<p>I'm only in my first year of undergrad, but I'm thinking of majoring in econ. Would a double major in Honours Econ (with all the required math, econometrics, and thesis components) and IR make for a competitive application to a grad program?</p>
<p>Well, I'm not sure what PPE is, but....PhD programs are only interested in your mathematics and economics. They're not going to care at all what you do in IR. May as well be theater.</p>
<p>PPE is Philosophy Politics and Economics, I think. I don't think they have that at grad level because the whole point of graduate work is to gain more specialized knowledge by conducting focused research. That's why you can't do a ph.d in general arts AFAIK.</p>
<p>Anyway, grad level IR and grad level economics are totally different. Not similar in any way. While knowing some basic economics is important for an IR program, IR is in no way relevant to the study of economics. Economic history maybe, (slightly), but not straight economics.</p>
<p>You need to realize the only business admin phd folk that are qualified for working in econ departments are ones with a finance specialty. Then the answer is quite simple. Unlike economists, there is a huge shortage of potential Finance faculty. The main reason they don't bother to venture outside of the business school to clutter up economics departments is the pay is so much better there. I doubt even a top 5 economics department would pay what an unranked finance department is willing to offer. So, while in general it is easier to get into business departments with a Finance phd, there is enough ambiguity in program titles that they also look to economics schools that have a strong financial specialty.</p>
<p>Oh, trust me, I certainly understand the draw of business schools, as well as the detractions. The pay is certainly nice, and in part, it contributes to the placement of econ PhDs into business schools. </p>
<p>Top programs can afford pretty much who ever they want, as $200-300 salaries are certainly not unheard of. Most of the top 5 pay around $100 for freshly minted PhD's, though I'm sure that's lower than what most finance folks can earn.</p>
<p>Exactly how good does a school's econ program need to be for its undergrads to have a not-completely-abysmal chance of getting into a top econ PhD program?</p>
<p>Obviously the kids who are themselves at the top programs have a fighting chance. So do the ones toward the bottom of the top 20, presumably. Top 50? Top 100? How far down can you go before it becomes virtually impossible to get into a top grad program, due to not having much of anyone to write you a noteworthy LOR?</p>
<p>I am a high school senior interested in going on to get an econ PhD (at least insofar as a high school senior can say that), after double-majoring in economics and mathematics (both of which I'm very interested in, of course). I'm deciding between these three schools: Stanford, Vanderbilt, and the University of Richmond. (I don't know whether or not I've been accepted to Stanford, but I might as well include it here.) How different would these three schools be at getting me where I want to go, assuming I work my ass off at each one? Surely going to Stanford would make things easier, but how much easier? (Since I have nice scholarships to Vandy and Richmond, I'd have to pay A LOT more to go to Stanford, by the way....)</p>
<p>I'm think going to Vandy would make it "a lot harder" to be admitted to a top economics PhD program, and going to U. Richmond would make it virtually impossible. Coming from any but a top undergraduate school, you will need either a great paper or strong and convincing letters from people the admisisons committee has heard of. Vandy has a few people that admissions committees will have heard of; the problem is that people from Vandy hardly ever go to top econ grad programs, so the letter writers won't have much basis for comparison.
If you -really- impress them they might be willing to compare you to people they knew in graduate school, etc, so this isn't an insurmountable barrier, but it would be a lot easier coming from Stanford. U Richmond doesn't seem to have any well-known economists at all, so you'd be left with the "great paper" option, which is hard to pull off. So since you seem to already have a scholarship to Vandy I would encourage that over U of R...</p>
<p>Thanks, Aedar. (If anyone else has any input as well, I'd like to hear.)</p>
<p>So how exactly am I supposed to figure out which professors the grad schools will have heard of? I mean, I think I could <em>sorta</em> tell, just by looking at their research and stuff, but how could I be sure? Are there actually clear markers, or is it subjective?</p>
<p>It seems a bit crazy to me that if I want to be a gunner for a top grad program from a not-so-top school, upon arriving on my undergrad campus I should single out the most famous professor and then be only a step short of having his babies, regardless of how much his research interests actually coincide with mine. But hey (assuming this is indeed the case), I guess you gotta do what you gotta do....</p>
<p>Well, the order is obvious, Stanford>Vandy>>>>>>Richmond</p>
<p>Are you screwed coming out of Vandy? Hardly. Look, there are people at top programs from all over. I mean, don't shoot yourself in the foot by going to Richmond, but something like:</p>
<p>* Coming from any but a top undergraduate school, you will need either a great paper or strong and convincing letters from people the admisisons committee has heard of.*</p>
<p>simply isn't true.</p>
<p>"...simply isn't true."</p>
<p>Perhaps it depends on what is meant by "top"?</p>
<p>Oh, and I forgot to mention that I also applied to Boston University, and I probably will have a nice scholarship there too (although they haven't told me anything yet). And BU is a top 20 program (I think). That said, it's a weaker school for overall undergrad than Vandy (and Richmond, possibly ... and Stanford, duh), and overall I like it considerably less (but I like certain aspects of it, and going there would not be out of the question, assuming the sticker price is reduced).</p>
<p>I wasn't scared at all about Vandy until I visited recently, and a professor there whom I met with gave me a couple shocking stories: a Vandy student with a 4.0 GPA, double majoring in math and econ, getting rejected from 5 of the 6 grad schools he applied to (and a couple similar stories). I had never realized such things were so competitive until then.</p>
<p>Aeder's post is patently false and illustrates perfectly why alot of advice solicited on CC needs to be taken with a big time grain of salt.</p>
<p>I know a guy who got his Econ undergrad at Concordia in Montreal, which is a City College style university known mainly for excellent Fine Arts programs. He went on to get a Masters at the London School of Economics and a PhD at the University of Toronto. But those schools suck, right Aeder?</p>
<p>Regardless of people who come on here and post nonsense like "Unless you do your undergrad at Harvard, there's really no point in applying to Top Econ programs" it still is true that getting into Econ PhD programs anywhere is tough, no matter how competitive you are. The dudes at Vandy who graduated with 4.0's didnt get rejected from Econ programs because they went to Vandy. They got rejected cause Econ programs are mad selective.</p>
<p>It's true that the term "top econ PhD program" is ambiguous, and that it may be easier to get into a school ranked, say, 10, than my post indicated; I was thinking more of Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford (and Stanford GSB). And while Toronto certainly doesn't "suck," this is the first time I've heard the suggestion that its a "top econ PhD program."
