Search the Community

Profile Evaluation, Fall 2019 Hello to fellow posters. I'm applying sometimes this year, so I'm hoping to receive some thoughtful responses to help narrow down my application list. I plan to apply for Fall 2019 to test the waters, but understand that my profile will likely benefit from another year of math classes / that I may need to reapply for 2020. I am especially unsure about my choices for mathematics courses, as I had limited slots for elective courses and chose instead to self-study a lot and take a series of classes I thought would be suitable to show my mathematics skills (especially notable are the complete absence of the Calculus series and Linear Algebra). I welcome feedback on what would have been better for me to do to apply for PhD programmes, specifically because I have a first-year friend in my university who also wishes to apply to PhD schools. PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: Top 5 UK Undergrad GPA (Social Sciences with Statistics): First Class Honours GRE: 170Q/170V Math/Stats Courses: - Undergrad-level: Mathematical Analysis (A-), Measure Theory (A+), Algebraic Topology (A-) - Grad-level: Advanced Mathematical Modelling (A+), Probability (A+) Econ Courses: Intro to Economics I & II (A+), Economics of Public Policy (A+), Economics of Education (A-), Economics of Children and Families (A-), Social Inequality and Mobility (A+) Statistics Courses: Intro to Quantitative Research Methods (A-), Principles of Social Science Research (A-), Data Analysis (A-), Causal Analysis (A-), Advanced Topics in Quantitative Data Analysis (A-) Courses taken in Harvard Summer School: Microeconomic Theory (A+), Macroeconomic Theory (A-), Intro to Econometrics (A+) Other Courses Taken: lots of Sociology and Social Policy courses, all As and one B Other Academic Stuff: skilled with mathematical modelling and programming in Python, Java, and Bash, sat-in on Mathematical Methods 1 and 2, Experimental Economics, Logic, Game Theory, and Behavioural Economics Letters of Recommendation: 1 econ professor that I RA'ed for (will be excellent), 1 econ lecturer (will be very good), 1 grad maths professor (should be strong). Research Experience: Published 2 papers on game theory in mid-level journals and co-authored a paper on environmental economics with another econ undergraduate, RAed for two different professors on game theory and microeconomic theory Teaching Experience: nothing formal Work Experience: nothing formal Research Interests: Game theory, market design, microeconomic theory Concerns: - Not much formal math classes, lacking especially in basic maths - Only intro-level econometrics - No serious internships - Perception of math grades, especially the lack of Multivariable Calc. and Linear Algebra - Not a ton of research done in internships; all research published independently - Non-degree seeking programme (Harvard Summer) figures too prominently into my resume, maybe degree resume is too weak independently Schools I'm looking at: Top 10 PhD programmes with particular focus on Stanford Thank you!

:question: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing games teaches us about life. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: Some people state that playing games can teach us about life. I agree with that statement as long as what is meant by games here refers specifically to educational games and not simply to any kinds of games. As their name implies, educational games are those specifically designed to educate, train, and instill good attitudes and behavior in people who play them. By playing such games, the players are expected to learn lessons which gradually lead them to self-improvement and better attitudes towards life. In my opinion, soccer can serve as an example of a good educational game. It has important characteristics which can teach its players good attitudes towards life such as follows. First, soccer teaches mutual respect. Soccer involves 22 players. If each player doesn’t respect the other players and plays just as he likes it, the game won’t go as expected. Similarly in real life, people should respect each other because without mutual respect, society can be plunged into chaos or anarchy. Second, soccer helps develop team building and good coordination. Soccer involves 2 teams, with each team consisting of 11 players. In order to win, each team has to be cohesive and to apply good coordination and discipline to its members. Each member has to learn what role he plays, how to play it, and what he should or shouldn’t do. A member’s failure to perform well will affect the overall performance of his team. Similarly in real life, each member of society should impose discipline on himself/herself, build good coordination with other members of his/her society, and perform his/her duties well, in order to contribute to the good of his/her society. Third, soccer instills patience and carefulness. Sayings like “haste makes waste” and “think well before doing” apply to soccer. In playing soccer, a player should control and behave himself so as not to take any thoughtless move or action which can result in his team’s bad performance or image. Similarly in real life, everyone has to be patient, careful, and thoughtful, so as not to incur regret or bring shame on himself/herself or his/her society. Fourth, soccer promotes sportsmanship. Every player has to play fairly and in good faith. He has to obey the rules and can’t simply do anything to win. A “good loser” (i.e. one who loses fairly and respectably) should be respected, while a “bad winner” (i.e. one who wins unfairly or by cheating) should be mocked at. Similarly in real life, everyone has to act in accordance with the law and can’t go just as he/she likes it. In conclusion, soccer teaches its players good attitudes towards life, such as those mentioned above. By playing soccer frequently and fairly, the player is expected to realize and internalize its positive characteristics and then apply them to his real life, in order to contribute to his society.

:question: Question : Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Playing game is fun only when you win. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. :idea: Answer : Some people are of the opinion that playing game is fun only when they win. I disagree with such an opinion. Here are my reasons to support my disagreement. Firstly, I play game mainly because I want to have fun and enjoy myself. Therefore, I don’t care much whether I will win or lose in the game. If I push myself to win, I will put an unnecessary burden on myself, and then, instead of having fun and getting rid of stress, I will only create new problems. Many friends of mine agree with me. They comment, “Games are basically created for fun. They are meant to be means of recreation with which people can get rid of stress and pressure. Pushing ourselves to win in a game will eventually create new stress or pressure. So, what’s the use of playing games if in the end we will only get new problems? It’s better to just relax and enjoy ourselves in playing games so that in the end we will get freshness and cheerfulness.” Secondly, in my opinion, playing games should also serve as means of education. In many educative games, the players are so conditioned that they can learn some lessons from the games without losing the chance of having fun. If they win, they can learn what makes up their advantage, power, or strength. If they lose, they can similarly learn what makes up their weaknesses or mistakes. In the next, they can decide what they should or shouldn’t do, in order to get the maximal or desired results. If the players are forced or pushed to win, they won’t have the chance of learning such lessons and in the end, they won’t benefit from the games. For example, they can’t learn or recognize what makes up their strengths or weaknesses since their focus is only on how to win the games. From my experience, I learn that having fun while learning some useful lessons is more important than winning the game. Besides, every player should be aware that every time he/she plays a game, he/she has to accept either one of two opposite possibilities, i.e. either to win or to lose the game. If he/she isn’t prepared to lose, basically he/she isn’t prepared to win either. :)