What I thought a PhD was about

[JEL.L63]

When I first envitioned the dream of having a PhD one day, I had really wrong ideas about it. At first, I thought a PhD was a synonimous of erudition in economics. I believed that someone who had a PhD would have run trhough all the economic theory. But I was mistaken.

 

It really amaze me that it exists some people who have a PhD in economics and who have never read the wealth of Nations. Right now, a PhD in Economics looks more like an Applied Math PhD. Which is something that really annoys me.

 

Today, a PhD in economics is not about mastery of economic science but about mastery of statistics and mathematics, in respect to their applications to economic theory.

 

If I were a graduate dean, I wouldn't admit anyone without undergrad training in economics to persuit graduate studies. In my opinion the profession is too much full with frustrated mathematician and physist who, after they realized they wouldn't do anything worth in their field turned to economics to corrupt that beautiful science with their arcane mathematics.

 

I hate that. And I hate people who allows that.

 

PS: I also hate the people who erased my threrd about sex while in graduate school.

[Canuckonomist]

I understand your frustration (though having reading good portions of the wealth of nations, it is a really poorly written book, and therefore hard to read with pure enjoyment.)

 

One of my professors of financial economics always curses physicists who joining finance, because they usually don't understand the theory, and do the "applied math thing", messing up things in the process. A number of game theory people will tell you that the field has become really an exercise in mathematics, on little, sometimes relatively inconsequential excursions, that only a select few can understand.

 

That being said, the Ph.D nowadays IS about the mastery of the economic science, but we need mathematics and statistics to get at the deeper issues that we haven't been able to tackle before. Economics is not a discipline in the sense that it studies one particular facet of the world or humanity, it is the solution to who we are. We need to make use of techniques in other disciplines to understand who we are, and why we do what we do (hence the need for the neuroecon program at CalTech). If we were still communicating the way Adam Smith did with WoN, our proofs would be longer, more incomprehensible, and there would be much more hand-waiving than there is now.

 

I hate hand-waiving more that anything you've claimed hating in your post.

 

Canuck.

[econphilomath]

We need the math, but I agree we also need people to know there econ too. I guess a great economist will have both....

 

The good thing is, in your PhD you will have plenty of time to pick up the tools, if you have the stomach for a little hard work....

[unitroot]

I don't fully understand the OP's frustrations. There are plenty economists doing applied work in subjects that have strong real world relevance and content (see many outstanding researchers who work in applied micro or macroeconomics). Yes, the first year theory courses are all about math and models, but can study applied subjects following that. The first year coursework is about learning a collection of tools (not always even a coherent one), so not everyone likes it. How are you supposed to analyze real world phenomena without having a coherent framework and toolkit, which are also shared with everyone else in this profession? The economic theory courses are meant to ensure that everyone speaks the same language, that's compact and precise. In other subjects, like say political science two professors can write different books on the same subject. Then a third person, a graduate student, spends 5 years analyzing and contrasting their work. Another graduate student might spend a longer amount of work on the same subject and arrive at different conclusions. This sort of thing does not happen in economics. The math language makes the statement of models relatively short to state and precise. You can look at the model and quickly say "your conclussions suck". However, once everyone agrees to analyze the question based on those assumptions, the conclussions usually follow without too much disagreement. This is because our tools are precise enough so that once the assuptions are stated, usually there will be no disagreement regarding what follows from there. This is what I really like about economics, and I would prefer to keep it this way. People who don't like to follow this approach can pursue a degree in a number of other social sciences.

 

PS: I liked the sex and economics thread.

[hawk30]

When I first envitioned the dream of having a PhD one day, I had really wrong ideas about it. At first, I thought a PhD was a synonimous of erudition in economics. I believed that someone who had a PhD would have run trhough all the economic theory. But I was mistaken.

 

It really amaze me that it exists some people who have a PhD in economics and who have never read the wealth of Nations. Right now, a PhD in Economics looks more like an Applied Math PhD. Which is something that really annoys me.

 

Today, a PhD in economics is not about mastery of economic science but about mastery of statistics and mathematics, in respect to their applications to economic theory.

 

If I were a graduate dean, I wouldn't admit anyone without undergrad training in economics to persuit graduate studies. In my opinion the profession is too much full with frustrated mathematician and physist who, after they realized they wouldn't do anything worth in their field turned to economics to corrupt that beautiful science with their arcane mathematics.

