PhD worth it if pursuing non-academic career?

[Odysseus56]

Guys, as I wrote in my other thread, I am considering doing a PhD this year (applications already sent out, yay!), but am quite serious about pursuing a policy-related career (or perhaps even a policy-making career in the future).

 

So I am wondering what are the views of the people here on doing a PhD if someone definitely does not want to become a professor afterwards? How much exposure to policy can one get during their PhD's? Do the profs dislike having students that do not want to pursue an academic career afterwards?

[PhDPlease]

I think it depends on what particular policy jobs interest you. There are some policy job such as Economist at the Fed which would put to use some of the skills you'd gain in the PhD and would generally be considered a good placement. (Although the Fed is technically policy, many economists there publish at least occasionally in academic journals and academics frequently visit to give talks on their papers, so I'd consider it sort of quasi-academic.) If you are more interested in the sort of job that people with an MPA/MPP would do, then a PhD might not be the best path. Also I think some schools are more supportive of policy than others. I am under the impression that Michigan, for example, has a number of students with interest in policy (perhaps due to the strength of some policy-relevant fields such as public finance there?) and Maryland has a lot of policy connections probably due to its location.

[publicaffairsny]

As someone who is potentially interested in a think tank job at some point in the future, you have 3 options as I see it. Take your masters and get an entry level analyst job and work your way up. Get a phd and even if you're not interested in an academic career get a tenure track position, earn tenure, and make a contribution to your field. Or compete for a non-academic placement like a fed economist. If you want to be a policy expert you will need to develop credibility and being a successful professor and researcher is a fast track to doing that. I have also been told some phd graduates compete for placements at research firms directly when they go on the market. One of the most coveted is Mathematica.

[Kaysa]

So I am wondering what are the views of the people here on doing a PhD if someone definitely does not want to become a professor afterwards?

 

I think it is a great idea. There are many things that you can do as an economist in industry, think tanks, and government. My colleagues in non-academia cannot say enough about how much they enjoy their work, especially my colleagues in government.

 

How much exposure to policy can one get during their PhD's?

 

It depends on the program. Pure economic programs generally expose their students to little to no policy related work. I, for example, was exposed to none of the processes that go into constructing, developing, evaluating, and implementing policy. I know some programs, however, that have are integrated with their public or health policy schools, and those students can get excellent exposure to the policy process.

 

Do the profs dislike having students that do not want to pursue an academic career afterwards?

 

It varies with professor. In my graduate program, pursuing non-academic careers was heresy. I knew professors that would drop students once they found out that the student was not going to pursue academia. My department only had about 2 professors that were okay with their students wanting to work in non-academic environments.

 

I am not sure that earning a phd in economics is the best way to pursue a policy-related career. Economists, in my experience, tend to evaluate and study policies, whereas my colleagues in public and health policy are usually the ones that actually construct and write up policies. So, if your passion is to assess policy outcomes and study alternative pathways that could potentially contribute to policy outcomes, then a phd in economics is an excellent choice. If your goal is to actively write and develop policy, then I would suggest other avenues.

[Food4Thought]

I know of some PhDs who are now working as modelers at big banks. Their training in advanced econometrics is a necessary skill for what they do, and they seem to be enjoying it very much.

[dog]

Is it much more competitive to get a position as an economist at a policy research org (Mathematica, RAND) than it would be to get a tenure track position in academia?

[tm_member]

A PhD can help you have a great career in policy, but there's no need for the PhD to be in Economics. In fact, it's likely sub-optimal in many ways. I won't go into them.

 

Want to work in a big bank? Do a PhD in Finance.

Want to work at a think tank? Do a PhD in Public Policy, Applied Statistics, Applied Economics, or basically anything other than straight Econ.

Want to work in government? Consider Public Policy, Public Administration, Political Science, Sociology, etc.

 

People with an Econ PhD can do all those jobs, too, but it's primarily training for academia and you'll waste time, work much too hard, and probably have a worse outcome than doing a PhD better-designed for you goals.

[publicaffairsny]

A PhD can help you have a great career in policy, but there's no need for the PhD to be in Economics. In fact, it's likely sub-optimal in many ways. I won't go into them.

 

Want to work in a big bank? Do a PhD in Finance.

Want to work at a think tank? Do a PhD in Public Policy, Applied Statistics, Applied Economics, or basically anything other than straight Econ.

