Jump to content

TheFez

Members
  • Posts

    170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TheFez

  1. Why not study up on math and retake the exam? Anybody who studies well can get into the 60-70th percentile range despite their natural aptitude IMO.
  2. 1. One time 2. The way you quoted it, i.e. "for a review, see Smith et al." is a very popular and helpful way. Readers will want to know that Smith is a review...
  3. I suggest you develop a split personality or adopt an imaginary rabbit named Harvey.
  4. The Zurich guys are rock stars in behavioral and neuro with tons of cash for experiments ... but not sure how this affects placement in the US.
  5. My opinion is..... 1,000 x No An econ PhD is a lot of Math and a lot more than 3 hours a day studying. No way - no how.
  6. Agreed. Better than nothing - but not ideal. Especially if these are not "strong" letters.
  7. Romeo leaves the wings at 1:45 and walks stage left at 4 miles per hour. Twenty minutes later Juliet leaves the wings on the opposite side and walks stage right a 3.5 miles per hour. What time will Romeo and Juliet meet at the balcony?
  8. Online classes frequently have far less value than an in-person class. Register as a non-degree seeking student at a local 4-year university (preferably the one you got your degree from)
  9. I think there's another opportunity. Tell one of the professors what you are interested in and see if they will serve as a formal mentor to you. I found that many professors are very supportive when a motivated undergraduate wants to do research. If you approach them with a good research question that's reasonably well thought out you may find they are happy to let you work on it. Not every square peg always needs to find a square hole.
  10. One problem you have is a bit of a logistical one. Many grad schools these days use an online system for recommendations. Some schools say they won't even accept hard copy letters (though I find this is not true). So the problem is that a professor can't really "give you" a letter of recommendation easily unless and until you are actually applying. If you know them really well, they could write something now and "store it away" until you are ready. Since you really do want to strike while the iron is hot and things about you are salient.
  11. What? it's a 5 hour commute to school?! (I am guessing you mean round trip - since 5 hours from London would put you in another country. How was that ever supposed to work? It doesn't. What is your field of study? (You did not answer yet). I am sorry you are sick - but it sounds like getting a PhD was "always something you wanted" but not something you were committed to, or prepared for.
  12. OregonGal, you raise several interesting points. I actually think it's easier to grade "subjective" work on a curve since you can rank order the work from best to worst and set the percentiles where they fall. It's more objectionable to students to differentiate tightly clustered numeric scores into different grades. Sigaba, I did have complete latitude to grade as I saw fit (though I had frequent discussions with other faculty to solicit their opinions.) But since I did my undergrad and masters at the school, I had a pretty good feel for the department's approach to grading. I used a breakdown as others suggested (X% homework, Y% exams, Z% final, and also included a small percentage (5%-10%) that was based on "participation". I did this to give myself wiggle room so I could nudge a grade slightly for a student if circumstances warranted. Otherwise I was afraid the grades would be completely formulaic and I would not be able to pass somebody who was one or two points shy, but showed good improvement, or give an "A" to a top student who screwed up on one test.
  13. Hi amlobo, Just a couple of questions not directly related to your question here, but which bear on the issue. 1) Why are you going into a sociology PhD after having been in law? 2) What other preparation for a sociology PhD do you have? Have you done any research or coursework in this area? Just curious; as you will also face the "how do I write a good SOP" question. Is the lack of academic recommenders due to the "older student" problem or the "switching fields" problem? IMO the older student problem is not as difficult a hurdle as the switching fields issue.
  14. My BA/MA are in econ and am entering a PhD in econ. I know you feel it's irrelevant to say why you are switching - but I think the Ad Comms will very much care about your motivation. Philosophy to "Math/Econ" is not common path. And it's troubling you lump mathematics/economics together - they are very different disciplines at the graduate level. Are you talking Masters? or PhD? for graduate school. Most people here --- and you probably want to check out the URCH forums where they have a much better economics forum (http://www.urch.com/forums/forum.php) -- will tell you you need to be very strong in math to do a PhD in economics. Top 10-20 schools look for 90th percentile+ on the GRE-Q, and generally the minimum math background for applicants is: a 3-semester calculus sequence (differential, integral, multivariate), linear algebra, a couple of statistics courses and one or two upper level math courses including differential equations and/or real analysis. To get into most good programs you also need good letters of recommendation that will attest to your ability to do research and succeed in a graduate program, and a convincing SOP that will detail why you are applying to each program, who you might want to work with, and how it relates to your own research interest. So - it would be interesting here for you to tell more about why you are making the change - and what math courses you have already taken.
  15. Fascinating. I really could have posed the question this way -- "Should courses be designed so that the final grades will tend to have a normal distribution?". Funny too that people object more to curving grades downward than upward. (This seems a lot like behavioral economics where people are risk averse). I sense that people seem to feel if that if all the grades are low - then the material was too hard. But if all the grades are high - the students are just too smart and not that the material was too easy. I am sure I could design a course so that even the smartest bunch of students would all fail. So the point isn't how smart the students are - but whether material should be geared to the "average" student so that the average student gets an average grade. Again, my experience is that I see a bimodal distribution of grades. But I attribute that more to commitment and study habits than academic ability.