 

I hate that. And I hate people who allows that.

 

PS: I also hate the people who erased my threrd about sex while in graduate school.

Persevere. Fight the good fight.

 

And I strongly recommend you read McCloskey's How to be Human, though an Economist.

[Golden Rule]

Today, a PhD in economics is not about mastery of economic science but about mastery of statistics and mathematics, in respect to their applications to economic theory.

The primary goal of most every PhD program is to produce students who can produce quality original research. Math is the most convenient way to formalize this research.

 

I have yet to meet a PhD presenter who didn't have an interesting economic question to talk about.

 

If these mathematicians can come up with good answers to interesting questions, I don't have any problem listening to them.

[yayapants]

You hate too many things. Focus on what you want to do. If you hate the math then the PhD ain't for you. But that shouldn't stop you reading economic history.

 

On the otherhand, if you want a PhD for reading economic history, maybe a history PhD is what you want.

[filroz]

PS: I liked the sex and economics thread.

I liked it too. I am still looking forward to this year 1st year updates thread :D

[dzilla]

If you take a good look at the maths in papers on the research frontier in my field, macro, it is not really very advanced. Certainly very few math professors would view it as advanced, at about the level of a solid undergrad/master degree in maths.

 

In fields of finance where all the focus is on obtaining prices, the math level is generally a lot higher than when the focus is to understand the economics of financial markets.

 

I never got this criticism of maths in economics. English is not my native language, so to write publishable sociology papers i would need to invest a lot in my English language skills. To write publishable econ papers I need to invest time in my maths skills.

[notacolour]

I'm not sure what you're so angry about. The beauty of the whole thing is that you can find a program that's a good fit for you. Most overemphasize theory in my view, but that's okay, because I can go to a program that focuses on useful applications with a good theory base. Everyone's core is going to emphasize the kind of mathematical rigor that fills MWG, because that's what the field has become. I'm not sure how this makes it the refuge of failed mathematicians, though...

 

Some programs offer an entire field in the history of economic thought, so that you can spend all the time you want reading Adam Smith and feeling like that gives you a superior understanding of economics. But that's a choice you have to make; I don't think it's reasonable to wish to impose on all programs your views of what the field should be.

 

And no PhD program is purely about erudition. The point is always to train competent economists/physicists/psychologists, whatever--which sometimes coincides with general learning, and sometimes coincides with getting you to finish the freaking dissertation so that you can get out the door and get a job. By all means, make of it what you wish while you're there!

[JEL.L63]

Hi guys:

 

Thanks for all your replies. You'll see, The fact is not that I undervalue or subestimate the applications of math to Economic Theory, the fact is that I hate the overestimation of Math over literal (argumentative) economics. People Just do not care for really understanding the philosophical foundations of economics before Marshall. They seems that the only thing that matter is the mathematicall stuff developed afterwards.

 

And what I hate is that, in some programs, the academic structure is setup to reinforce that belief by giving an exagerated focus on mathematical methods and practically relegating non-mathematical approaches.

 

And, as you might agree with me, mathematical methods are not perfect. Especifically, qualitative factors of economic reality are imposible to reflect in a mathematical setting.

 

Even the most elegants of mathematical models relies on constant (Ceteris Paribus) assumptions. And this assumptions are not allways true in real life. What I mean is that Mathematics is not a suitable way to modelize social behavior. It is perfect for Natural and Mechanical behavior where the presence of constant make posible to modelize over them. But there is not such a thing like the gravity constant that we have in phisics, in economics.

 

But, in spite of this true, many programs ignore it, and put al the emphasis in the mathematical aspecto of economics. Like if it were the more (or the only) suitable way of analyzing social reality.

 

Many mainstrem economist critic Sociology or antropology for not using the strong mathematical technics of economics. But at least the other social scientist do no give recomendations on things that really do not hold true in the social reality. And that are based on asumptions which many times, do not hold true in the real life.

[jeeves0923]

To suggest that sociologists or anthropologists work is free from unrealistic assumptions is far from the truth. Quite the opposite.

 

I see a lot of work within sociology that use terribly specified empirical models that violate every assumption in the book. Then, to boot, they draw conclusions that don't follow even if their models are correct. Then there are policy proposals to go along with it. I'm interested in education policy, so I see from psychology, sociology, and economics articles that go after the same kinds of problems.

