Econ Grad School

[MAN]

I'm in the process of applying to various Economics grad schools. As such, I've read all the available web resources (i.e. Econphd.com, Chris Silvey's "becoming and economist," etc.).

Everything I have read has said to forget about masters because it is useless. Also, they say that it is pointless to go to a school not ranked in the top 10-25.

I am currently targeting master's programs that rank somewhere between 100-300. My career goals are more along the lines of getting an analytical job either in the private or public sector. It seems like most the advice is geared towards people who want to be teachers at Harvard, U of Chicago, etc.

Am I a fool for going for a little lower prestige program that I would feel more comfortable at? Or should I heed the advice given on the various websites?

I guess I just get nervous when I read that others feel my chosen path is a waste of time.

[rising_star]

Heed the advice on the websites. It's there for a reason. I think a MBA would be better, based on your goals.

[MAN]

I absolutely hate business administration classes (I had B.A. as a minor as an undergraduate). There is no way that I would go MBA.

[anese]

I absolutely hate business administration classes (I had B.A. as a minor as an undergraduate). There is no way that I would go MBA.

Have you researched the salary/hiring options for someone with an MS in Econ?

Are you interested at all in a PhD? The job prospects for Econ PhDs, as I understand it, are very good--both in academia and in private industry.

MBA classes might not be that bad, as I understand it you only spend your first year on the general business classes/refresher econ/macro etc...which I think you would find easy--and then you start to specialize in the second year. But I guess the difference is that you are being trained to become a manager in industry, whereas an Economics masters would be more focused on training you as a researcher and would not have such a broad application.

I would consider what would be the biggest trade off for you given your career plans, if you detest business classes so much and have a real passion for economics and research, then a doctoral degree might be worth considering.

[MAN]

Have you researched the salary/hiring options for someone with an MS in Econ?

Are you interested at all in a PhD? The job prospects for Econ PhDs, as I understand it, are very good--both in academia and in private industry.

MBA classes might not be that bad, as I understand it you only spend your first year on the general business classes/refresher econ/macro etc...which I think you would find easy--and then you start to specialize in the second year. But I guess the difference is that you are being trained to become a manager in industry, whereas an Economics masters would be more focused on training you as a researcher and would not have such a broad application.

I would consider what would be the biggest trade off for you given your career plans, if you detest business classes so much and have a real passion for economics and research, then a doctoral degree might be worth considering.

I have considered a Ph.D. in Econ (I am applying to Oregon's PhD program). So, that may be an option. Even if I don't follow through to get a Phd in Econ, I would much rather have the econ masters than the MBA. Based on your descriptions, I would much rather have a role as a researcher than have a broad degree. Plus, I would rather have a degree that challanges me a bit. Also, the labor market seems to be flooded with MBAs, I would rather give myself a bit of a competitive edge.

I appreciate the advice. Thanks.

[MAN]

The issue I see with going after the PhD is that I'm not sure about my qualifications. I did well as an undergraduate at an unranked state school (3.5 GPA at Illinois State University). My GRE is partly good (800 Q), partly mediocre (560 V), and partly bad (4.0 AWA). My biggest issue, though, is my lack of math courses (I took Calc 1 and 2 as a freshman - back in 1999-2000). Looking at most programs, I will need to make up a lot of math work (linear algebra, differential equations, real analysis, etc.). Also, I have no econ papers published or history of working in econ research.

It seems that the PhD programs focus more on the math classes taken and work history. While I'm not going to Harvard, MIT, or U of C, I'd imagine that my deficiencies would hurt my admission/financial aid chances at most top schools (hence the nerves about whether applying to lower ranked schools is worthwhile).

[rising_star]

Could you take some classes at USF to shore up your background?

[anese]

The issue I see with going after the PhD is that I'm not sure about my qualifications. I did well as an undergraduate at an unranked state school (3.5 GPA at Illinois State University). My GRE is partly good (800 Q), partly mediocre (560 V), and partly bad (4.0 AWA). My biggest issue, though, is my lack of math courses (I took Calc 1 and 2 as a freshman - back in 1999-2000). Looking at most programs, I will need to make up a lot of math work (linear algebra, differential equations, real analysis, etc.). Also, I have no econ papers published or history of working in econ research.