Anyway, (a) doing well in master's at LSE is definitely a way to generate a credible track record, (b) I think BU has a stronger economics faculty than Vandy, but I don't know anything about its undergraduate program. Also bear in mind that grad schools, unlike most colleges, often have different standards for admission based on whether the applicant needs support or plans to pay their own way; for most people the relevant question isn't "will I be admitted" but "will I get funding and if so how much work will they make me do."</p>
<p>Something that you should keep in mind is that by the time it comes time to apply, you may have absolultely no interest in going to grad school in economics. Preferences and what's important to you change, as do situations. While Boston does have a very solid dept, if you're not very very very sure you're going to wind up in econ, I'd at least go to Vandy.</p>
<p>Understandably the Stanford pricetag is substantial, but if you do well at Stanford, you'll be set. And trust me, there are tons of stories about people coming out of X school and "struggling" when it comes admissions time, Stanford included.</p>
<p>There are a lot of factors that go into admissions, and it comes down to so much more than a numbers game. A great GPA is no lock, so its not surprising that somebody only got into 1 of the 6 schools they applied to, especially if they were the top 6 schools. It is highly competitive. You're not only competing against the best students from some of the best schools in the US, but against many foreign students that the best in their country. It is hard, and their is no shame in being admitted only to a program ranked #20.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right. Economies. Macroeconomics. That's not business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, they're building their economics by actually CREATING BUSINESSES. More specifically, for every policy job that exists within their governments, there are multitudes of private sector management jobs (i.e. MBA jobs) that are being created. </p>
<p>
[quote]
That remains to be seen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue that there is little dispute that there is more growth in demand for MBA's in Asia than there are for economics slots. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I think even most economics PhD students will agree that business is more applied. Heck, that is in fact the ROLE of business PhD programs. </p>
<p>Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on the area.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course it depends on the area. But IN GENERAL, business is more applied. That's like saying that some NBA players are short, which is true, but IN GENERAL, they are taller than the average man. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And business PhD's is MORE SO. That's the point</p>
<p>And you've yet to demonstrate that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And yet you've failed to demonstrate the opposite.</p>
<p>Look. How many posts have you made where you have 'failed' to demonstrate what you stated? I am simply stating opinions, as are you. To demand strong standards of proof is to mean that plenty of your posts ought to be deleted. You have never "proved" plenty of your assertions in your posts. So why do you demand that standard of proof in others? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said that they were equal. I said that it wasn't clear that there is any marked difference in their placement situation. You claimed that oh, look, they can place in X,Y & Z jobs. I simply pointed out that people with econ PhD's do as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? Have you proved that? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that business phD's and econ PhD's are different because they serve different markets. Hence, by definition, they must have different growth paths. The question is, which one has a stronger growth path? I would contend that business has a stronger growth path.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is not clear. That's my point. You can speculate about this and that, but that's about all you've done. Unless you can present any emperical evidence, you're just talking out of your a$$.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what are you doing? All of your posts are a matter of speculation also, without proof.</p>
<p>As a case in point, take your latest post #53. Do you have empirical proof to demonstrate what you have stated in that post? The same could be said for ALL of your posts. Heck, the same could be said for ALL posts here. </p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is, proof is hard to obtain for ANYBODY. Few things are ever "clear". You may say that my posts are unclear and unproven, but frankly, neither are yours, and neither are anybody's. That's the point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why, if those posessing a PhD in economics were deficient or somehow lacking with respect to the knowledge/research skills, etc. of Business PhD's, would Business PhD programs, especially top PhD programs, hire a significant portion of their profs from Econ PhD's programs, while seemingly only a very small percentage of Econ profs anywhere hold a PhD in business?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, when did I ever assert that econ Phd's were deficient or somehow lacking in research skills?</p>
<p>What I will say is that the research interests of many (probably most) Econ Phd's do not fit well with what business schools want. For example, if your focus is economic theory, you are likely to find it difficult to place at a business school, not because your research is bad, but because B-schools often times simply are not interested in what you are doing. </p>
