<p>I’m a prospective Economics major. I know that it might be too early to start thinking about graduate school, but i want to start planning and have some ideas at least. What would i have to do to get into a top 5 graduate program ??</p>
<li><p>How high do i need my GPA for a safe bet?</p></li>
<li><p>Do ECs have any impact? what about job experience ?</p></li>
<li><p>I read somewhere that grad schools look for research. How important is this?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>and lastly, how incestuous is berkeley? do they even slightly give an edge to their undergrads over others?</p>
<p>Actually it’s not too early to be thinking about graduate school, because the math courses you choose, and the upper division economics courses you choose, will be different based upon your future plans.</p>
<p>Do top graduate school take berkeley’s grade deflation into account during admissions? I’ve heard they don’t.</p>
<p>And reading previous threads gives one the idea that berkeley students actually need HIGHER GPA compared to top schools during graduate admissions. If that is indeed the case, aren’t students at other schools like Stanford and Princeton getting an unfair advantage over Cal students due to their comparatively lenient curves?</p>
<p>It’s not so much that top graduates schools do not account for grade deflation. It is more that there are undergrads at Berkeley with 3.9+ GPA and your 3.6 GPA pales in comparison. Yeah, 3.6 is a pretty good GPA but how many Econ majors at Berkeley do you think have a 3.6+? I would say a good amount.</p>
<p>And would that 3.9 GPA from berkeley be looked at in the same light as a 3.9 from Princeton by an admission committee, despite the latter being easier to achieve?</p>
<p>No. You are not being clear-headed about this.</p>
<p>Admission to the top 5 graduate schools in economics is incredibly competitive. You will need to be a stand-out star, with As and A+s in EVERYTHING, math and economics, in order to have a reasonable shot. You’ll need stellar letters of recommendation from top economists.</p>
<p>Remember, there are economics students at Berkeley who WILL have those credentials. And those are the ones who will get admitted to the very top programs.</p>
<p>Berkeley does not favor its undergrads in the adcom unless a prof has put in a good word for you.</p>
<p>Research is big, GPA isn’t as big as you think. You would be much better off with an impressive and involved research project under your belt with a 3.7 than a 3.9 with no research experience. Also, work on those LoR, they could seal the deal, so to speak. Make sure you are applying to the right program, know which professors you are applying to work with, what your specialization is, etc.</p>
<p>I’m not too sure about economics programs, but I know the ins and outs of PoliSci very well. Thus, my information is translated from what I know of the general process for political science students.</p>
<p>I think that’s a mistake, to try to apply what you think you know about political science students to top 5 economics programs. Each discipline is different. Their criteria are different.</p>
<p>That is to apply the generalities of the graduate school admissions process to a graduate program. I’m sure it differs from social sciences, to what extent I am not sure. </p>
<p>Where do you think I went wrong, grump?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they are different on very particular levels. Research remains important, GPA would presumptively remain less so unless Econ programs are so superficial they don’t understand high GPA =/= successful PhD candidate. During a PhD program, more independent research will be done than most anything else. GPA tends to yield to *meaningful *research experience and academic relationships with potential colleagues within these “top 5 programs.” You do have academic advisers during an econ PhD, correct? You do conduct research, correct? You do write a dissertation, correct? I don’t see why the generalities of the social sciences would not be valid here?</p>
<p>I understand that my qualificiations need to be stellar to get into a top graduate school. But my question is would a stellar applicant from lets say Stanford have an edge over a stellar applicant from Berk ? Let’s say they both have a 3.92 GPA, ( and we all know its much harder to get that in Berk than it is in Stanford) would they be judged equally ? Looking at med and law school stats I get the impression that Cal students need to have higher GPA in spite of going through a more rigorous program.</p>
<p>Pls correct me if i’m wrong.</p>
<p>@ Ektaylor</p>
<p>Everyone seems to be emphasizing on research. Do you have any tips on how to get involved in research projects? And how hard are they to come by and get into at Berkeley ?</p>
<p>Because the difference between a B+ and an A- isn’t as big as the difference between meaningful research and menial research. Secondly, your reason for applying in the first place sets you apart. I don’t want to repeat the boring applicant with a 4.0 being picked over for an “interesting” applicant with a 3.7/8, but it’s true.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, GPA is important, just not as important as you may think.</p>
<p>I did. Those are their suggestions from the average statistics of each cohort. Of course, a B+ in a core requirement could be fatal, but in other periphery courses, not so much.</p>
<p>Really? The use of “most candidates” makes it sounds more like an average and less like a minimum requirement causing an automatic rejection if one of the criteria is not fulfilled.</p>