 

All policy fields are guilty of making unrealistic assumptions. ALL OF THEM. I think Economists at least come out and say "these are the assumptions" and you decide whether they hold true. The heavy math gives plausible models to explain some of that statistical information instead of just saying "It's clearly because of X because it shows statistical significance" when the data is bogus to begin with...

[notacolour]

I still don't understand what your point is. It turns out that a PhD in economics is not a PhD in the history of economic thought? You're annoyed that the techniques of economics make different assumptions from those of other fields?

 

I seem to get the impression that you're arguing one or both of those; in that case, you can always get a PhD in another social science, or go somewhere that allows you to focus on the history of economic thought.

[batmanisafatman]

I find it rather illuminating that many on the board cannot understand the spirit of the OP's complaint.

 

It is my modest opinion that JEL.L63 is concerned that some programs act as though "the only thing that matter is the mathematicall stuff developed afterwards." (in reference to Marshal) and that this mindset and emphasis on mathematics can lead away from some important questions/outcomes concerning the field of economics as well as its models (and use of them)... especially as many seem to (mis)take the models for truth/reality. (ie this behaivor/result is an exception to the economic rule rather than an admission that an economic rule might be fallible or problematic under certain constraints).

 

The grounds for this criticism, which albeit can be applied to other academic fields to differing degrees, seems to be very entrenched in how many view the field of economics.

[JEL.L63]

I find it rather illuminating that many on the board cannot understand the spirit of the OP's complaint.

 

It is my modest opinion that JEL.L63 is concerned that some programs act as though "the only thing that matter is the mathematicall stuff developed afterwards." (in reference to Marshal) and that this mindset and emphasis on mathematics can lead away from some important questions/outcomes concerning the field of economics as well as its models (and use of them)... especially as many seem to (mis)take the models for truth/reality. (ie this behaivor/result is an exception to the economic rule rather than an admission that an economic rule might be fallible or problematic under certain constraints).

 

The grounds for this criticism, which albeit can be applied to other academic fields to differing degrees, seems to be very entrenched in how many view the field of economics.

 

Amen Brother!!! You really Understand me! this is what I mean. The Enlightened has written!

[jeeves0923]

I don't know of any economist who thinks the only thing that matters is the mathematical stuff. The math is a tool that is sometimes useful in the process of answering interesting questions...

 

Maybe you are frustrated with how PhD programs want their students to be able to speak fluently in the mathematical language? Well, what can it hurt to know the math? In economics if you can do the math, you may choose not to use it so much in your research. But if you can't do the math, you can't choose to use it in your research.

 

If your concern really is as batman says, then I don't know where you are finding all of these economists who think the only thing that matters is math.

[batmanisafatman]

I don't know of any economist who thinks the only thing that matters is the mathematical stuff. The math is a tool that is sometimes useful in the process of answering interesting questions...

 

Maybe you are frustrated with how PhD programs want their students to be able to speak fluently in the mathematical language? Well, what can it hurt to know the math? In economics if you can do the math, you may choose not to use it so much in your research. But if you can't do the math, you can't choose to use it in your research.

 

If your concern really is as batman says, then I don't know where you are finding all of these economists who think the only thing that matters is math.

 

Math is a tool, but not a perfect or exclusive one. What can hurt is when either math is viewed as the perfect or exclusive tool of economists; or when math's limitations are only tacitly or placatingly acknowledged, while the full extent of the mathematical model's inadequacies are not understood adequately.

 

An overemphasis on Mathematical Economics can indirectly lead to a lack of questioning certain mathematical and philosophical assumptions, as well as an over reliance on the relationship between mathematical economics and the "real".

 

The problem is that an overemphasis on the validity of Mathematical modeling and its scientific nature, can lead to this way of thinking, not that economists necessarily think this way exclusively. Notice how big breakthroughs in theory come from questioning assumptions rather than expanding existing models.

 

In short, the Mathematical language is not problem, its the approach to teaching this language that may cause problems.

 

I could keep talking... but I gotta go to the supermarket...

[bscout]

Look at this post by Arnold Kling:

 

Graduate macro is even worse. Have the courses that use representative-agent models solving Euler equations been abolished? Have the professors teaching those courses been fired? Why not?