  16. I may not have been clear. As a PhD candidate I will be teaching Undergraduates, probably in lower level classes; so lots of students who are freshmen and sophomores. But, even still emmm ... what would you say if I told you everybody in my class was failing? Wouldn't you think something was wrong? So why not question when everyone is getting an A? Is everybody really excellent?
  17. I have started teaching and I love it. But I struggle with how grades should turn out (in an ideal world). Should the proper outcome of a class be a normal distribution of grades? Should the course material be developed so that some people will get A's and others will fail according to such a curve? Idealists might (emotionally) suggest ..."just teach and let the chips fall where they may. If everybody gets an "A" then that's fine." But is it really? If everybody failed they would be quick to criticize the teacher - either the material is too difficult, the exams are faulty, or the teaching is poor But if everybody gets A's is the material too easy? The teacher not challenging students enough? The scope of a course in many subjects (my area is economics) is not always clear cut. There's lots of gray area about what to include and what to omit from lectures. How rigorous to be, or how much material to cover. Look at posted Syllabi and you see a lot of heterogeneity. I have found in my own limited teaching experience - a bimodal distribution of grades. One set of students seem to get it, work hard, do the readings, show up to class, study and get A's and B's. The other group screws off, doesn't always turn in assignments, makes the same mistakes on tests as homework and quizzes (despite reviews of the correct answers). They get D's and F's. This suggests to me that the material is too easy - students who study mostly get A's students who have bad habits get Fs (and this may be unrelated to the difficulty of the material). According to "the curve" most students should get C's... right? With a small portion getting the highest or lowest grades. There's also external pressures on grading since professors get evaluations, and (I have been told) evaluation scores are positively correlated with expected grades. On the other hand - I am sick of "grade inflation". (Worse in grad school where the options are even more limited by a minimum 3.0 standard that's so common.) Is it fair to top students to devalue their A's? Is it ruining the use of GPA as a standard for graduate Ad Comms (resulting in the dreaded dependence of standardized tests like the GMAT and GRE). So - what does final grade distribution indicate? And what should it look like?
  18. It would be nice if we all lived in Lake Wobegon - "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." Unfortunately not everybody gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
  19. I second Simon and Blume ... you could also dip into an econ text like Micro Theory by Nicholson & Snyder (or Mas-Colell if you are feeling more ambitious) to get a feel for what stuff will look like.
  20. Agree with the above. I would steer clear of online courses and I probably differ even on CC courses - but for two reasons: 1. Courses offered by a 4-year college or university are (generally) more highly regarded. 2. You want to receive the best training you can get since if you are accepted you need to do math. Online courses just don't provide that experience for most students. The normal (minimum) math requirements for a competitive econ program are: a 3-semester sequence in calculus (differential, integral, multivariate), linear algebra and real analysis. Differential equations are a nice bonus. A semester course in statistics given by the math department (not a business stats course for example). Usually it makes sense to take them in the order of Calc I -> Calc II -> Multivariate -> (differential equations) -> Linear Algebra -> Real Analysis or you might struggle a bit.
  21. IMHO there is no difference between a 3.5 and 3.6 - at least not enough to do anything about. You won't fool anybody by playing with which numbers to look at - ad comms are pretty experienced at reading transcripts. If they see a "C" in biology and your applying for a PhD in psych it won't kill you. (If your are applying for a PhD in econ and get a "C" in calculus it might). I wouldn't mention it in the SoP (if you flunked, okay, maybe), I think a 3.5 GPA "makes the cut" and as long as your GRE's "make the cut" they will look at your LORs and SoP and weigh the whole package.
  22. Part of what makes a really "great applicant" is a student who knows a lot about what they want to do. They have a passion for a certain field. They have done research, taken courses, researched schools to find programs that are a good fit with their interests. It sounds like you have only the vaguest idea of finding a grad program that "helps people". Lot's of people help others - chemists, microbiologists, even - dare say - some economists! I also think your estimation of the legal profession is a bit simplistic. How about the lawyers that really do help people? The public defenders, the ACLU guys, the constitutional lawyers, the immigration lawyers helping folks caught up in the system. You could become a judge. Many politicians are lawyers - (I hear there are some decent politicians). It seems odd that you let your "dream" be dissolved so easily. I wouldn't take on a graduate program without a strong commitment to a discipline. It's tough to get accepted without this commitment. You'll be on the LOR board, or the SOP board asking how to compensate for a lack of preparation or looking for help writing a convincing SOP without it.
  23. Sounds like you need a Stuart Smalley daily affirmation... look into the mirror and say "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And doggone it - people like me."
  24. As an aside it seems to me the whole grading system for graduate work is screwed up. Setting 3.0 as the minimum grade gives too little latitude to professors to differentiate between students... Essentially the scale becomes A => A A- => B B+ => C B => D <B => F I think this results in grade inflation and lots of stress. Why not keep the same scale as UG grades? I don't know why this compressed scale was ever adopted. A previous poster commented that after their exams a 3.5 is the minimum grade ... Really?! That's essentially a Pass/Fail system bound to cause grade inflation.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use