<p>On the other hand, you ask why is it that business PhD's don't move to econ departments. And my answer is, well, frankly, why should they? You said it yourself - business schools pay better. So why should they leave business academia? </p>
<p>So the point is this. Of course some econ PhD's work at business schools. I have never said otherwise. But it is clearly a far smaller percentage than that of business PhD's who work at business schools. And like I have said, business schools are growing faster than economics schools, especially in Asia, something that I don't think needs to be proven, but can be found through a simple Google search. </p>
<p>Remember why I entered this thread in the first place. One person asked how he can get into a top PhD program in economics. My response was that he may be better off considering a business PhD program, not only because his skills are probably more aligned with business but also because I suspect that placement as a business PhD is easier than placement as an econ PhD. One might argue that that is an unproven statement and that the placement success is the same, but that is ITSELF also an unproven statement.</p>
<p>Well, we're not talking about MBA's, we're talking about PhD's in Business.</p>
<p>*But IN GENERAL, business is more applied. *</p>
<p>Again, and ugh...this is like talking to a brick wall....it DEPENDS. Very few economists are pure economic theorists. Fields such as Labor, Public, International - both trade and finance, Macro to some extent, Monetary, Finance, Develeopment, and a good bit of IO are all applied areas or have substantial applied portions. The point is that there is an awful lot of applied economics.</p>
<p>And yet you've failed to demonstrate the opposite.</p>
<p>And once again, I'm not claming the opposite. You claimed that a PhD in business provides graduates with better placement relative to that of economics PhD programs. I questioned that.</p>
<p>I am simply stating opinions, as are you.</p>
<p>If you're statating opinions, it would behoove you to preface such comments accordingly. However, you seem to state a lot of things as if they were gospel. </p>
<p>So why do you demand that standard of proof in others?</p>
<p>Not all others. Just you. And just on this point. Don't write checks your a$$ can't cash. If you can't substantiate your claims with any outside source then your claim is dubious. I don't substantiate my claims in every post because that's inefficient. I can, however. That's the difference.</p>
<p>*Oh? Have you proved that? *</p>
<p>Yes. I posted a link to Harvard's placements. Perhaps you should go back and read it. Here's more for you to chew on:</p>
<p>Note the placements in places like: Carnegie Mellon Heinz School of Public Policy, McKinsey and Company, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Public Health School, Boston Consulting Group, Lehman Brothers, Vanguard, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, UNC (Health Policy), TKI Consulting, Medstat Group, and numerous business schools, and many more consulting and finance positions.</p>
<p>So yes, I have proved it. Took me all of 30 seconds too.</p>
<p>I would contend that business has a stronger growth path.</p>
<p>Can you back that up?</p>
<p>* Do you have empirical proof to demonstrate what you have stated in that post? *</p>
<p>Yep.</p>
<p>You may say that my posts are unclear and unproven, but frankly, neither are yours, and neither are anybody's. That's the point.</p>
<p>No, I've proven my case. You've talked out of your a$$. That's the point.</p>
<p>Is there any chance at all that you two could agree to disagree, and stop derailing this thread?</p>
<p>I have a question: as a high school senior accepted to McGill, Western Ontario, Grinnell College, and Hamilton College, which school would be better in terms of grad school applications? ( for Econ PHD/poli sci/ Law). Thanks!</p>
<p>I am not familiar with Grinnell and Hamilton. Between McGill and Western though, it's a tradeoff. </p>
<p>Western is not as big of a name overall, but its econ department is stronger than McGill's. Western's grading standards are also easier so you'll have a better shot at a top class GPA which will definitely help in your application for grad school in any subject, especially law. Even though McGill is a party school, it does not compare to Western--arguably the craziest party school in Canada. But as I said, McGill is the bigger name overall, especially in the US, where people seem to be gaga for McGill. So that could be an important consideration for you given your goals.</p>
<p>McGill has a world class Med School, law School and Medical research, especially neurology. Beyond that the schools deaprtments range from "Good" to "Mediocre." I live in Montreal and I've had it with people coming up to McGill for Political Science because of "The McGill Name" when their Poli Sci department is maybe the 3 or 4th best in the city, let alone the country.</p>
<p>If you want to do Econ, don't go to McGill. For Law though, high step it over there because they have one of the best law programs in North America.</p>
<p>Question: You guys have mentioned that it's helpful to get letters of recommendation from "famous" professors or professors who otherwise have connections. How exactly am I supposed to figure out who these professors are? (In my case, I'm almost positive I'll be attending Vanderbilt, and [url=<a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty.htm%5Dhere%5B/url">http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/faculty.htm]here[/url</a>] is the list of Vandy econ faculty.)</p>