Want to work in government? Consider Public Policy, Public Administration, Political Science, Sociology, etc.

 

People with an Econ PhD can do all those jobs, too, but it's primarily training for academia and you'll waste time, work much too hard, and probably have a worse outcome than doing a PhD better-designed for you goals.

 

I've thought about this as I have a strong policy orientation and am currently doing a policy masters.

 

These are some of my reasons for preferring econ:

 

I already am very well versed in current events and have a lot of professional experience in my field of policy which is education. I also have spent the past few years writing policy papers on these subjects in my masters. I will apply to some policy programs, but policy is just applied econ and the coursework in both theory and methods is less rigorous than in an econ program. I feel like a lot of the policy curriculum will be less useful or duplicative for me: policy field courses normative theory research methods. I would rather maximize the limited time I have for coursework, only two years, in developing a rigorous understanding of economic theory and methods. I would be in the wrong place in a policy degree I feel.

Edited January 18, 2015 by publicaffairsny

[tm_member]

I've thought about this as I have a strong policy orientation and am currently doing a policy masters.

 

These are some of my reasons for preferring econ:

 

I already am very well versed in current events and have a lot of professional experience in my field of policy which is education. I also have spent the past few years writing policy papers on these subjects in my masters. I will apply to some policy programs, but policy is just applied econ and the coursework in both theory and methods is less rigorous than in an econ program. I feel like a lot of the policy curriculum will be less useful or duplicative for me: policy field courses normative theory research methods. I would rather maximize the limited time I have for coursework, only two years, in developing a rigorous understanding of economic theory and methods. I would be in the wrong place in a policy degree I feel.

 

Your intent is admirable but specialization is the key to academic success. If you already have a natural edge in the policy world, build on it. This is even more true if you intend to return to policy work.

 

Aside from that, I've said this many times to you and I'll say it again, you will most likely hate being in an Econ program! There's no need to be a martyr.

 

Post-Script: I disagree policy is just applied Econ, but I've been derailing too many threads lately!

[publicaffairsny]

One reason also is that I want to do a field in metrics. I don't want to have to ask an economist every time I want to use complex methods.

 

I'm a little weird because I love work the harder the better. I do love applied work but I would also love to be able to do theory when all is said and done. I am probably an unusual case.

 

Finally, we all have dream jobs like government think tank prof etc. But if you have to get a job crunching numbers at a bank some day who are they gonna hire? Probably the economist over the policy, pa or sociologist.

[TheTemp]

Post-Script: I disagree policy is just applied Econ, but I've been derailing too many threads lately!

 

Curious to hear more about your opinion on this. Care to do a bit more derailing? :)

[publicaffairsny]

Curious to hear more about your opinion on this. Care to do a bit more derailing? :)

 

When the discipline of public policy was founded at duke in the 1970's it was fundamentally based in applied economics. However some leading policy practitioners rejected this orientation and the corresponding rationalist (positive) school of policy analysis in favor of argumentative and other normative schools. Deborah Stone's book "Policy Paradox" describes these later schools of thought. Her book relies on a social constructionist conception of public policy issues which she believes makes positive analysis impossible. Newer schools of public policy attempt to bring in views from across the disciplines including political science, sociology, psychology and anything else you can think of and the coursework reflects this, though the core analytical courses will probably be based in applied economic theory.

Edited January 18, 2015 by publicaffairsny

[Blanket]

When the discipline of public policy was founded at duke in the 1970's it was fundamentally based in applied economics. However some leading policy practitioners rejected this orientation and the corresponding rationalist (positive) school of policy analysis in favor of argumentative and other normative schools. Deborah Stone's book "Policy Paradox" describes these later schools of thought. Her book relies on a social constructionist conception of public policy issues which she believes makes positive analysis impossible. Newer schools of public policy attempt to bring in views from across the disciplines including political science, sociology, psychology and anything else you can think of and the coursework reflects this, though the core analytical courses will probably be based in applied economic theory.

 

Can you point me towards elite, normative-esque public policy schools, please?

[tm_member]

One reason also is that I want to do a field in metrics. I don't want to have to ask an economist every time I want to use complex methods.

 

I'm a little weird because I love work the harder the better. I do love applied work but I would also love to be able to do theory when all is said and done. I am probably an unusual case.

