jblsmith

Put in the specific context of Government Affairs I see that my comments are not applicable. I didn't realize what topic the thread was under, I just clicked and started writing. Think before you type.

Put in the specific context of Government Affairs I see that my comments are not applicable. I didn't realize what topic the thread was under, I just clicked and started writing. Think before you type.

I think there are too many differences from one program to the other in order to make this sticky. For instance, my program (economics) seems to require a much stronger transcript and GRE score than suggested above but work and life experience seem to play almost no role in admissions decisions. The original post is a good guideline but I fear that it is in danger of misleading some who's actual degree requirements are quite different.

From an economist...

1. The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.
2. Chuck Norris holds both Absolute and Comparative Advantage...in everything.
3. Game Theory falls apart vis-a-vis Chuck Norris because the dominate strategy is to never challenge Chuck Norris to begin with. Realizing this Chuck Norris developed his own theory dubbed Norris Theory where Norris Equilibrium is achieved once he has taken all of your property and consumed your soul. Following this discovery the Riksbank renamed the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics to the Norris Award for Unparalleld Awesomeness and awrded it to Chuck Norris for the next 1,000 years.
4. Markets are well-behaved because they are afraid of being punished by Chuck Norris.
5. Asset prices do not follow a random walk, they follow Chuck Norris.
6. When Chuck Norris walks down the street demanding compensation it's not because he's an asshole but because he is internalizing the postive externality you recieve from being in his presense.
7. The unobserved stochastic error term is not randomness, it's Chuck Norris fucking with you.
8. The market-clearing price is whatever Chuck Norris says it is.
9. The term "bubble" has come to describe the business cylce because it is literally the result of Chuck Norris blowing and popping bubbles while bathing. Similary, the Great Depression was a period of tremendous sadness after Chuck Norris accidentally roundhouse kicked his belloved horse, Buttercup, sending him into another dimension never to be seen again.
10. After reading Chuck Norris' dissertation (which was only a picture of Chuck Norris standing in a gi) both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes converted the Neo-Norris School of Economics.

My favorite Chuck Norris fact from Anonymous:

11. It is said that Chuck Norris sold his soul to the Devil for his unparalled marital arts ability. Following the transaction Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the Devil in the face and took his soul back. The Devil, realizing the irony, could not be mad and recognized defeat. They now play poker every first Wednesday of the month.

Dare I say that I may actually agree with Just me, however, I'll try to restrain my cynicism to a light trickle. As an economist, I strongly believe in the benefits of specialization. I feel that people become more productive when they pick a trade and devote to it. I also believe that by the time one reaches college they have (or should have) all the broad knowledge they need to function in society. That's what primary and secondary education is for. In my opinion post-secondary education should be a time for specialization and differentiation where students gain an in-depth knowledge of a particular field thereby becoming more productive members of society. The Liberal Arts philosophy obviously believes the opposite, that "well-rounded" individuals are more valuable. With that, I don't feel that LAC's make art majors take math classes because there is some sort of profit motive but I do feel there is some misplaced sense of altruism.

I also agree with Two Espressos, that if LAC's offered more specialized course schedules they would begin to look more like trade schools. But so what? What's wrong with vocational training? It gives students the skills they need to lead happy and successful lives. Just because their talents are more aligned with plumbing than with English literature doesn't make their education any less valuable. Maybe the trade school model is more efficient; instead of apprentice electricians spending time analyzing Chaucer their learning how to wire a house. This lowers the overall cost of education by cutting tuition and getting them into the workforce sooner.

One wonders what an Econ trade school would look like...

Just me, you really should have chosen Eeyore as your screen name.

Oh look, another person with a foolishly Utilitarian view of a liberal arts education. If universities didn't require a broad, liberal arts education, they'd cease to be universities: they'd be trade schools.

I think there are too many differences from one program to the other in order to make this sticky. For instance, my program (economics) seems to require a much stronger transcript and GRE score than suggested above but work and life experience seem to play almost no role in admissions decisions. The original post is a good guideline but I fear that it is in danger of misleading some who's actual degree requirements are quite different.

I think there are too many differences from one program to the other in order to make this sticky. For instance, my program (economics) seems to require a much stronger transcript and GRE score than suggested above but work and life experience seem to play almost no role in admissions decisions. The original post is a good guideline but I fear that it is in danger of misleading some who's actual degree requirements are quite different.

I think there are too many differences from one program to the other in order to make this sticky. For instance, my program (economics) seems to require a much stronger transcript and GRE score than suggested above but work and life experience seem to play almost no role in admissions decisions. The original post is a good guideline but I fear that it is in danger of misleading some who's actual degree requirements are quite different.

Just an update: I DID decide to go to UH for my Ph. D. in economics. I recently visited the campus and met with professors, administrators, and students and everything seems to be legit. This could all be a facade, however, and they are all really conspiring to wait until I move down there before they revoke my funding. Only time will tell. I will keep you all posted.

jblsmith---If they DO end up revoking your funding due to a misreading of your application, be sure that you post your obsessive rant in a different font so we don't get you mixed up with the loser that keeps posting on this site.

