[PhD in Business - Marketing]

Read some articles from JMS and see if you understand the methodology, results, and discussion. This should tell you what level you really need to be at, and for all you know, you might have that covered already; if the statistics is what's getting you, take more stats/probability theory courses -- if it's the modeling/analysis, take math modeling, structural equations, PDE/ODE, real analysis, etc. A Strategy/Quant Marketing Ph.D. isn't structured to be as theoretical as a Math Ph.D., but a competence with modeling/statistics is assumed for all applicants and admits to programs.

If you're going for a Ph.D. for the wrong reasons (prestige, money, avoiding real work, etc.), sure: that may be true. If you're going into a Ph.D. program for the right reason (you like research and want to advance the science and discipline), then no: go to any (funded) program that will take you. I say funded because there are a handful of programs that just aren't very good at training scholars and there's strong correlation between those programs and their lack of funding. The norm is (I won't sugar coat it) that those getting placements at top programs typically come from other "top" programs, but each year you do see jumps from programs considered to be "middling" (i.e., below "top 20") to the elites. It's really dependent on the individual, how much research they put out onto quality 'A' journals, amount of conferences they've presented/published in, networking, research "pipeline" (working papers, R&Rs, etc.), interviewing ability, and so on. The field is also such that you will almost surely get a job as a tenure-track professor SOMEWHERE as long as you cast a wide net in the job market (70+ applications is fairly common). For Marketing (which is considered one of the lower-paying fields compared to Finance/Accounting), the lowest 9-month salary in the last 3 years of placements has been $90,000 -- not shabby at all. Placement rates into professorships are above 90% for marketing, and I'd posit it's the same for Management (though I could easily be wrong). Just go to a program that has a strong fit and you'll do well.

^^ Further note, I ended up choosing to go to a "top" program, but was really weighing between that one and a MUCH lower-ranked school (one typically found in the "top 50" range in various rankings) because I had such a strong fit with the faculty and one professor/advisor in general. It was a hard decision, but there were lots of factors in my choosing my program in the end. Choosing which school to attend (and eventually be a professor at) isn't just as clear-cut as rankings; academia works differently than other programs/jobs.

I wouldn't say it's any more or less competitive than OB or CB. They're competitive in different ways. Besides my trip to WUStL/Olin, CB was definitely overrepresented in graduate student samples, meaning sure -- there probably are more slots for CB students compared to Quant Marketing students. However, I feel that it may be "easier" to get into a CB program because you just need to show strong potential to be a future researcher and past coursework/technical knowledge is discounted quite a bit; for Quant Marketing and Strategy, not only does an individual need to also have that strong potential to be a researcher, they also must have done well in particular courses and must have a certain mastery of technical foundations in math, statistics, programming (you're going to hate MATLAB and Python so much), and so on. The research questions in their respective fields are similar, but distinctly different, so you can't compare them in that way either. Since I have a background in math and economics, I do hope to ameliorate the gap between the behavioral and quantitative fields a bit by looking at CB questions through a modeler's perspective, and see if there are ways to predict consumer or firm behavior, using the psychological findings as the lay foundation.

Anyway, hope that helps.

hey behavioral, I might need some of your insights again. I have been admitted to a 12months MAecon program. I asked two prof.s in management and marketing dept respectively at my current school, and to my surprise, they both thought the MAecon program is better than MS applied stat, on the basis that it's more quantitatively rigorous (which surprises me) and it's more close to business (which I understand). My concern is that 1) wouldn't 12month be too short to a) solidify econ content knowledge and quant skill, and (b-) to prepare application to phd's ? and 2) why would MAecon be quant'ly more rigorous than MS in applied stat?

also, one of the prof's suggested that if it was ob/cb i was shooting for, then I should take master's in psych. what i take from that is, maybe MS in applied stat is a bit "overqualified" quant or tool wise to do for phd in ob/cb meanwhile "less qualified" content knowledge wise? And for strategy or modeling, the quant skill in MAecon may fit better than stat?

Any comment/input appreciated!

[PhD in Business - Marketing]

Read some articles from JMS and see if you understand the methodology, results, and discussion. This should tell you what level you really need to be at, and for all you know, you might have that covered already; if the statistics is what's getting you, take more stats/probability theory courses -- if it's the modeling/analysis, take math modeling, structural equations, PDE/ODE, real analysis, etc. A Strategy/Quant Marketing Ph.D. isn't structured to be as theoretical as a Math Ph.D., but a competence with modeling/statistics is assumed for all applicants and admits to programs.

If you're going for a Ph.D. for the wrong reasons (prestige, money, avoiding real work, etc.), sure: that may be true. If you're going into a Ph.D. program for the right reason (you like research and want to advance the science and discipline), then no: go to any (funded) program that will take you. I say funded because there are a handful of programs that just aren't very good at training scholars and there's strong correlation between those programs and their lack of funding. The norm is (I won't sugar coat it) that those getting placements at top programs typically come from other "top" programs, but each year you do see jumps from programs considered to be "middling" (i.e., below "top 20") to the elites. It's really dependent on the individual, how much research they put out onto quality 'A' journals, amount of conferences they've presented/published in, networking, research "pipeline" (working papers, R&Rs, etc.), interviewing ability, and so on. The field is also such that you will almost surely get a job as a tenure-track professor SOMEWHERE as long as you cast a wide net in the job market (70+ applications is fairly common). For Marketing (which is considered one of the lower-paying fields compared to Finance/Accounting), the lowest 9-month salary in the last 3 years of placements has been $90,000 -- not shabby at all. Placement rates into professorships are above 90% for marketing, and I'd posit it's the same for Management (though I could easily be wrong). Just go to a program that has a strong fit and you'll do well.