I have always thought that the issue of the relationship between financial markets and the "real economy" was really deep. I thought that it was a critical part of macroeconomic theory that was poorly developed. But the economics profession for the past thirty years instead focused on producing stochastic calculus porn to satisfy young men's urge for mathematical masturbation.

I hope that, despite some of the words used, this does not get censured by any moderator.

 

 

I do not agree with the text, however it is a funny way of showing a different position. :)

[Mr.Keen]

I have a rather economics-intensive background, rather than a mathematics one, and right now I'm wishing my first micro course here at Chicago had a little bit more math and less intuition, :S.

 

I find the economics part much more difficult than the math. Paraphrasing Tom Sargent: "once you know how to set up your economic model, the rest is just math".

[darcie]

the wealth of Nations, who ever read it

[Bored]

The Rhetoric of Economics by Donald (Dierdre) N. McCloskey:

The Rhetoric of Economics

[boldwolf]

 

I do not agree with the text, however it is a funny way of showing a different position. :)

 

This looks like a post I saw on marginalrevolution :D

 

Quote:

 

The truth is that most of economics is a wasteland of boring papers on profoundly uninteresting questions intentionally complicated by largely meaningless and masturbatory statistical minutiae.

 

 

I think what we tend to forget is that math is just a language. Its logical discipline keeps as in check. Intuition tells us where to go and hard logic(of which there is no better than math) completes it. Literal arguments are not concise and complete enough. As for the complaints about some people seeing the models as the ends well I'm yet to hear or meet such people. I always hear of some invisible 'evil' economists who think the models tell all there is about the world, but where are they...Of course there are mathematicians clothed in economics, but should we curtail their work? Some economists write their math-filled papers but they dont tell anyone that hey this is the world. It is a science in development. We are trying to understand the world and ourselves using whatever tools available. The quants, and their managers, on Wall street knew the limits of their models but if they still bet billions on beyond what the models told(aided by a worldwide mania), then whose fault is it?

 

And I think that human behavior is quantifiable. Pehraps we are not smart enough, or we may never be smart enough. But that doesnt mean we should stop trying and say well human behavior is too complex, so let's keep waving our hands. We say something is random when he don't fully understand it. But "The truth is out there".

 

I wonder if Adam Smith is the Jesus Christ of economics and the Wealth of Nations his gospel that all pastors(economics PhDs) should read it.(No disrespect to Smith or the Wealth of Nations). I also wonder how many physicists have read Newton's Prinicipia.

 

If there are some people there ready to bore their eyes through some topomeasuregraphanalyis decision theory why should we stop them? Who knows what may come out of it. Maybe the reductionist methodology of economics(done to make the math and intuition easier) is what leaves things out. As for literal argument economics I think there are enough heterodox programs out there doing it. Adam Smith's Invisible hand has provided something for everybody.

 

I also wish there were more frustrated mathematicians/physicists like Nash, Vernon Smith and Engle. My :2cents:.

[hawk30]

The Rhetoric of Economics by Donald (Dierdre) N. McCloskey:

The Rhetoric of Economics

Quoted for truth.

[Golden Rule]

A few thoughts:

 

--Math is not the problem. Try to find for me an argument in prose that couldn't be expressed in some sort of mathematical model. It's just a language for clearly stating what your assumptions are. A lot of times people who don't like math don't lke it because it might expose the triviality or weakness of their arguments, or because they don't want to learn the math.

 

And I do feel the profession values models that have the property when you look at the key equations, you can translate them back into words that still make sense. Of course models satisfy this to varying degrees, but the better ones stand the test of time (as I said in another thread, this is largely why Krugman has a solo Nobel Prize this year).

 

--That a model does not satisfy reality is not a valid criticism. If a model is realistic, it's not a good model, because reality is far too complicated. A good model is the simplest possible explanation for something. Empirical work generally tests whether the prediction's of this simplified view of the world hold true.

 

--What seems to be the OP's main concern is the lack of policy training in Economics PhD programs. The problem is economic science is very rigorous and progresses very slowly. With policy work, you need to make a decision faster than the science can move. You need to decide what to do with the interest rates every six weeks, and you don't have time to model, construct randomized experiments, to evaluate every possible contingency -- you need to decide where the interest rates move every six weeks, what tax policy to set right now, etc, etc. Thus, policy work by necessity is going to be less rigorous.

