Econ applicants.... why???

[abababba]

I was just reading over some of the posts of people applying to econ phd programs and most people are extremely qualified. This made me wonder why these people who could easily get good jobs or go to top 5 law schools make such a quick decision to only apply for econ phd programs.

 

This made me think that almost no one has said why they want to apply for a phd program in the first place. Be honest, and help me decide whether I should even consider applying after working for a period of time.

[tad]

Because economists are a superior species.

[abababba]

It would be funny if nobody had a good well thought out (possibly even rational) reason...

[ramlau]

It would be funny if nobody had a good well thought out (possibly even rational) reason...

 

Not extremely qualified here. But in my case, I want to become a policy advisor in Washington some point in my life. So if I want to do something "big" then an economics PhD degree is surely a nice "thing" to have.

 

Ram

[abababba]

Ok, I'll buy that as a somewhat valid reason, but I think there are plenty of counterexamples of people who work in finance that transition to public policy.

 

The best counterexample is probably Robert Rubin, who is credited for structuring the Clinton economic program and was one of his chief economic advisors.

You can read his bio here

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/forums/forum01/bios.pdf

 

The road is definitely not closed to corporate workers for these types of positions. Its a given that more phds are probably on the Council of Economic Advisors, but I think there is a huge sample selection issue. Many people that are at the top of banks are probably reasonably comfortable in their positions and don't necessarily desire a policy role, like a lot of econ phds do.

[ramlau]

Ok, I'll buy that as a somewhat valid reason, but I think there are plenty of counterexamples of people who work in finance that transition to public policy.

Thus applying to some finance doctoral programs as well. ;)

 

I totally understand that there are many easier ways to "get there" without spending another 5 years of my life in school. But I neither dislike school nor have any doubt about the value of a doctoral degree. Also, the opportunity cost of getting an economics/finance PhD in approx 5 years (if lucky) isn't really that high, not to mention the better professional prospects. And if you'd excuse my corniness:

 

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK's Moon Speech

 

Sure that JD and MBA are comparatively easy to do, but I want the challenge. I do believe I can do more with the PhD too. So it was an easy choice to make. After all, most folks of the Federal Reserve and the CEA members do have a doctoral degree.

 

Granted I don't get to accomplish the lofty goals, I can still be a Professor. :)

 

Ram

P.S. By the way, I'm a fan of Rubin and believe he should run for office.

[albertalla]

I want to work in policy, and policy needs to be justified by economics. Similar to ramlau but not in DC

[carolinab]

Not extremely qualified here. But in my case, I want to become a policy advisor in Washington some point in my life. So if I want to do something "big" then an economics PhD degree is surely a nice "thing" to have.

 

Ram

 

I work at the Fed and can tell you that there is close to zero probability of moving up to an economist position unless you have a Phd. This is why I will be attending graduate school in the near future.

[prusd]

I'm a big of Rubin as well

[snappythecrab]

This made me wonder why these people who could easily get good jobs or go to top 5 law schools make such a quick decision to only apply for econ phd programs.

 

What makes you think that they were quick decisions? I suspect that for many of the applicants, especially the top ones, they were anything but. Speaking for myself, I can say that my initial decision was made shortly after finishing up my intro courses.I didn't just wake up one day this fall and say "Hmm, maybe I'll apply to graduate school", and proceed to drop a fair sum of money on apps, etc. I've spent the past 2-3 years in preparation for graduate school. Graduate school isn't an impulse buy.

[abababba]

The point is what alternatives have you looked into. It is an impulse buy if you haven't fully examined other options.

[snappythecrab]

The point is what alternatives have you looked into. It is an impulse buy if you haven't fully examined other options.

 

No, it is impuse decision if you do it on impulse, on a whim. And again, my point, what makes you think the applicants, here or otherwise, haven't explored their options?

 

This is really a silly and inane line of questioning and could be extended to anything. Why go into the work force? Why go to law school? etc, etc. Why do anything?

[associate]

I hope to pursue a PhD in econ because I'd like to combine a career where I can advise orgs/govts in DC with a professorship. A doctorate is an obvious prerequisite for a professorship, but there are several additional reasons that would apply even if I had no interest in academia:

 

1) IT'S PRACTICAL: I work at a think tank in DC, and although they are flexible when it comes to so much else, they won't truly promote you without at PhD. Same goes for many of the top think tanks and policy-making organizations around.

