Jump to content
Urch Forums

Why do students fail Qualifying Exams?


Econhead

Recommended Posts

I know that attrition rates are always big conversation starters, and there have been a number of threads that have addressed that. The one question that I haven't seen answered is why exactly some individuals fail. Surely there are some members that have known someone that failed-either during their cohort, or perhaps a friend of theirs. I'll try to keep responses narrowed to the following:

 

1) Do the individuals that fail out due to quals fail because they aren't "intelligent" enough?

2) OR does it appear that they don't work as hard as the students that succeed?

3) Have you met someone that failed and said, "I bet they'd succeed at a lower ranked institution"?

 

#3 is meant to get at the notion that some programs "weed" people out, and whether those that are "weeded" out are people that really shouldn't be in an econ Ph.D program at all, or whether they should just be in a lower ranked program. From personal experience, the one individual that I know had more math experience/knowledge than me, but everytime I talked to this guy I just thought, "man, this guy should not be in an Econ Ph.D program." Similarly, one Ph.D student at my current institution indicated that individuals from their cohort or younger cohorts failed out because they just "didn't get it," which feels again like #1.

 

There are bound to be true mismatches, where someone got in over their head despite a good profile, but I'd be surprised if this included most that failed. Similarly, there could be depression or other circumstances that lead to failing the exams. I'm less interested in these people/circumstances-I'm more interested in whether people fall into 1-3 above, and if so what % of the time.

 

Mostly curious for curious sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that most people(80%) fall somewhere between 2 and Econ Phd wasn't for them (not because of lack of intelligence but some other reason); or at least according to my anecdotal experience, it seems like it. At my university (top 50) professors and older students said that after one semester they knew more or less who wasnt going to make it to the next year, and the most common reasons they gave me was that: these students either they werent willing to work as hard as needed, or Graduate economics was what they thought it would be. I never heard any of them say that it was due to a lack of intelligence. I dont know nor think that being at a lower institution would fix any of these problems.

 

Another thing (and this one is just my opinion) is that the match between the university and the student is very crucial. As some universities seem to have a better way of advancing people, while other tend to do the baptism by fire approach, or they might have a very specific focus that if you dont get or care about can derail your grad career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a student at my program who failed out of the program last year. Others in his cohort said that he was one of the hardest working students there. So, it seems that number 1 does happen.

 

I don't know that student, of course. But working hard is not equal to, nor as effective as working smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why do schools do this though? Are these schools normally the ones with many unfunded offers?

 

I honestly dont know if unfunded offers have anything to do with it. I meant it more like if you hate macro and you go to Minnesota you probably wont fair too well(not saying that Minnesota isn't a great school), or some schools just take a very hands off approach (I think this has to do more with either their own funding, teaching styles, and the style/atmosphere of the department).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that student, of course. But working hard is not equal to, nor as effective as working smart.

 

I can't stress how important this is. Investing time in figuring out how to study is at least as important as how much time you put into studying. In undergrad I struggled with Game Theory and the Grad Micro 1 class (I got a B). Not very good signs and I was legitimately worried entering grad school about how I would cope. Basically I trawled the internet for study advice (Cal Newport's Study Hacks was particularly useful) and experimented until I found what worked for me. In the end I did really well in my Micro classes. Having seen some of the material before helped, but there's no way I would have made it through something like mechanism design if I hadn't taken the warning signs from undergrad seriously.

 

In short, if at any point you have reason to believe that your study methods are suspect, look into it straightaway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trifecta
I went to the NCSU visit day yesterday and there were a lot of questions about comps. The faculty seemed to indicate that the rare student who fails twice (the max allowed) either didn't work hard enough (e.g. waiting until a week before to start studying) or came in unprepared for the mathematical rigor and as a result just couldn't internalize the economic concepts well enough to handle the comps. Like much of the advice here, being comfortable with the math provides a huge advantage because you can see past the math to the point of the theory. In fact, they decided to start holding a math camp next year because this year's cohort was so unprepared out of the box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll assume you're talking about those who fail qualifying exams so they can't continue in the program (rather than having to retake an exam they later pass).