 

Finally, we all have dream jobs like government think tank prof etc. But if you have to get a job crunching numbers at a bank some day who are they gonna hire? Probably the economist over the policy, pa or sociologist.

 

Hey man, I don't want to discourage you but you can't do theory, metrics, applied micro, and policy work. They are all different things and most PhD programs can train you well in at most two.

 

Just to clarify, when Economists say "theory" we mean abstract modeling of economic phenomena mainly in microeconomics. The papers tend to be titled "On the Strategic Stability of Equilibria” and "Hierarchies of conditional beliefs and interactive epistemology in dynamic games," etc.

 

On the other hand, a field in metrics involves statistical theory, e.g. a typical paper is "LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power". At the same time, applied micro is the field you want to do to learn how to use complex methods. Econometrics is about developing new and refining existing methods.

 

There's also a distinction between applied work and policy work. Applied work often focuses on testing theory or providing estimates of crucial variable, e.g. what is the elasticity of labor supply with respect to wages? What are the returns to an extra year of education? Policy work is a separate set but the intersection is reasonably large and examines questions like "what impact does the Americans with Disability Act have on disability claims?" or "how does the minimum wage alleviate poverty?"

 

It is impossible to be good at them all and very difficult to be able to master one, let alone two of them. Moreover, if you are truly interested in doing real policy-informing work, an Econ PhD will drive you nuts. It's all about methods and identification, no one cares about the findings or the ensuing policy conclusions. Your advisor doesn't want policy-makers to be the ones reading your work, they want it read by academics.

 

I know you want a challenge, but I think you are dismissing Public Policy PhDs prematurely. They will challenge you plenty and you'll enjoy it. An Econ PhD will challenge you and drive you up the wall.

[publicaffairsny]

I'm hoping to do one field in econometric theory and one field in public. Also a problem for me is I don't necessarily have my pick of either policy or econ programs. For me I think a mid ranked econ credential is more value than mid-ranked policy. What do you think? Edited January 18, 2015 by publicaffairsny

[publicaffairsny]

Harvard, Chicago, Pardee RAND, Duke, Michigan, Berkeley (Requires completion of their MPP) and UNC Chapel Hill. (response to Blanket on elite policy programs.)

[tm_member]

I'm hoping to do one field in econometric theory and one field in public. Also a problem for me is I don't necessarily have my pick of either policy or econ programs. For me I think a mid ranked econ credential is more value than mid-ranked policy. What do you think?

 

You really are an odd cookie. I'll just say that going on the job market with a field in econometrics would normally mean you had a paper developing a new technique/estimator and were using it for the empirical part of a public paper. Unless you are making a contribution to econometric theory your advisor will ask why you are doing metrics as a field.

[publicaffairsny]

You really are an odd cookie. I'll just say that going on the job market with a field in econometrics would normally mean you had a paper developing a new technique/estimator and were using it for the empirical part of a public paper. Unless you are making a contribution to econometric theory your advisor will ask why you are doing metrics as a field.

 

You know, my interests are fluid. Coming from a humanities undergrad background i entered the social sciences in a policy program, so the fields of research I've been exposed to are policy oriented. Yes this is enjoyable, but the more I learn about theory the more I'm interested in complex and academic applications than normative political ones. An economics program allows room for those interests to grow rather than locking me into a discipline like policy where my options are oriented towards political suasion.

[tm_member]

You know, my interests are fluid. Coming from a humanities undergrad background i entered the social sciences in a policy program, so the fields of research I've been exposed to are policy oriented. Yes this is enjoyable, but the more I learn about theory the more I'm interested in complex and academic applications than normative political ones. An economics program allows room for those interests to grow rather than locking me into a discipline like policy where my options are oriented towards political suasion.

 

Fair enough, but I'm fairly sure that you cannot have your cake and eat it. To go through a phd program successfully in straight econ will disabuse of many of your prior beliefs on how the world works and move you economically "to the right" in many ways. I've seen it happen over and over and over to people I know, and to myself. I take a special interest in your case as your posts could easily have been me 6 years ago.

[publicaffairsny]

Fair enough, but I'm fairly sure that you cannot have your cake and eat it. To go through a phd program successfully in straight econ will disabuse of many of your prior beliefs on how the world works and move you economically "to the right" in many ways. I've seen it happen over and over and over to people I know, and to myself. I take a special interest in your case as your posts could easily have been me 6 years ago.