 

Also, in certain, I suppose more intellectual (but still practical) policy circles in this town, your opinion isn't taken as seriously without a PhD, at least while you are still a relative unknown. There are exceptions, but they generally require both luck and talent; and I'd like to eliminate the element(s) of uncertainty.

 

2) IT WILL KEEP ME FROM LOOKING STUPID: In order to properly advise people about economics and/or policy, I think it's necessary to at least be able to understand (at much more than a superficial level) other economists' work and their implications.

 

3) I THINK I'LL ENJOY AND USE IT: Perhaps most importantly, I have a genuine interest in learning all the stuff they teach at econ PhD programs (both the obscure and more practical), and in interacting/brainstorming with the types of students and professors in top econ programs (which is a pretty valuable part of the experience unto itself, and a nice break from DC).

 

Plus, I have worked on many, many policy-related projects that I think could honestly benefit a whole lot from some rigorous economics. There are a lot of relevant (and still-unaddressed) questions for which economic analysis could provide a more rigorous, appropriate, and certain understanding, even if, in some cases, the added certainty goes only so far as to inform policy-makers about the level of uncertainty they must accept.

[abababba]

so let me get your argument straight. Considering the oppurtunity costs of a decision is completely inane for an economist.....

 

 

All I asked for is a few reasons why econ grad school is a better choice for people than the options of law school or working in either consulting or banking.

 

Some advantages of work over grad school

1. You don't have to wait 5 years to see a payoff

2. Much higher pay

3. In some jobs and definitely law school, much less risk than going to grad school.

4. In corporate work, tons of perks throughout the year (nice dinners, nice hotels etc. )

5. Eventually making a practical measurable impact at the time of your work rather than many years after.

 

What is the other side?

 

My previous response was to the message before the last, just to make it clear.

 

I agree that policy work is one valid reason, but there must be plenty of reasons why being an academic economist itself is worthwhile to justify all people applying.

[carolinab]

so let me get your argument straight. Considering the oppurtunity costs of a decision is completely inane for an economist.....

 

 

All I asked for is a few reasons why econ grad school is a better choice for people than the options of law school or working in either consulting or banking.

 

Some advantages of work over grad school

1. You don't have to wait 5 years to see a payoff

2. Much higher pay

3. In some jobs and definitely law school, much less risk than going to grad school.

4. In corporate work, tons of perks throughout the year (nice dinners, nice hotels etc. )

5. Eventually making a practical measurable impact at the time of your work rather than many years after.

 

What is the other side?

 

 

I believe you might be missing the point of why people pursue a Phd. It has more to do with interest(some might say fascination) with the subject and less with payoffs and benefits.

[ramlau]

Some advantages of work over grad school

1. You don't have to wait 5 years to see a payoff

2. Much higher pay

3. In some jobs and definitely law school, much less risk than going to grad school.

4. In corporate work, tons of perks throughout the year (nice dinners, nice hotels etc. )

5. Eventually making a practical measurable impact at the time of your work rather than many years after.

 

What is the other side?

I'm just speaking for myself here. So here's my response to the "advantages" you mentioned:

1. Those 5 years will be monumental in defining the rest of my life. I don't wait or sit there for a degree.

2. Been an investor for a few years, I can make good enough money in the stock market to keep me alive. I'm no Ricardo or Keynes, but I know what I'm doing with my trading accounts.

3. What risk?

4. Been there, done that. Also, see #2.

5. My eyes are on the $2,500,000,000,000.00 a year federal government budget. I just can't make much impact with it without some real credentials. And yes, it does make Bill Gates and Warren Buffett look small.

 

Ram

[snappythecrab]

so let me get your argument straight. Considering the oppurtunity costs of a decision is completely inane for an economist.....

 

This isn't what I said whatsoever. Your line of questioning is inane, especially given the subject matter. Again, what makes you think that such individuals haven't considered their opportunity costs? We are infact discussing future economists. In addition, given the nature of selection, many here are at the top. Pointing out that there are other options and opportunity costs to such people is a little tautologous, eh? You think that people haven't explored or thought about their options?

 

All I asked for is a few reasons why econ grad school is a better choice for people than the options of law school or working in either consulting or banking.

