why I didn't consider UCLA at the very beginning since it gave me nothing. Right now, the update is tuition waiver+registration fees. I have to afford all the living expenses. Though I can afford, I don't know whether it is a worth investment (It will clear my pocket). I heard that their attrition rate is quite high. Of coz, I will strive for the best. But performance will be affected if I am put under financial pressure. USC's 5yr financial package is very generous -just as I mentioned before. Anyhow, thanks for the input! PS.: I will wait and see if there is further updates. Hoper

I don't know too. One of the Phds there said that most of them are living outside campus. Facilities are not that good. Cost is unreasonably high-USD1000 and only a limited dorm vacancies inside campus. But, I think as a 1st year graduate, it'd better to live on campus. So, let see what other information they send to us at a later stage. Or, will they send it? I haven't received the official letter yet, though I accepted it thru email and fax. BTW, I have sent you an email!

Wow! Congratulation!:tup:

I know that my decision is quite wierd. Let see if I can convince you, though it seems impossible.:) (1) Field/Interest-wise: Econometrics is definitely my choice. Marketing/Finance/Management aim at hiring quantitative persons. I hope that I will be the one who can link economics and business in this sense. USC is good at both microeconometrics, time-series and panel both theorectical and applied. They are all ACTIVE. UCLA focus more on labor econometrics. While some are less active. (I hope it will not offend those graduate coordinators serving on this board!) (2) Placement-wise: I know UCLA is better in this regard. But the sufficient condition is that your dissertation has to be good. (So, I always stress that advisors are more important.) UCLA is not like top-5 whose brand name alone can tell others that my graduates are ALL excellent. According to the placement list, only some, maybe less than half of the graduates have good placement, like NYU, Worldbank, IMF. But, I don't want to work in the latter two. My aim is to find an academic position (either economics or business) perhaps in my hometown. I believe both can do given I have good dissertation. (3) Program-wise: It is something related to reputation. UCLA wins. They have more famous faculty especially in the areas that I am not very interested, say, Macro. (4) Ranking-wise: USC's low ranking perhaps is due to the small faculty. Judging from the publications of the faculty at USC (4 editors to top journals), the difference should not be that large. (I hope that my enrollment can help pushing USC up a little bit, at least 0.00000001!:D ) But some finance professors at my school have the same opinion as Cliff23, while economics professors ask me to focus more on advisors/field than ranking. Perhaps, I am the one who is anti-ranking. (5) Money-wise: UCLA's money covers tuition, registration fees and stipend of several k. In this regard, USC prevails. Besides, I accepted USC's offer just a few hours before I got UCLA's update! I know I can still accept another offer by the 415 deadline, but I am already satisfied with the current offer. I haven't declined UCLA yet coz I wanna give myself a few more hours to think about it. Any comment/ opinions are welcomed!

Universities rank high because they have excellent professors. Students and profs are aggressive. Peer influence forces you to work even harder. You can get an all-rounded training. That's why almost all ppl. want to go to top 5, top 10. But mid-rank schools also have their advantages. They may rank high in certain areas. So, supervisor is the most important thing. Remember, you have to work with a similar group of faculty for 5 years. It's without doubt that top 10 have good placement. But 2nd-tier can also have good placement too. PSU is an example. It also depends on your career plan. Do you want to have a position at top schools or just some schools in your hometown if you're an international? If you just want to teach in a lesser known school, it is not that necessary to go to a really top schools.

Congratulation Econgirl! Waiting is just like playing musical chair! I also get an financial package update from UCLA today. But I think I will still choose USC for its strong econometrics.:p Best of luck to all of us!

Congratulation![clap] I got admitted to USC Phd Econ. Perhaps we will take courses together!

But I think Jeff Wooldridge has a larger impact on econometrics than Steven Stern. You can find a ranking of econometrician in the Econometric Theory. You can't find Stern but Wooldridge and Schmidt. Of course, if money matters, just leave them alone and go for BC which is also a good school. Don't worry too much about ranking, dissertation is the most important factor determining your placement. Congratulation![clap]

Hi, Your major is different from mine. So, my situation does not apply to yours. But my suggestion is don't just rely on the universities to give you fellowship. You should search for some outside funding/ scholarship in your hometown. I regret that I haven't done so! Some universities don't give me any financial aid! Good luck!

I applied 12 Econ Phd programs with 4 successes. ;) My final choice? See Avatar. Good luck!

Great Score! I have to say so coz I got the same score as yours!:D Congratulation!

BU is quite good. I also want to work with Pierre Perron. But I don't like the big class size. If the attrition rate is that low, then I wonder if 50K is a worth investment. However, I know one guy there without funding for 1st year and barely passed the qual. got TA for the 2nd year. Concerning whether it can keep the professor -- I think it should not be a problem. If your target supervisor is still there after your core/field qual, he/she can still supervise you even they leave for other schools. Bruce Hansen is one example. He left Rochester for UWM and still supervised his students at Rochester. Advisor is much more important than ranking. Put it in another way, ranking of professors is more important than ranking of universities. So, if you have a target advisor, and given that you are dedicated to the 5-yr. harsh Phd life, go for it. I don't know if you have other choices with funding. If you have, you should seriously consider other options as well. @Triecon It's not that possible to cut the expenses. Its tuition is 30K.:eek:

Because you are the president of Econ Fans Club!

Hey, Dhruv Sorry for missing this post. My major is Economics. Hope that we can meet!

Gsteria Like what others say, Queen's U is no good!;) My friend even quitted the Phd econ there.

This is my turn! Congratulation! Awhig

I agree that too! Just like someone in other forum post a message that he received both reject and admit from the same university! :hmm:

Hey, thanks very much! But, I am afriad that I will feel regret for not choosing UCLA! Anyhow, I hope that all of us will have a bright future! I am thinking how I should thank my referees. Is it too late?:o Actually how do you guys thank them?

Yeah, it seems that BU admits a lot these years. I know some people without funding passed the qual and got TA for the 2nd year. Its placement record is not bad. And I like Pierre Perron very much! Its health economics is also good! So, it's worth investing!