It seems that the PhD programs focus more on the math classes taken and work history. While I'm not going to Harvard, MIT, or U of C, I'd imagine that my deficiencies would hurt my admission/financial aid chances at most top schools (hence the nerves about whether applying to lower ranked schools is worthwhile).

If this is the case, a funded masters may set you well on the way to acheiving your goals. At the right school, it would give you the opportunity to:

a.) demonstrate ability to master Economics coursework at the graduate degree level (no pun intended)

b.) ample opportunities to publish and improve your academic cv

c.) will also give you, though you did not mention this, more recommendations--which may be from professors which are better known

You have solid stats for a masters program, if you decide to go that route. I would still send out a few PhD applications though, sometimes they can surprise you--but only go if you get funding.

[Burkander]

It's my interpretation that a terminal masters program can be good for those who don't have qualifications to get into a top tier phd program. You can develop those qualifications while working on the terminal masters, then apply to a phd program.

If you have a masters that wasn't from a terminal masters program, I think it's like the kiss of death. It only shows that you couldn't get the phd.

But a respectable terminal masters program (e.g., LSE, UM) can be a good stepping stone to a good phd program.

At least that's the approach I'm taking!

[dukekid]

As a current student at Duke (PhD. Program), I think that you should go where you are comfortable. I followed the money and after the restructuring of the Duke program (the B+ policy), I think it is miserable here. People cheat, lie, etc. It's not worth it.

[studentfromLA]

From somebody who is currently in a terminal Econ masters program, take it from me: if the programs you are considering applying to are anything like my program, you will need two recent semesters of calculus, linear algebra, and intermediate statistics courses, in addition to intermediate level econ classes to succeed. I had all of the the above classes, absent the linear algebra, and I find my coursework wicked hard. Graduate level economics -- even at the master's level -- is very theoretical and very mathematical, and matrix algebra plays a big part in all of your core courses, at least if your program requires microeconomic theory and econometrics, which most do. I'm in a program at a top 15 school in economics, so maybe it's different if you apply to lower-level departments, but I doubt it, as they all have to cover the same material.

I'd highly recommend you wait a year or two to apply, and get some of the above classes under your belt first, even if you are only considering a master's.

Something else to consider is that many schools do not fund master's students. Only one of the three schools where I was accepted offered me money, and they did so because at that school, I applied for the Ph.D. track (switched to the master's track after being admitted with the support of my advisor, so I kept my funding offer).

Edited to add: Real Analysis and Differential Equations would definitely help as well, even at the Master's level, although many of my cohorts who are on the Ph.D. track are taking Real Analysis in their first semester. Oh, and I'd probably re-take the GRE as well, as your verbal and writing scores are not nearly as important as your quantitative. Most people accepted to my program had quant scores of 750+, and if you don't break the 70% percentile (around a 690-700), your application may not be considered. I had a 690, and was told at one school I visited that they perceive a strong correlation between your GRE score and your success in the program; I barely made the cutoff.

Edited again to add: I read your GRE score backward. I wouldn't worry about your verbal/writing. Your Quant score is obviously good enough with an 800 :-)

[MAN]

I appreciate the advice, studentfromLA.

I have started studying a couple math for economists books to better prepare myself for the master's programs. Your post has inspired (aka scared me into) studying a bit harder.

I guess I forgot to mention that I have no problems with linear algebra (I loved my physics class that was all about the lin. alg.). Also, while at ISU, I took an Intro to Econometrics (aka stats 101) and an Advanced Econometrics course. I received an A in each class and thought they weren't too difficult.

So, I feel comfortable that with hard work, I'll be able to do well in grad school. But I know I'm against odds playing some catch up here (still no matrix algebra, diff.eq., or real analysis experience under my belt).

Thank you for your insight!