 

No. That isn't what you asked at all. Is that what you're after? Are you speaking overall or on an individual basis?

 

Some advantages of work over grad school

1. You don't have to wait 5 years to see a payoff

2. Much higher pay

3. In some jobs and definitely law school, much less risk than going to grad school.

4. In corporate work, tons of perks throughout the year (nice dinners, nice hotels etc. )

5. Eventually making a practical measurable impact at the time of your work rather than many years after.

 

What is the other side?

 

No. Those are advantages that you may see or perceive to exist. Utility functions are not homogenous across individuals. Moreover, there are counterarguments that could be made in each case above.

[abababba]

I think I would make a lot of the points you made myself... but I would still like to see the other side.

Read my original post, I was curious about what people see as the other side of this argument. Of course every argument has a counterexample, I would just like you to present the positives of the economist side.

 

The only reason why it seems like people didn't consider other options is that they seem so dedicated to grad school and haven't really mentioned considering other options.

 

By the way, what about everyone applying not in macro (does the fed argument still apply)?

[ramlau]

No. Those are advantages that you may see. Utility functions are not homogenous across individuals. Moreover, there are counterarguments that could be made in each case above.

 

In short, "thou who wishth to saveth the earth shalt hath a PhD." :)

 

Some of us really don't care for fancy cars and nice houses. I was just quite cynical about how consumerism has enslaved the population at Disney during the Christmas weekend. (I got in for free, or I wouldn't be there.)

 

I'm just glad that money is not an important parameter in my utility function. By no means do I imply that I'm a superior being.

 

Ram

[Starvingecon]

I want to be an economist. I want to study and learn about the things that interest me, not just those that will make other people money (as well as myself). Yes I could go to a good law school or get a good job in business/finance but that isn't what i want to do. At this point in my life I think I will be able to make a good enough living as an economist, while following my passions in life. If things don't workout or what I want in life changes, all my other options will still be there if I need them.

[abababba]

So what is an important part of the economists utility function?

[Starvingecon]

The same thing that is in everyone else's utility function. Many people choose careers that make them happy even though they could make more money doing other things. I don't understand why this seems like a big deal for you.

[abababba]

I want to study and learn about the things that interest me, not just those that will make other people money (as well as myself). quote]

 

I think you might be shocked when you find out why economists do the research they do. They often spend a significant amount of time begging for grants and/or doing research that another organization will give them money for.

[snappythecrab]

I think I would make a lot of the points you made myself... but I would still like to see the other side.

Read my original post, I was curious about what people see as the other side of this argument. Of course every argument has a counterexample, I would just like you to present the positives of the economist side.

 

The only reason why it seems like people didn't consider other options is that they seem so dedicated to grad school and haven't really mentioned considering other options.

 

By the way, what about everyone applying not in macro (does the fed argument still apply)?

 

I think that the other side has to come from the individual, ie: you. If you don't see an upside for yourself then I guess there may not be one. It is somewhat difficult to say what would be or would not be good for you. I know what is good for me, and that's why I'm applying.

 

I think the reason it may seem like people here haven't considered their options is because most of us are far past that stage, and more concerned with some of the finer details of applying. I've considered them, and they were less attractive to me. The only route that I did not go that may serve me just about as well would be a PhD in Finance. But I didn't apply, mainly due to time constraints. So it goes. No big loss.

 

And sure the Fed argument still applies. It is difficult to be an economist anywhere without some graduate work. Those that do it achieve it by working a lot of years in the field, slaving away as an assistant to an economist or a jr. economist. For work in the corporate world, a masters will do. Sure you can be an analyst somewhere. That's always an option if you don't feel like doing the graduate route. I'd rather not, however.

 

So what is an important part of the economists utility function?

 

I think your problem is that you're trying to generalize. You can't do that.

[ramlau]

So what is an important part of the economists utility function?

A categorical generalization (or stereotype) is that most social scientists and academics as a whole are liberal to different extents and do think they can make positive changes to the world. Ben Franklin told and showed us that we can be doing well by doing good.

 

So many economists probably have similar intentions. They do what they believe they are good at and faithfully hope that the invisible hand works (if they don't end up becoming Gregory Mankiw or Ben Bernanke).

 

Ram