Search the Community

Hi, I have been offered admission to the Masters programs at CEMFI and CEU and I have to decide which one of these should I attend. My main concern is the placements of these programs to US and Europe PhD programs. I know some people at CEMFI who are now at top 10 US colleges and the faculty also seems to be great. CEU's placements were also comparable to CEMFI earlier but they seem to be not as good now. However, I have been offered some funding at CEU which makes it the cheaper option. It would be great to hear some opinions regarding the two programs and how they compare against each other. Thanks, in advance!

All, I hear that in terms of placement in the US - it's LBS or bust. I've been admitted to Cass with a great project and a great advisor. My ultimate goal would to be back in the US down the line. What are the perceptions of Cass... if any at all?

Claim: The surest indicator of a great nation is not the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Reason: The surest indicator of a great nation is actually the welfare of all its people. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. A nation in demographed by its boundaries spread over, and inhabited by its diverse population. To call a nation ‘great’ can be a subjective term. Although, we can agree upon certain baseline standards for judging a nation like population living above the poverty line, healthy population, break-through in scientific research, confidence in the ruler, etc. While it is tempting to say that if the people are happy and doing well, then the nation would be a great one, but this is just not enough. Often, the scientific breakthroughs and individual achievements have in fact made the world to awe and appreciate the nation. Surely, there are various indicators that we see around us that can help in judging a nation. One of them, is United Nations designated parameter called ‘Human Development Index (HDI)’. HDI takes in the key parameters of human well-being like average life expectancy, infant mortality rate, literacy rates, etc. This definitely includes all the strong parameters that reflect the welfare of the people. But, are these sufficient to call a nation ‘great’? What about the military strength which would have to defend the country during the crisis? There are many more subjects above the people’s welfare which a nation’s Government have to think about. We can take the example of a nation like Singapore which has a formidable HDI score compared to its neighbouring nations like Malaysia, Vietnam. But, Singapore relies on its neighbours for defence, because of its low military power. Talking about military power of a nation, it is imperative that a healthy scientific community helps in developing its military. Israel, a small nation, made the world turn its heads, when they successfully developed their first anti-missile defence system called Iron Dome. Although, it is a great invention, can we call Israel a great nation? Israel has produced the highest grossed Hollywood actor like Natalie Portman and Gal Gadot. Its ruler, Benjamin Netanyahu inspires confidence among its people. All these things can make us call Israel a good nation, but not a great nation. To call a nation ‘great’, it would simply have do well in whole package as a lot. At the same time, we have to be realistic in our expectations when looking at the statistical data. Smaller nations like Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark tend to do well in ideal statistical data. But, idealism is not realism. In fact, the bigger countries like USA, China, India in spite of their average HDI score can be called the great nations. Great nations have real unsolved problems. But, they know how to get going with their problems. It is difficult to look at indicators in judging a nation. But, if we were to look at indicators – then look for indicators that govern Judicial, bureaucratic, Government, Sports, Arts, Science, etc.

Hello, At some places I read that if one doesn't get an interview offer till the mid-February the rejection is on the way. I have also heard of tales of students getting accepted without an interview. Also I have read on websites of good number of universities that an interview is not required to be considered for the PhD position. I searched this forum for this topic, with a variation of keywords, but I couldn't find a thread pertaining to this concern, so I created this thread. If anyone has seen a thread about this, it would be great if you could share it with us. I had contacted some professors in the late 2018, and they had said some positive stuff. Thus, I was optimistic about my chances this time, but it has been very silent so far. :( Is it a common practice to get positive responses from professors? If anyone is in the same boat as me, it would be great to connect and sail together. Does it help to send follow up emails to the department or professors of the universities in which we are interested in? Or is it better to just wait? Also, it would be nice to hear from you about the chances of acceptance if we have not received any interview invitations till now. Best of luck to everyone for this season. :)

One of my profs suggested possibly getting a funded MS in Econ from Oregon State, which would mean taking the core PhD sequence they have and then applying to grad programs to better my chances. What do you think of this approach? Any thoughts would be great.

Should I even apply for 2019 enrollment or just wait a year and try to get some research experience and audit some courses? Undergrad: 2016, 4.21/4.30, US Ivy, business major, not a rigorous program, no advanced stats classes GRE: Q169 (96%), V165 (96%), AWA TBD No academic research experience except undergraduate CB thesis 1 year working in consumer marketing at a major US company SOP: Hopefully great LOR: Good, not great (no solid research rec) Research Interests: Motivation, value and belief structures, service industry Dream Schools: NYU, Columbia, many, but what's realistic? Should I even apply before somehow getting research experience?

Hello everyone. I'm a senior at a public university in the US with dual degrees in Economics and Mathematics. My Economics coursework is great (above 3.8+ major GPA), but I have a string of Bs and Cs in Math mostly due to missing homework sets and the way math is taught at the undergraduate level. Cumulative is within the 3.0-3.2 range. However I do have two heavily quantitative publications, and would expect near-perfect scores on the GRE along with great letters of recommendation. My interests are in econometrics, asset pricing, and perhaps global macro. From your experience, do you think the admissions committee would be able to overlook these grades if the rest of my profile demonstrates otherwise strong quantitative skills and the ability to do research? I am looking at top 15 programs, but I am somewhat worried about the low/inconsistent grades as I had focused primarily on economics coursework/research while in college. The descriptions of some programs in particular (such as Duke or Stanford) seem to place an especially high emphasis on math background, while others (such as NYU or Harvard) seem to value creativity and research potential. Would it be wise to focus my applications on the latter based solely on the program descriptions?

Dear all, thanks for the great advice about baruch cuny. Just got a great update from Tippie. And now I have to choose between these two. I love all the schools that I applied, so at least there is no research interest bias here. Which one would you recommend? Thanks a lot !!

I am interested in applied micro. My research experience has been all in development economics. Nonetheless, I know that my interest my change. UMD AREC offer me 4 years of guaranteed funding (I don't know how easy it is to get year 5 and 6 funding if I need it, although a professor told me that students usually get RA position or get employment in many agencies in DC). The connection to the DC organizations such as WB and IMF is great. It's also located in DC (city life), although the stipend is the same as Notre Dame. The placements are of course greater than ND, although I have heard from EJMR that the department is not a pleasant place (I take this with a grain of salt though, if anyone have more insights into this that would be appreciated). With ND, the funding situation is great as I am guaranteed for 5 years of funding. The department is on a fast upward trajectory from hiring like crazy with good faculty members across the applied micro field, which would give me more options in case I change my field. The department is also very collegial, with close interactions between faculty members and student. That said, the placement aren't as great as UMD AREC for academic positions. South Bend is also not inspiring as a city. Currently, I am indifferent between academic positions or private sector. Any advice would be very much appreciated ! Thanks guys