Search the Community

The 5 letters in the list G, H, I, J, K are to be rearranged so that G is the 3rd letter in the list and H is not next to G. How many such rearrangements are there? I thought that "is not next to G" means that H does not go after G. But according to the official explanation, it means H goes neither after G nor before G

Hi, I just finished my Master at a top program in Europe. I had a very weak undergraduate background, with just 1 course in econ and no maths at all (not even calculus). In the first year I was quite average, however in the second year I think I was around top 10% and wrote an strong thesis (I think) I dont know what to do next. I am at lost and dont know who to talk to either. What should I do next? - I posted this on Ejmr and people there told me to take real analysis/linear algebra/calculus since I have such weak background in maths. They told me I could do a Harvard online course or at some community college. However that means I will have to spend more money and I am really poor (I only get through Msc thanks to a scholarship). And I just do not see the point, I have already taken micro macro game theory econometrics which all needed linear algebra/ calculus even a bit of real analysis as prerequisite. - I dont know whether I should explain why I did badly first year Msc. I mean my classmates had much better background that I did, so that partly explains why they performed better. However I do not know whether that is a good excuse or not... - I plan to do a predoc but I also understand it will be hard getting into a good one. TLDR: Type of undergrad: Bachelor from developing country Undergrad profile : no maths, one econ class. Type of grad: top 5 msc in europe Grad Gpa: top 25%, but top 10% in second year Grad courses: Macro (A), Micro (A+,B), Metrics (A), Maths(B), and a bunch of other field, but I do not think they matter that much. Gre: good Looking for advice to whether take online math courses or not. And explanation for some bad grades Thank everyone

I received a few admissions offers for PhD in management. I have rejected all but two (so I have 2 in hand offers). It's a tough choice: one school has better location and stipend, the other has a better ranking and shorter program. I am considering whether it might make sense to enrol in both, rather than choose. In a sense they are complementary. In terms of coursework, there are synergies - both have similar required curriculum, so there won't be a ton of extra work that I'd need to put in. In terms of the actual research output, based on my ongoing work, I feel confident that I should be able to produce 2 separate, different and competent pieces of PhD theses. Any thoughts/perspectives on this idea? Is this legal? Esp. in terms of immigration rules. Any thoughts on what the universities may say about this? (I don't want to bring this up with either, if it means I would piss them off and get my offer rescinded) Possibly relevant details: Both are in Europe (one in EU), and I am a third country national. The funding at both is via so-called assistantship "jobs" (which are taxed as such), not true stipends. The locations of the universities/countries are such that it is practical, at least financially to attend both for the coursework...even if that means round trips every week.

Hi, wish I can get some help or thoughts.... I got offers from these schools but cannot see which one is dominant. My current interest is in macro, and rochester seems to be good at it traditionally. But BU has more advantage in location (which also means expensive to live). Although psu is a rising department with pretty good funding, I'm not sure of its marco performance.....Many thanks for sharing