 

But does that mean that economic science should be less rigorous? I don't think so. It's much easier to write a less rigorous paper than a rigorous one, and journals already have more than enough rigorous papers to choose from.

 

A more valid question is whether economists going into policy work should receive more policy training. It seems like more of this training tends to happen on the job. There are exceptions -- Michigan for instance has a joint policy/econ program where policy seminars, a few policy courses, and a policy paper are required. Columbia has a Sustainable Development PhD in which students take the econ core. I don't know if there are any similar programs, and maybe others can comment on them or how valuable the ones I mentioned are.

 

My impression is it's hard to really teach general results on applying economic science to policy work. But it would be good if students did some readings describing how an economist performed in a policy position, what models they had in mind when they made a decision, why they thought some models where better fits than others. But it seems rare that any kind of policy course is offered at the PhD level.

 

Another impression I have is that a lot of economists in policy positions end up making decisions based on ideology just like everyone else. Of course, that is the problem with lack of rigor -- you can justify pretty much whatever position you want. I like my economic science just fine now without arguments based mainly on flowery prose. Thanks but no thanks.

 

--Final point, what I really enjoy about being a graduate student in economics is that it does require you to make use of your skills in so many diffeent areas. While first year is heavy on the math, later years require you to be able to do everything really. You need the math and perhaps programming, but you also need good communication and presentation skills. It's intellectually challenging in every way, and I'm happy I'm here.

[hawk30]

A few thoughts:

 

--Math is not the problem. Try to find for me an argument in prose that couldn't be expressed in some sort of mathematical model. It's just a language for clearly stating what your assumptions are. A lot of times people who don't like math don't lke it because it might expose the triviality or weakness of their arguments, or because they don't want to learn the math.

 

And I do feel the profession values models that have the property when you look at the key equations, you can translate them back into words that still make sense. Of course models satisfy this to varying degrees, but the better ones stand the test of time (as I said in another thread, this is largely why Krugman has a solo Nobel Prize this year).

 

--That a model does not satisfy reality is not a valid criticism. If a model is realistic, it's not a good model, because reality is far too complicated. A good model is the simplest possible explanation for something. Empirical work generally tests whether the prediction's of this simplified view of the world hold true.

 

--What seems to be the OP's main concern is the lack of policy training in Economics PhD programs. The problem is economic science is very rigorous and progresses very slowly. With policy work, you need to make a decision faster than the science can move. You need to decide what to do with the interest rates every six weeks, and you don't have time to model, construct randomized experiments, to evaluate every possible contingency -- you need to decide where the interest rates move every six weeks, what tax policy to set right now, etc, etc. Thus, policy work by necessity is going to be less rigorous.

 

But does that mean that economic science should be less rigorous? I don't think so. It's much easier to write a less rigorous paper than a rigorous one, and journals already have more than enough rigorous papers to choose from.

 

A more valid question is whether economists going into policy work should receive more policy training. It seems like more of this training tends to happen on the job. There are exceptions -- Michigan for instance has a joint policy/econ program where policy seminars, a few policy courses, and a policy paper are required. Columbia has a Sustainable Development PhD in which students take the econ core. I don't know if there are any similar programs, and maybe others can comment on them or how valuable the ones I mentioned are.

 

My impression is it's hard to really teach general results on applying economic science to policy work. But it would be good if students did some readings describing how an economist performed in a policy position, what models they had in mind when they made a decision, why they thought some models where better fits than others. But it seems rare that any kind of policy course is offered at the PhD level.

 

Another impression I have is that a lot of economists in policy positions end up making decisions based on ideology just like everyone else. Of course, that is the problem with lack of rigor -- you can justify pretty much whatever position you want. I like my economic science just fine now without arguments based mainly on flowery prose. Thanks but no thanks.

 

--Final point, what I really enjoy about being a graduate student in economics is that it does require you to make use of your skills in so many diffeent areas. While first year is heavy on the math, later years require you to be able to do everything really. You need the math and perhaps programming, but you also need good communication and presentation skills. It's intellectually challenging in every way, and I'm happy I'm here.

For such a strong admirer of rigor you're really adept at executing the straw man fallacy.