PhD in Business - Marketing

[troy.princess]

I feel totally alone in the process because I just can't find other people who applied to Marketing.

I applied to Consumer Behavior track.

How about you?

[nut]

I applied to CB in Marketing as well, and have not heard back from any schools that I applied to.

Like you said, I feel a bit alone in the process..

do you know when should we expect decisions?

good luck!!

I feel totally alone in the process because I just can't find other people who applied to Marketing.

I applied to Consumer Behavior track.

How about you?

[troy.princess]

I so happy there is someone else in the same boat

Good Luck!

I did some research on the "submit your results" part of grad cafe - searched for "marketing" - and found that my #1 school starts sending acceptance letters in mid February and the other school i applied to in the beginning of March. You can search for your schools too.

What are your research interests?

[nut]

Yess I am so happy too. FInally we have a thread here

So I did some research as well and it looks like they start sending out the letters in mid -February like you said. What I am confused about is whether interviews are part of the process or not. I looked at all grad cafe results and it looks like some schools do have interviews. Do you know if they have sent out interview invites yet?

I am mainly interested in decision making, influence of social norms on consumers and also social networks. What about you

And by the way nice to meet you troy princess

good luck,

hope both of us get into our dream schools

I so happy there is someone else in the same boat

Good Luck!

I did some research on the "submit your results" part of grad cafe - searched for "marketing" - and found that my #1 school starts sending acceptance letters in mid February and the other school i applied to in the beginning of March. You can search for your schools too.

What are your research interests?

[troy.princess]

Nice to meet you too!

I'm mainly into cultural marketing and cult branding

The admittance process is still unclear to me.

I've talked about it with a friend who us about to finish his PhD at top 5 school in our field and he said that:

1. Some people receive bulk rejects if they don't meet the school standards or no one from the faculty finds their research interests appealing.

2. Some people get accepted without interview because they are really good and unique and every one in the adcomm wants them.

3. Some people are extremely good but they invited for an interview because the adcomm wants to make sure some things about their application or there are several people with similar research interests.

4. Some people get invited to interviews because there is a conflict about them and the adcomm want to make a definite decision.

5. Some people get accepted without an official interview but after they met some of their potential advisors.

I'm sure there are much more options, but these are the most common.

also, he said that the adcomm decisions are supervised by an inspection committee whose job is to ensure diversity according to the specific university standards.

I wish us both to get accepted to our #1 school!

Edited January 31, 2011 by troy.princess

[nut]

Thanks so much for the info!!

That is a bot relieving for me, because last week I was too worried that all schools have interviews and I got none..

I will definitely let you know if I hear any news

Best of luck

Nice to meet you too!

I'm mainly into cultural marketing and cult branding

The admittance process is still unclear to me.

I've talked about it with a friend who us about to finish his PhD at top 5 school in our field and he said that:

1. Some people receive bulk rejects if they don't meet the school standards or no one from the faculty finds their research interests appealing.

2. Some people get accepted without interview because they are really good and unique and every one in the adcomm wants them.

3. Some people are extremely good but they invited for an interview because the adcomm wants to make sure some things about their application or there are several people with similar research interests.

4. Some people get invited to interviews because there is a conflict about them and the adcomm want to make a definite decision.

5. Some people get accepted without an official interview but after they met some of their potential advisors.

I'm sure there are much more options, but these are the most common.

also, he said that the adcomm decisions are supervised by an inspection committee whose job is to ensure diversity according to the specific university standards.

I wish us both to get accepted to our #1 school!

[rapdas]

nut/ troy.princess,

You should check out the URCH forums (URCH), it is very active and there are several marketing applicants over there.

[nut]

Hello rapdas,

Thanks a lot. Yes, I have been following urch as well, I could not find an official admission/rejection/interview invite thread specifically for marketing though...

But sure, yes if we look into both grad cafe and urch, I think we will catch up with what is going on

best,

good luck!

nut/ troy.princess,

You should check out the URCH forums (URCH), it is very active and there are several marketing applicants over there.

