<p>it’s either the #1 or #2 phd program by most accounts. what is the general impression of econ grad students at harvard? what do undergrads at harvard think of them?</p>
<p>I dunno about 1 or 2… as far as significance 4 real economists, U of Chicago is probably #1 and tben Princeton or MIT is #2, but it is certainly one of the best.</p>
<p>i see that you are going to be a freshman at berkely next year, so i am not sure what you are looking for, but harvard is a top 5 program.</p>
<p>Right, starting berkeley in a couple months and looking ahead. I think I am pretty well positioned to start the grad micro next year (I took a year of real analysis at UCSD using Rudin my senior year in HS so have the math). The plan would be to take the first year phd classes (micro, macro, econometrics) in years 2-3 at Berkeley and probably apply to phd progs a year early. I sat in on econ classes at UCSD while in HS but didn’t take them for credit (did get 5’s on micro and macro ap tests though). </p>
<p>My understanding is that MIT and Harvard have the 1 and 2 programs (which one is 1 depends on who I ask). They say university of chicago has a good program with top research but not as great of a place for graduate students to study (haven’t been there so just have to go off of what i hear). princeton and berkeley would be nice too. berkeley has a top program with good profs (one just won kind of like the pre nobel prize award for economists) which is why i chose to go there. I’d of course be excited to go to any of the top schools. </p>
<p>I clearly have a lot of time to think about a lot of this stuff so was interested to know what the other students think of the econ phd students</p>
<p>i read over your other post more carefully and you have an amazing amount of math already done. I dont know if you are into more qualitative or quantitative economics, but that will likely end up making the difference between schools for you as well as your more specific interest, which will vary by school. I would have to agree that MIT, UofC, and Princeton are above Harvard in terms of general reputation to people “in the know.” At that level though (and really all levels), what matters most is your own skill.</p>
<p>On a side note, I am looking to teach myself linear algebra and multivarialbe calc in the upcoming year. Do you have any recommendations? You can post on here or private message me if that works better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A good friend of mine just had her pick of Econ grad programs and choose Harvard. I think that when you get to the point where you’re making your decision, it’s much more about who the professors are in the area you want to study and much less about some vague notion of overall program prestige. (Although I question how Harvard can be in the “bottom of the top” with faculty rankings like: [Rankings:</a> All Economics](<a href=“Loading...”>Loading...) and [Rankings</a> at IDEAS: Economics Departments](<a href=“http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.econdept.html]Rankings”>Economics rankings: Economics Departments | IDEAS/RePEc) )</p>
<p>Uh, because both of those ranking systems depend heavily on the number of economists on a school’s faculty, and Harvard has substantially more economists than its competitors? Duh?</p>
<p>That said, US News puts MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and Chicago on the same (top) level, so maybe they are all roughly equal in quality.</p>
<p>i see a potential difference between where the top faculty is in terms of publications compared to where the top grad students go. looking at the faculty at berkeley, there are a ton of harvard and mit phds, which seems to say that those profs were among some of the top grad students (since berkeley is itself a top place). anyway just interesting to hear the divergent pov. i am going to ask around at berkeley what the top schools are but i guess at this point it may be premature of me to think about</p>
<hr>
<p>basic linear algebra is pretty simple (adding matrices, etc.). But linear algebra is where math starts to become more abstract, using vector spaces, etc. I’ve never tried to teach it to myself except in the sense that we all have to teach ourselves through homework, reading examples in the book when taking a class. I’ve tried to read math books but it is hard to make myself do problems without having it assigned. but that’s probably what you’d have to do, try problems and have a book that has the answer in the back. some people like to test themselves so don’t want answers in the back, but I think that’s unwise as you wouldn’t know if you are doing them wrong!</p>
<p>The multi var calc that I took was very computation focused. As soon as you get the hang of it, they are pretty simple (double and triple integrals, etc.). Also review polar coordinates since you can use that sometimes to solve integrals. That was something in precalc that I had trouble with and had to relearn because I thought it was stupid and would never come up again.</p>
<p>You could also try sitting in on some classes at some point. I’ve done that before and it can be very beneficial, albeit with a high time cost. </p>
<p>higher levels of math are mostly about proving stuff instead of computations (real analysis is pretty much all about writing proofs of theorems and other statements or finding counter examples that disprove them). You can probably do ok in real analysis without knowing the computations as much. I think it is two different skills. trying to reproduce the proofs in the book for propositions is a good way to start I think (keeping in mind that even if your proof is different it still may be correct). </p>
<p>The proofs in books tend to try to prove the statement in as few words as possible. but often it is clear to me that the proof has been reverse engineered. so sometimes that can be troublesome in trying to figure out how they came up with that.</p>
<p>if you want a specific place to start, schaum’s guides are good. i had the one for differential equations.</p>