^^ Further note, I ended up choosing to go to a "top" program, but was really weighing between that one and a MUCH lower-ranked school (one typically found in the "top 50" range in various rankings) because I had such a strong fit with the faculty and one professor/advisor in general. It was a hard decision, but there were lots of factors in my choosing my program in the end. Choosing which school to attend (and eventually be a professor at) isn't just as clear-cut as rankings; academia works differently than other programs/jobs.

I wouldn't say it's any more or less competitive than OB or CB. They're competitive in different ways. Besides my trip to WUStL/Olin, CB was definitely overrepresented in graduate student samples, meaning sure -- there probably are more slots for CB students compared to Quant Marketing students. However, I feel that it may be "easier" to get into a CB program because you just need to show strong potential to be a future researcher and past coursework/technical knowledge is discounted quite a bit; for Quant Marketing and Strategy, not only does an individual need to also have that strong potential to be a researcher, they also must have done well in particular courses and must have a certain mastery of technical foundations in math, statistics, programming (you're going to hate MATLAB and Python so much), and so on. The research questions in their respective fields are similar, but distinctly different, so you can't compare them in that way either. Since I have a background in math and economics, I do hope to ameliorate the gap between the behavioral and quantitative fields a bit by looking at CB questions through a modeler's perspective, and see if there are ways to predict consumer or firm behavior, using the psychological findings as the lay foundation.

Anyway, hope that helps.

it's very thorough and certainly helpful. Thanks for the contribution!

[PhD in Business - Marketing]

You're doing all the right things. I graduated with a double in Joint Math/Econ and Psychology (Behavioral Neuroscience) and had no Marketing/Business background whatsoever. I got a 720 GMAT (39V/50Q/6.0W) and graduated with a 3.6 GPA, so not breathtaking numbers, but adequate (no Masters).

The fact that you're getting an MS in a Quant field is great -- if you're applying to Management (OB) or Marketing (CB) this is a strongpoint; if you're applying to Management (Strategy) or Marketing (Modeling/Quant), this is merely adequate.

The publication is great, even if it's not in business. This shows that you know what you're embarking on and have tangible research experience/exposure. I had a conference proceeding, 5 poster presentations, an R&R at a high-impact medical journal, none of which were directly marketing-related. I could only wish I had an actual journal pub in my belt.

Besides that, just start developing your personal statement and refine your research interests so you can pinpoint programs that are a strong fit. Strong profiles with little/no fit in a program will be rejected without hesitation, so only apply to programs that you find interesting (and not just apply to the top 10 elites or whatever).

Maintain a high GPA in your Master's program and do as much research as possible. If you can submit your paper to conferences, do so. The exposure to presentations is invaluable since public speaking is an art not easily mastered for academia.

Thanks Behavioral for all the information. Your background is astounding (to me)!

Questions: I wonder how strong quant background is necessary/expected if i were looking at management(strategy) and marketing (modeling/quant) that you mentioned? Would applied math make me more quantitatively adequate than applied stat? I know if I were looking at something like operation research I should probably go into math but not sure about these two.

I have heard people saying biz schools ranked after 20 do not worth going to for a phd degree, although this certainly is not your concern, what's your opinion on such comment? (feeling like i were some kinda reporter...)

Last question, is application to strategy or modeling/quant less competitive than OB or CB? I have the feeling that the latter two are somewhat more popular (maybe due to their psych flavor??).

Good luck in your grad life!

[PhD in Business - Marketing]

hey folks, I wonder what sorts of background is expected? I'm graduating with BA in psych and am going to do a MS in applied stat, with final goal of getting into Phd in either management or marketing. My undergrad gpa isn't really ideal (3.12) tho I have a publication completely unrelated to biz (it's on motion and perception). Oh and I took the GRE and got 690verbal+780math+3.0

Given these, I'm planning to do MS so that I can fresh up my gpa as well as laying some foundation on quantitative skills. I'll try to get into business research works and interns available during masters as well. But what else you guys may suggest me to do (to get into a decent biz phd program)?

[shooting for a phd in business]

Just realized we actually have a biz forum here right after I finished posting. I probably should've checked there before I ask in here. But still, you guys know the math and stat stuff!

[shooting for a phd in business]

I could really use some help here, I'm having quite a headache in making choices.

So I studied psych for undegrad with a specialization in stat. Now the new plan is, instead of going to one of the psych phd programs I've been accepted, to get into a phd program in business - psych related fields such as management or marketing. Reasons including: likely more money; more flexible career options. I have been accepted to applied math, applied stat, and a masters in econ as well, so the questions are:

1) would applied stat/math be more useful in getting me admitted AND laying a good foundation to complete PhD degree in biz than the ma degree in econ?

2) but which one, applied stat or applied math? as far as I know (after checking out a couple b-school phd course requirments and hearing from ppl in some of those programs), it seems phd in management/marketing requires mostly stat not math, while operation research/finance(/maybe acc?) requires more math. So in my case, I should be going to applied stat undoubtedly?

3) which is harder? I personally found 100-200 undergrad math more comprehensible than 200 or up stat (don't have 100 level stat here), but maybe that's a result of not taking theoretical courses on stat and jumping to the applied part (which makes stat no more meaningful than bunch of tests)? Never taken anything higher than 200 in math and no higher than 300 in stat so don't know what the trend is gonna be like for me. But most ppl I asked went for "the higher, math is harder for sure".

4) do anyone know anything about phd in biz? i heard there's shortage of biz professors in these years but more and more ppl are going in for phd in biz and there's at least 5 yrs ahead before I'll be on the market, maybe then there's gonna be a surplus?

I appreciate any inputs/insights !! Enlighten me!