[adstatus]

Hello fellow marketing PhD hopefuls. Sitting it out too and getting very antsy. Historically, I think the programs I've applied to don't do much until the last week or two of Feb and throughout Mar. Still, I must CHECK every friggin' five minutes. Mine is also a CB track with research interestes in multicultural marketing/branding and interactive/online marketing. Good luck to you all, but if we're applying to the same program and there is only one spot left, I hope I get it.

[Behavioral]

It's a bit later in the admissions cycle and was wondering where people are at in terms of decisions and choices.

I've been interviewed by a good number of schools and if anyone has any specific questions about this process, feel free to ask here or PM me. For the most part, it's a straightforward process (define your research interests and why this particular school!!!), but some people may not be in the know of some nuances, so I'm happy to provide some information on that matter.

[adstatus]

It's a bit later in the admissions cycle and was wondering where people are at in terms of decisions and choices.

I've been interviewed by a good number of schools and if anyone has any specific questions about this process, feel free to ask here or PM me. For the most part, it's a straightforward process (define your research interests and why this particular school!!!), but some people may not be in the know of some nuances, so I'm happy to provide some information on that matter.

Hey Behavioral. Congrats on the Leeds admit. Hope the Admit day at Northwestern goes well. Still waiting on any info here -- gotta get all of you rock stars out of the way for us 2nd and 3rd tier candidates! LOL. If I get any interviews or admits I'll be sure to get in touch!

[gregoryhouse]

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)?

[Behavioral]

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)?

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.

[gregoryhouse]

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!

[Behavioral]

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!

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.

[gregoryhouse]

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!

[gregoryhouse]

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!

Edited April 13, 2011 by gregoryhouse

[Behavioral]

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!

I would always default to what a professor says. All my advice comes from anecdotal evidence and from the perspective of the applicants (not the admission committee).

I'm guessing that Applied Statistics has a smaller scope in the maths used in Economics and the Quant-heavy disciplines (you won't cover real analysis, incomplete information/bounded rationality, PDE/ODE, etc. in a statistics program; mainly just probability theory, stochastic processes, regression analysis, etc.). If the Econ program is housed within a doctoral-granting institution and the coursework is shared between MA/Ph.D. students, I can see where your professors are coming from.

And yup -- if you're going behavioral, having a quantitative toolset to borrow from is a great asset (as in my case), but the sister departments of psychology, sociology, etc. are going to be the foundation of your research. CB/OB is an applied field of psychology (the gist of it), so you need to have a firm grasp of general psychology before you start looking at consumer psychology or something like I/O psychology. I got that base covered by double majoring in Psychology during my undergrad. In any case, an MA in Econ won't hurt you at all, but there may be better alternatives if you're SURE you're going the behavioral route. If you're still mixed now, the MA in Econ is a nice program that will bolster your prospects to either type of program (though significantly more with the quantitative disciplines).

In my opinion, you should be able to apply to Ph.D. programs in a 12-month intensive program, especially if you start researching programs now and working on personal statements soon. I started writing personal statements mid-November of this past cycle and managed to get 10 applications out. I was working as a research associate for 40-50 hours/week, so I had a bit more time to spare than someone who's constantly studying in their free time, so YMMV. But anyway, if you can narrow what your research interests are soon, this will expedite the application process immensely. I almost knew that I was going into behavioral decision theory/choice modeling/game theory going into admissions (since these were the pervasive topics when I was considering a Ph.D. in Economics or Decision Science/JDM), so I was eliminating schools pretty easily when I encountered that they didn't have the faculty to support my interests. I also got very lucky with my GMAT. I only studied 3 days since I wasn't expecting to apply this year, and managed to do surprisingly well given minimal preparation. Make sure your's is up to par and don't wing it like I did, since I still think my success was largely based on luck.

Besides that, I think you're on the right track and can apply this next cycle. Just do well in your Masters (should you choose to accept either offer) and invest adequate time and effort to your personal statements.

Good luck!