 

I know. I was at a political event today and when the lt. governor announced this years anti-poverty campaign I cringed when she said ny is raising the minimum wage to 10.10 highest in the nation and everyone applauded.

Edited January 19, 2015 by publicaffairsny

[PhDPlease]

I agree that there are a number of policy jobs where a PhD in econ (rather than policy) will be either necessary or quite helpful in getting the job and advancing/avoiding the glass ceiling within the career path. A few examples that come to mind are Fed economist, some positions at the FTC, and certain positions (not ALL though) within the World Bank. Those are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head. For anyone who is considering a career in policy and has not already done so, I would definitely recommend thinking more about specifically what within policy you envision yourself doing. "Policy" is a pretty broad field. I don't think you can say someone is "right" or "wrong" for pursuing a PhD in econ with an end goal in policy without knowing more details about what within policy they want to do. Personally I have known a number of people in policy with econ PhDs and a number with policy degrees and they were all fairly happy (although the opportunities available to each group seemed somewhat different). There are definitely some policy careers where a PhD in econ will open doors that a policy degree wouldn't, but there are also many where the PhD in econ is overkill or wouldn't provide the right skillset (for example if it is a job where knowledge of politics or foreign affairs or culture or history is much more important than economic/econometric modelling).

[publicaffairsny]

My mentor thinks that the idea of a policy phd succeeding in econometric theory is implausible and would represent a mismatch between the training received and the goals of the researcher. But what do you think about the prospects of a policy phd working in the field of micro theory?

 

I think it should be possible, especially in today's day and age where doctoral programs in public policy are becoming more common. If a political scientist such as Elinor Ostrom can be accepted as an economic theorist, then a phd in public policy, someone who is trained in economic methods to a greater extent than a political scientist, should also be able to contribute new ways for economists to analyze phenomena.

 

Any thoughts?

[Catrina]

My mentor thinks that the idea of a policy phd succeeding in econometric theory is implausible and would represent a mismatch between the training received and the goals of the researcher. But what do you think about the prospects of a policy phd working in the field of micro theory?

 

I think it should be possible, especially in today's day and age where doctoral programs in public policy are becoming more common. If a political scientist such as Elinor Ostrom can be accepted as an economic theorist, then a phd in public policy, someone who is trained in economic methods to a greater extent than a political scientist, should also be able to contribute new ways for economists to analyze phenomena.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think the mismatch would be even larger in this case. Have you read any recent micro theory? If nothing else, very few public policy PhDs would have the math background to even begin to understand what is currently being done in the field.

[publicaffairsny]

I think the mismatch would be even larger in this case. Have you read any recent micro theory? If nothing else, very few public policy PhDs would have the math background to even begin to understand what is currently being done in the field.

 

Would you not consider elinor ostrom a micro theorist? I have read some micro theory articles that are gibberish to me at my current level of preparation. But I don't think that kind of incremental proof based development on existing ideas has to be the only way to advance theory. Occam's razor suggests a really revolutionary theoretical idea shouldn't require complex math, and the ideas ostrom put forward, while based in years of quantitative and empirical research and collaboration, ultimately are best expressed in words rather than numbers.

[fakeo]

My mentor thinks that the idea of a policy phd succeeding in econometric theory is implausible and would represent a mismatch between the training received and the goals of the researcher. But what do you think about the prospects of a policy phd working in the field of micro theory?

 

I guess some people may disagree but my view is that micro theory and econometric theory have very little to do with the real world, let alone public policy. So policy+econ theory seems like a very weird combination. If you're interested in policy, the best is to specialize in applied metrics. And beyond that, you can do some applied theory, e.g. small toy models that drive intuition or larger computable models for a more thorough policy analysis. But this is not considered micro theory (especially the latter, which is actually macro). Also, I have absolutely no idea how doing econometric theory could have anything to do with policy.

 

I don't know policy PhDs, but from what I've read here my impression is that if you do one of those, you'd be constrained to do only the applied metrics part of what I mentioned above. If you do an econ PhD, you'd have a chance at doing some applied theory, which once again has not much to do with micro theory and absolutely nothing to do with econometric theory.

 

I think most econ students have gone through a phase when they wanted to be a micro theorist. Don't worry... It'll pass.