PhD Economics Alternatives?

[billyshears]

I am interested in doing applied micro work but not really sure of a focus beyond that (depending on the day I am interested in IO, public econ, political econ, labor econ, development, consumer choice etc). I know you can do applied work (albeit in different fields) by doing a PhD in Economics, PhD in Business Economics, PhD in Quant Marketing, PhD in Ag Econ and PhD in Public Policy.

Comparing these types of programs (say top 25):
How competitive are admissions for each? Funding?
What are the career prospects: Academia vs Private Sector?

Also, are there any other programs to look in to?

[evergreen]

PhD programs in Quant Marketing tend to be top heavy, that is most of the schools that have large(r) quant marketing programs tend to be the top schools. Also as part of the business school, the funding for quant marketing tends to be quite generous (compared to other disciplines). Career wise in academia, quant marketing gets paid the highest on average (check out the who went where surveys on docsig DocSIG - Who Went Where and Salary Surveys) compared to the other 2 marketing disciplines (CB, strategy). In terms of competitiveness to get in... well like anything else the top schools will be difficult to get in. Also marketing PhD programs tend to accept only a few students per year (the top schools will take around 5, the lower ranked schools maybe 1-2), so that will boost up competitiveness of admissions. Plus people going into Quant Marketing will not only come from Economics but also Engineering, and other Quant-related fields.

[OneArmedEcon]

If you go the Public Policy route, I think that a MPA/MPP is a considerably better investment than a PhD once you factor in opportunity costs.

[Nonsequitur]

If you go the Public Policy route, I think that a MPA/MPP is a considerably better investment than a PhD once you factor in opportunity costs.

Mmm, that would be an interesting question to debate at length. The Econ PhD will open doors for you that an MPA/MPP won't. If you're looking for some of the heavier duty public policy jobs in think tanks or places like the CBO, OMB, etc., the PhD will do very well by you. Otoh, as you say, the opportunity cost is non-trivial though it may look more trivial at age 50 than it did at age 30.

I suppose it comes down to exactly where & what you want to be doing in public policy. Fwiw, Econ History, often looked down upon, is a useful field to have in your repertoire paired with Public if you're interested in Public Policy.

[OneArmedEcon]

The thing is, I think that if you want to rise to the top levels in places like that (contract research firms or public agencies), you're better off with a doctorate in a pure discipline (like economics). Interdisciplinary doctorates (which of course what Public Policy ones are) by their very nature very broad, while the purpose of a doctorate is highly specialized training. My impression is that nearly all prospective employers looking to hire a PhD do so because they need that highly specialized skill set, so I think "pure" disciplinarians tend to have an edge, particularly when it comes to getting the first job out of grad school. Ceteris paribus, they also will command higher salaries (well economists do; political scientists not so much) given the broader set of job opportunities.

Let's assume that a MPA/MPP takes 1.5 years to complete full-time (if one takes three courses a semester plus a course in the summer) while a PhD takes 5 years to complete. That's 3.5 years of foregone earnings, which represents a pretty substantial opportunity cost. Even if we assume that the Masters wouldn't be funded but the PhD would, a MPA/MPP plus 3.5 years work experience makes about the same as a PhD Public Policy right out of grad school. Consequently, I have a difficult time seeing how the return justifies the investment. Even if you make different assumptions (e.g., 2 years for the Masters and 4 years for the Doctorate), it seems like a stretch to be able to justify the human capital investment strictly in terms of increased earnings potential. While it opens up doors down the road, once you start discounting the future, it becomes more difficult for the future marginal earnings to justify the outlay of 2+ prime earning years. It's possible that someone will decide that the non-pecuniary benefits (e.g., a more interesting job) is worth the financial sacrifice, but those non-pecuniary benefits are pretty substantial. Particularly when you factor in that it's just expected value, so there's a chance that it will not open up additional doors in the future.

If you want to get a doctorate in order to work for a contract research firm or government agency, then you might be able to justify doing a PhD Econ; however, if you're considering Public Policy, then I am really skeptical that it's worth 2+ years of foregone earnings for the chance to obtain a more interesting and/or higher paying job down the road.

[Nonsequitur]

The thing is, I think that if you want to rise to the top levels in places like that (contract research firms or public agencies), you're better off with a doctorate in a pure discipline (like economics). Interdisciplinary doctorates (which of course what Public Policy ones are) by their very nature very broad, while the purpose of a doctorate is highly specialized training. My impression is that nearly all prospective employers looking to hire a PhD do so because they need that highly specialized skill set, so I think "pure" disciplinarians tend to have an edge, particularly when it comes to getting the first job out of grad school. Ceteris paribus, they also will command higher salaries (well economists do; political scientists not so much) given the broader set of job opportunities.

Let's assume that a MPA/MPP takes 1.5 years to complete full-time (if one takes three courses a semester plus a course in the summer) while a PhD takes 5 years to complete. That's 3.5 years of foregone earnings, which represents a pretty substantial opportunity cost. Even if we assume that the Masters wouldn't be funded but the PhD would, a MPA/MPP plus 3.5 years work experience makes about the same as a PhD Public Policy right out of grad school. Consequently, I have a difficult time seeing how the return justifies the investment. Even if you make different assumptions (e.g., 2 years for the Masters and 4 years for the Doctorate), it seems like a stretch to be able to justify the human capital investment strictly in terms of increased earnings potential. While it opens up doors down the road, once you start discounting the future, it becomes more difficult for the future marginal earnings to justify the outlay of 2+ prime earning years. It's possible that someone will decide that the non-pecuniary benefits (e.g., a more interesting job) is worth the financial sacrifice, but those non-pecuniary benefits are pretty substantial. Particularly when you factor in that it's just expected value, so there's a chance that it will not open up additional doors in the future.

If you want to get a doctorate in order to work for a contract research firm or government agency, then you might be able to justify doing a PhD Econ; however, if you're considering Public Policy, then I am really skeptical that it's worth 2+ years of foregone earnings for the chance to obtain a more interesting and/or higher paying job down the road.

Well argued. As an economist.

However, that's one of the weaknesses of Economics: often reducing choices to purely economic attributes. A sin going back all the way to Adam Smith.

I believe in the fuzzy, the chaotic, the paradoxical, and the idiosyncratic. For starters.