Stanford vs MIT for applied theory « Economics Job Market Rumors

3 years - 44 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 67 Goods vs 30 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Economics » Questions from prospective grad students

Stanford vs MIT for applied theory

Economist
465b

I had another thread on this but it seems to have been deleted for some reason. https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/phd-admit-stanford-vs-mit-for-theory/

I’m interested in applied theory. Behavioural theory, political econ theory, maybe market design. If my interests changed then I think MIT is clearly better, so suppose they don’t.

MIT:
+ strong overall placement
+ strong overall cohort
+ strong theory theory faculty
- weak/non-existent behavioural, market designers are more empirical, acemoglu would be best for political econ theory but also spends a lot of time doing non-theory
- not many theorists in cohort, do relevant peer effects maybe not that good

Stanford
+ Top theorists place well
+ great number of applied theorists doing behavioural and market design
+ whole gsb department doing political econ
+ cohorts often have more theorists so relevant peer effects stronger
+climate
- weak(er) overall placement
- if my interests change then less breadth than mit

All serious advice will be much appreciated. Sorry for a duplicate thread. Hopefully this won’t get deleted

3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 2 Vlad !
Economist
a4b2

To me it is clearly MIT.

1. Your interest might change, a lot! I have seen many graduate students who were very interested in theory or even had a theory paper at the moment they were entering eventually switching to more empirical fields.

2. The overall placement matters a lot. This means cohort effect (matters a lot in grad school), how much attention faculty pays to each student (more like a culture), and general overall strategy for the job market and opportunities such as departmental seminars and events. Both schools have great opportunities and such but judging from the similar level of entering cohort ending up in huge difference in job placements and quality of research afterwards, MIT clearly has the upper hand.

3. The subfields of theory you listed are very niche and really hard to place well. Those who are producing good pubs in those fields may even not recommend you to do it. Chances are you might change your interest to other subfield and you may miss the better overall fields in MIT.

3 years ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
a4b2

BTW I am not from MIT and only know a few people from both MIT and Stanford. The insiders may know more about the full comparison.

To me it is clearly MIT.
1. Your interest might change, a lot! I have seen many graduate students who were very interested in theory or even had a theory paper at the moment they were entering eventually switching to more empirical fields.
2. The overall placement matters a lot. This means cohort effect (matters a lot in grad school), how much attention faculty pays to each student (more like a culture), and general overall strategy for the job market and opportunities such as departmental seminars and events. Both schools have great opportunities and such but judging from the similar level of entering cohort ending up in huge difference in job placements and quality of research afterwards, MIT clearly has the upper hand.
3. The subfields of theory you listed are very niche and really hard to place well. Those who are producing good pubs in those fields may even not recommend you to do it. Chances are you might change your interest to other subfield and you may miss the better overall fields in MIT.

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
d13b

$$$$

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
d13b

$555$

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
d13b

$$\big(\big)$$

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
9a18

MIT.

3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1732

I second the 2nd post. If you look at the entering cohort, the quality is probably not that different from sacred zipcode but the placements are in a different league. There are advantages to studying theory at MIT as opposed to Stanford which a lot of theory students are drawn to: you have more faculty attention. And yes, your interests may change (especially considering how bad the theory market was this year), in which case MIT is unequivocally better.

I’m neither at Stanford nor MIT, so this is an unbiased take.

3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1930

Lol at "applied theory". You mean basic calculus and probability?

3 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 4 Vlad !
Economist
d3a1

Congrats on getting into both. You’re not going to go wrong with either decision. My advice is to not listen to strangers on the internet, but if you don’t want to follow that advice, then go to MIT.

Cambridge is really the center of the world when it comes to economics. As a grad student (at either place) there, you will be miserable, you will develop a deep insecurity about your intellectual standing, and you will learn about the tastes of the very top of the profession. All of these are essential for success.

I graduated from MIT long ago, but the energy and passion about economics is still palpable every time I go back to visit. These people are insufferable. They put my current (HRM) institution completely to shame. When I visit Stanford, I get a very different feeling. People there seem like they’re playing a game. They’re good at it, it’s all they do, but it’s not who they are or want to be.

So part of this decision, in my view, boils down to whether you are in this for sport or for real. It turns out that I was probably in it for sport, so knowing what I know now, I’d have probably made a different decision. I’m tenured now, though, so I don’t have that many regrets.

3 years ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
d3a1

Also, you’re going to want to avoid the term applied theory outside of Cambridge. In Cambridge, it’s a thing. Outside of Cambridge, it’s a euphemism.

Lol at "applied theory". You mean basic calculus and probability?

3 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
465b

Congrats on getting into both. You’re not going to go wrong with either decision. My advice is to not listen to strangers on the internet, but if you don’t want to follow that advice, then go to MIT.
Cambridge is really the center of the world when it comes to economics. As a grad student (at either place) there, you will be miserable, you will develop a deep insecurity about your intellectual standing, and you will learn about the tastes of the very top of the profession. All of these are essential for success.
I graduated from MIT long ago, but the energy and passion about economics is still palpable every time I go back to visit. These people are insufferable. They put my current (HRM) institution completely to shame. When I visit Stanford, I get a very different feeling. People there seem like they’re playing a game. They’re good at it, it’s all they do, but it’s not who they are or want to be.
So part of this decision, in my view, boils down to whether you are in this for sport or for real. It turns out that I was probably in it for sport, so knowing what I know now, I’d have probably made a different decision. I’m tenured now, though, so I don’t have that many regrets.

This is a very interesting perspective, thank you.
But none of this mentions theory. Is that because you assume a high probability I might change, or even if I was set on theory I should go to MIT?

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1a8b

I graduated from MIT long ago, but the energy and passion about economics is still palpable every time I go back to visit. These people are insufferable. They put my current (HRM) institution completely to shame. When I visit Stanford, I get a very different feeling. People there seem like they’re playing a game. They’re good at it, it’s all they do, but it’s not who they are or want to be.

What are they/what do they want to be?

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
177d

don't come to stanford for theory. faculty is absent unless you are set to be a star from day one.

3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
8a40

Wth is applied theory? So theories with applications? Yah I’d hope so!

3 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
5c94

fudenberg and morris both have a history of producing excellent students in theory. i'd go to mit. not in the areas of theory you list, but i'd personally avoid those fields anyway.

3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
177d

If you’ve to Stanford, work with the young GSB folks. Akbarpour, Sannikov, soon Weije Zhang. They’ll give you a lot of attention. Plus Milgrom, Roth, Wilson... all have produced incredible theorist students.

Any other field I’d say do MIT. For theory, I think Stanford has a strong case.

3 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
be14

theory is dead

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
7615

Serious question: What is applied theory?

Is it just like, mechanism design where you actually want to implement the mechanisms (e.g. auctions)? Is it applied micro without data?

3 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
8e7e

Do yourself a favor and look at the papers written by top theorists who graduated from Stanford in the past five years (Dworczak, Li, Akbarpour) and those who graduated from MIT or fudenberg students (Pei, Mu, He, Ijima) and see what type of economist you prefer to be.

It’s not about Stanford vs. MIT, it’s about Milgrom vs. Fudenberg or Jackson vs. Morris style of economics.

3 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

12 3 Next »

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

Stanford vs MIT for applied theory

Reply »