Just an update: I DID decide to go to UH for my Ph. D. in economics. I recently visited the campus and met with professors, administrators, and students and everything seems to be legit. This could all be a facade, however, and they are all really conspiring to wait until I move down there before they revoke my funding. Only time will tell. I will keep you all posted.

I got an MA before applying to PhDs and I was very pleased with my decision for a number of reasons.

1. Coming out of my undergrad I wasn't really sure if I wanted to do a PhD. The MA gave me time to consider it. It also gave me a better indication of my true abilities.
2. I got my BA in Econ and Poli Sci at a small, private, liberal arts college and PhD adcomms were not likely to recognize the program or the people writing my LoRs. By going to a public research university for my MA it gave me the name recognition I needed.
3. Economics is quite rigorous and because I double majored in Econ/Poli Sci I knew I needed more formal math training. I took a number of 300-400 level math classes in undergrad but I still wanted a stronger background. The MA gave me the rigor I needed.
4. Allowed me another opportunity to do research. I did an honors thesis for my BA but the more research the better.
5. I rocked my MA classes so the transcripts helped my PhD applications.
6. What's another 2 years of school on top of 21?

Hope this helps!

I got an MA before applying to PhDs and I was very pleased with my decision for a number of reasons.

1. Coming out of my undergrad I wasn't really sure if I wanted to do a PhD. The MA gave me time to consider it. It also gave me a better indication of my true abilities.
2. I got my BA in Econ and Poli Sci at a small, private, liberal arts college and PhD adcomms were not likely to recognize the program or the people writing my LoRs. By going to a public research university for my MA it gave me the name recognition I needed.
3. Economics is quite rigorous and because I double majored in Econ/Poli Sci I knew I needed more formal math training. I took a number of 300-400 level math classes in undergrad but I still wanted a stronger background. The MA gave me the rigor I needed.
4. Allowed me another opportunity to do research. I did an honors thesis for my BA but the more research the better.
5. I rocked my MA classes so the transcripts helped my PhD applications.
6. What's another 2 years of school on top of 21?

Hope this helps!

I hate that my school is so difficult to get into and that if I had to pay, it would be extremely expensive.

Aw man, so much negativity. Try not to focus on this things you don't like. Laugh it off, move on.

I haven't encountered anything displeasing enough to write about yet.

I'll bet the Econ department at the University of Houston is giving each other high fives for dodging this bullet.

What the hell, that sounds horrible!

But for all those who are now freaking out about the University of Houston, let me just reassure you that despite this supposed incident, the institution is actually a great school to attend for both your undergrad and grad programs. I'm about to graduate from it with my BA and start a Ph.D. program elsewhere and though the university does tend to have ridiculous administrative issues, I still love the place! Their economics department also isn't as bad as the OP is making it out to be. I've taken a basic microecon class taught by a cool Ph.D. student and he seemed very positive about his experiences there. Also, one of my closest friends was an econ major at UH and she loved the program and the professors in the department. So take this complaint with a grain of salt - though it might be a good idea to double check that they read your application carefully enough to know what program you were in at your last university, lol. Just go to the visit weekend, talk to grad students and faculty, and make an educated decision. I'm sure you won't encounter similar problems of this proportion.

DamianD, you just got accepted to Rice and you never heard of UH??? and you're interested only in brand names?? wow, I'm just amazed at how people judge schools nowadays. Now, believe me that if you attend Rice, you will be seeing a lot of UH too....

Maybe you should refrain from making those kind of comments then. There are thousands of universities in the United States, and many of them are very specialized and prestigious in certain fields and unknown for others. It doesn't mean that they are not worth going to just because you haven't heard of them and because you don't know what their strengths are, especially when your knowledge is limited to so few US institutions in the first place. Your comment is unnecessary and irrelevant, and just comes across as ignorant and elitist.

Wait a sec... you've never heard of the University of Houston? (My mind, she is blown.)

Dude I've never even heard of that university so why do you wanna go there anyway? Given that you studied at Hopkins why go there, I say HOAX

The University of Houston's economics Phd program made me an offer of admission. AFTER I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON AND JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE CLASSES WERE TO START IN FALL 2009 IT REVOKED THE OFFER OF ADMISSION. I COULD NOT START IN FALL 2009 BECAUSE IT REVOKED THE OFFER OF ADMISSION BUT I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON AND PASSED UP OTHER OFFERS.

THE CLAIM WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THAT I HAD ATTENDED JOHNS HOPKINS ADVANCED STUDIES M.A. IN APPLIED ECONOMICS AS THE DOCTORAL TRACK ECONOMICS PHD COURSES. THE MISTAKE WAS COMPLETELY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS SINCE I DID NOT MISREPRESENT MYSELF IN THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS. THEY DIDN'T CARE IF THE MISTAKE WAS THEIRS AND THAT I HAD ALREADY MOVED TO HOUSTON.

Just an update: I DID decide to go to UH for my Ph. D. in economics. I recently visited the campus and met with professors, administrators, and students and everything seems to be legit. This could all be a facade, however, and they are all really conspiring to wait until I move down there before they revoke my funding. Only time will tell. I will keep you all posted.