I have wondered for awhile what sets two applicants with good GRE scores and GPA's apart from each other when applying to graduate school. Until I started this project I was under the impression that the things that set you apart when applying to undergraduate school are the same things that set you apart when applying to grad school. Boy was I wrong! Although being active in student government and extra-curricular activities can't hurt you when applying to an econ PhD school, it certainly does not appear to help much either. In a perfect world I could ask the admission committees of the grad schools I am thinking of applying what is important to them when making their decisions. However, since I do not currently go to a college with a PhD program and can't get in good with the professors on an admission committee, I attempted to do the next best thing. I wrote an e-mail to all of the economics PhD students I could find in the top 50 programs in the US and asked them the question below:

• How do you believe you set yourself apart in the application process? Did you spend hours upon hours writing you statement of purpose? Was your undergraduate work experience crucial to your acceptance into a competitive university? How about research experience?

When I first began to receive replies back to this question it seemed that the Letter of Recommendation would far and away be the primary way a good student sets themselves apart from the pack. Although the Letter of Recommendation is among the top three answers, I will discuss the two answers that were given more often before I discuss the Letter of Recommendation.

The top answer to this question was, without a doubt, research experience. Those students that had research experience while they were undergraduate students thought it was extremely valuable in regards to getting them accepted into a top university. A lot of students that did not have research experience before entering a PhD program thought that research experience would have helped them get into a better school or, at a bare minimum, would have prepared them more adequately for the rigorousness of the typical research demanded at a top PhD program. Research assistantships and research papers were the two most common ways of obtaining research experience. The benefits of research experience can not be understated, although I know of no study that correlates undergraduate research experience with success in a PhD program, it seems empirically obvious that research experience before entering a PhD program provides multiple benefits. First, the research experience serves as an excellent primer for the research that a PhD in economics is going to participate in for the rest of their life. Second, a number of people that have dropped out of PhD programs thought that if they had done some research before entering a PhD program they may have avoided wasting the time and money of entering in the first place.

Research experience for applicants to an economics PhD program is a win-win situation for the student and the school. The student gains an insight into what economist do on a day to day basis. While the school feels more comfortable in selecting a student with research experience because it can feel relatively assured that the student is capable of this important task. Unlike grades that can be inflated, or recommendations that can be exaggerated, a research paper (assuming the research paper was not co-authored with someone else) is a tell-tale sign that the student is capable of progressing through a PhD program that requires its finale to be a thesis that is based in research. At least we hope so.

The second most stated trait that PhD students cite as setting them apart from the pack in applying to PhD programs should come as no surprise to anyone even remotely cognizant of the modern field of economics. In a word; MATH. I am beginning to think that this web-site should be re-named "Becoming A Mathematician". It is almost disconcerting to think about how little economics knowledge one needs in order to be accepted into a top economics PhD program. A lot of current students tell me that the best PhD graduate students usually majored in math, physics, or statistics while getting their bachelors degree. I think the reason for this is (***WARNING-CONJECTURE***) that the economics knowledge taught in an undergraduate economics program is easily picked up in graduate school; However, the math background that a person is expected to bring with them to a graduate econ program is not so quickly picked up on. Therefore, the graduate schools are more likely to take a chance on someone with just a math background as opposed to just an econ background; Of course they would prefer to have a strong background in both, but I suppose that isn't always possible.

As mentioned previously, the third most cited thing that the respondents reported setting them apart from the pack was their letter of recommendation (LOR). The LOR was cited less then a strong math background and research experience, yet I believe that the LOR can almost serve as a guarantee of admission to top PhD programs. Many people said that it was their LOR from a respected graduate of the program they were applying to that got them into a good PhD program. If it is possible to get a LOR from a well respected economist whose name is known to the admission committee, then it only makes sense that they would give more weight to that applicant.

So it seems to me that if it is at all possible to do undergraduate research heavily infused with mathematic proofs with a well respected advisor from a school you wish to apply to who is willing to write a stellar LOR, then (assuming your grades and GRE are near the top of the pack) you are almost guaranteed a slot in a top PhD program. However, short of this magical combination of factors there is no guarantee that if you do any of these things that you will be accepted into a top program. A lot of people wrote me saying they had no idea how they got in, below is an example of such a reponse...

• "To tell you the truth,I have no idea what set me apart! I did take the Kaplan course to boost my gre score, but I'm sure that's not what did it. I didn't spend a lot of time writing the personal statement, but did take notes about what I wanted to say throughout 1st semester of senior year in college. I did have experience programming with SAS, which may have helped. Did a little bit of research, but didn't include that in the package. Did have a very strong transcript, but not from an Ivy League university or anything...took lots of upper level math classes. I bet in my case at least, they looked at the whole package vs. one small thing." - Brown University -

Some people say that they did a lot of things against the above advice, yet they beat the odds and still were accepted to a top program. Below is an example of such a response...

• "I'm not sure; of all my classmates I had the least mathematical preparation. I think the difference is that 95% of applicants want to be professors, and I'm looking more towards a government career, so maybe they wanted a "token" government worker guy. The statement of purpose isn't at all important; I composed it in a couple of hours the day before mailing my applications. Economics programs are more interested in mathematical background, not flowery essays about hopes and dreams." - Princeton -

So I guess there is hope even for those that did a lot of thing out of the norm. The moral of the story to setting yourself apart from the rest of the pack while attempting to get admitted to a top econ PhD program is best summed up in the quote below...

• "Professors are busy people, and hence are inclined to base graduate admissions decisions on information which can be evaluated quickly and consistently. Most aren't likely to spend much time pouring over graduate admissions essays. Good grades, good GRE Quant scores, and good letters, preferably from well-known people, are what in my opinion distinguish a candidate from the pack. Significant research experience, i.e. having done something, or significantly contributed to something, which was publishable would be quite likely to draw attention." - UCLA -

It appears that like much everything else in life, there is no guaranteed way to get into a top PhD program. All one can do is follow the path most likely to get you where you want to go and hope that along the way you aren't side tracked or set off your path. Much skill and determination is required if you set you goals high, so you must work hard and follow the example of the successful people who have walked the road before you. After you can say you did everything possible to attain success, the rest of the process is in fates hand; you have no control of the process at that point. Just hope for the best and let the road take you where it will.

Good luck during the process.

I have attached a link to some of the better responses from this question, if you are interested click here.

^ back to top ^