 

Each year, we have roughly 1 person who does not PhD pass the retakes and therefore isn't allowed to continue the doctorate (but who typically receives the MA). I've known 4 people who took the retakes and didn't PhD pass. 2 of them had poor study habits, 1 had a major external distraction, and 1 had an exciting job offer that caused progressively less investment in the economics coursework. All were intelligent enough to succeed. The 2 with poor study habits probably would have had difficulty at lower ranked institutions if first year rites of passage are similar at most places.

 

Also some broad stats from just the last few years. At our program, about 25% retake some exam(s), which appears to be an advantage to them in the long-term. As mentioned, roughly 1 student per year doesn't PhD pass the retakes, meaning 92-96% of students (who don't self-eliminate) do PhD pass on the first or second attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct Team3, that is exactly to what I was referring.

 

Thank you everyone for their comments. I think this is a surprisingly helpful thread.

 

For me, personally, I have always been worried that if I did end up at a very well ranked Ph.D program (moving up from my unranked UG to a barely ranked master's), that I simply wouldn't be able to compete. It's very reassuring to know that conditional upon being accepted into any Ph.D program, I either will pass the quals and deserve to be there, or fail and don't deserve to be in a Ph.D program at all. Study habits and focus never have nor will ever be my problem.

 

I'm sure the "not intelligent enough" happens less frequently than outsiders might believe, and to be fair I suspect it's really a matter of poor intuition than true "intelligence."

 

This thread has already received many replies, but I'd continue to welcome as many 1st hand accounts as possible. Stats like those that Team3 provided are incredibly helpful as well (more more so, in my opinion, than simple "attrition rates").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, and judging from the small number of people who have failed Quals and left the program while I was around, most of them would roughly fit in category 2. I definitely don't think that either 1 or 3 are the case. I think that category 2 is too simplistic a label, though: most of them were clear casting mistakes, people who did not know very well what they were signing up for when they enrolled, and were not expecting the workload in first year/what doing research entails/lacked the work ethic to succeed in a quantitative graduate program.

Most of them end up at very desirable non-academic jobs anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a short answer is: 'cause it's goddamn hard! :D

 

But Ive been wondering the same thing lately, with my prelims coming up this summer and the chilling sensation that 6 months isn't enough time (ô_Ô). Good luck to everybody in their first year, I think we ll all need it :)

 

Also good thread econhead, definitely a useful discussion for new graduate students :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the NCSU visit day yesterday and there were a lot of questions about comps. The faculty seemed to indicate that the rare student who fails twice (the max allowed) either didn't work hard enough (e.g. waiting until a week before to start studying) or came in unprepared for the mathematical rigor and as a result just couldn't internalize the economic concepts well enough to handle the comps. Like much of the advice here, being comfortable with the math provides a huge advantage because you can see past the math to the point of the theory. In fact, they decided to start holding a math camp next year because this year's cohort was so unprepared out of the box.

 

From what I have seen taking PhD classes an UG and personally know few people who fail, the lack of prove-based math courses is one of the main reasons. There is a reason why adcoms prefer applicants with a strong math background (math major pretty much), as it is incredibly hard to teach yourself this way of thinking once your are in the program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 6 students who've been kicked out while I've been in grad school. Three weren't invested in being in grad school, one had personal issues, one was a loner so I have no idea, and one studied incredibly hard but still failed. Two of them are now in lower-ranked PhD programs. It's a bit hard to separate lack of investment from lack of ability because poor performance can cause students to become disengaged.

 

Most attrition is voluntary, though, and the worst-prepared students have left in the first semester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More great responses.

 

Along these same lines: The general sentiment seems to be that studying with your cohort is important. Perhaps if you are the star student, this is really less important, but most of us won't fall into this category. With regard to qualifying exams, do those of you that have been through the process believe that study groups were important because you were really able to learn more from working with your classmates and studying together than you would alone? Or has the value of studying studying together been primarily valuable because it was structured study time that forced you to study when you perhaps wouldn't when left to your own devices?

 

I spoke with a relatively new/young professor at my institution whom indicated that peer effects were rather non-existent for him, because he had more math preparation than most of his colleagues. This individual indicated that those with poor preparation benefited heavily from group study (he insinuated a leach-type scenario, actually). Note that he wasn't the top student by any means. I'm curious if this is typical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...