Career as an academic economist!

[DismalScientist]

Hello fellow TMagicians,

I am a test magician who decided a while ago that I really am interested in a career as an academic economist. As I purue this dream, one thing that worries me the most is the prospect of employment in the U.S. (I am an international) after graduation.
First, I am not really sure which school I will end up at. It could be top 100 or even in the top 200 - 300. I am just sure that it will be on the econphd.net rankings. I know many people here think that graduating from a school outside top 50 is a big risk. I just wanted to know how people define this risk. Is it in terms of getting a job as a professor anywhere or it it interms of salary prospects. If it really is a risk as people say, I hear that 900 econ Ph.D.s make it into the job market each year. Where do these people go? Please feel free to comment on any of these questions. It will be hugely appreciated.

~DismalScientist

[Zavera]

Usually people in top departments get the better jobs, or jobs period because they work under a prof whom everyone knows and can trust. Basically, that prof will then be like "This kid = good. You hire now cuz I r famous"

Sometimes top departments actually hurt a student because the prof might be like "Pfft, your meager existence is hardly worth my research time. Go find a job yourself."

Lower departments can place well, but will have a harder time because a lot of it is connections. Although, they will work hard to get you employed. My undergrad inst worked real hard to get its grad students work, but didn't always succeed

[DismalScientist]

I guess part of my question was...how does it actually turn out for those 900 economists. I about 2.0 percent will be unemployed in the short run according to the statistics. But in the long-run, what percentage of these guys succeed in securing some type of job in the U.S.? Of course, I am just looking for someone to take an informed guess.

[Zavera]

My director told me it was pretty harsh. Even when you become a prof you have to worry about being published, which can be hard because of tastes of preferences of the reviewers, the randomness of inspiration, the faculty you are with, and the quality of your competitors.

Usually they end up with some other job though, so it isn't too bad. The government usually rounds up what is left and takes good care of them.

[jukis]

yes, its got to be top 50 or close. If its a really low ranked prog (such deps don't even have ads on their WWWs titled 'job market candidates')so this is one strong indication of what to expect coming out of such progs. If you want a career in academia or solid research institute, it at least needs to be top 50, better top 25-30.

Otherwise, your chances are really slim to none (unless you do some ground breaking research--and consider this, so much has already been written in econ, there are diminishing returns to scale--in other words, its tough to do such research)so your chances are slim to get a job at a major research university or solid research institute. If you aren't gonna do hardcore research then why bother with earning a phd. YOu don't need that for teaching or policy work.

[jukis]

yes, its got to be top 50 or close. If its a really low ranked prog (such deps don't even have ads on their WWWs titled 'job market candidates')so this is one strong indication of what to expect coming out of such progs. If you want a career in academia or solid research institute, it at least needs to be top 50, better top 25-30.

Otherwise, your chances are really slim to none (unless you do some ground breaking research--and consider this, so much has already been written in econ, there are diminishing returns to scale--in other words, its tough to do such research)so your chances are slim to get a job at a major research university or solid research institute. If you aren't gonna do hardcore research then why bother with earning a phd. YOu don't need that for teaching or policy work.

[Markos]

DismalScientist, I think Zavera and Jukis are a little too pessimistic. Sure you won't end up at a top schoo like Harvard and Yale. You may not even end up at a decent research institution. But there are lots of schools in the U.S. that hire Ph.D. economists who are even from a very low ranked university. I personally know two guys who graduated from a university ranked 250 - 300 on the econphd rankings and got jobs at "ordinary" universities (another two who graduated from the same university ended up at Tilburg and Manchester). They did, however, mention that their school produced mostly teachers than researchers. In fact, such low ranked schools emphasise teaching (as evidenced by the type of aid) that you may have advantage over graduates of mid-ranked universities as far as teaching experience. Lastly, it may take a while to get your first job, but once you get your first job, your career is mostly in your hands.

[jukis]

Markos, but then why do you need a phd if you want to teach undergrads in the first place? that material would be completely irrelevant.

So I personally wouldn't pursue a phd if I wanted to teach undergrads at a college or tutor at community colleges; at least not for academic purposes; but if you just love a campus environment and find academic cocoon appealing, then its possible. But...what about money....what about opportunity costs? Its still gonna take a good 5-year period.

[Markos]

Jukis, first of all, a Ph.D. is a requirement if one intends to teach undergrads at a 4-year univeristy. Secondly, I don't believe that people produce "ground breaking research" because they go to a top 50 school, but because they are bright. It is not only the case that higher ranked universities accept brighter people, but it also the case that brighter people feel they have to attend these universities if they want to be taken seriously. True that there are more opportunities (resources) at higher ranked universities. However, I don't think that one has to attend one of these universities to be a productive researcher. How many people out there who didn't graduate from a top 10 school really produce research that actually pushes the research frontier in economics. Your point is almost equivalent to saying that if one doesn't win the nobel prize in economics, then he/she shouldn't bother with a phd.
As far as money issues and opportunity costs, I ask myself about the marginal utility of joining the industry right now instead of purusing a Ph.d. and it is very close to zero. The opportunity cost of doing a Ph.D. could be thousands of dollars, but the opportunity cost of those dollars is much higher that will stay with me in the long-run. I love econ and I love writing and doing research. I also enjoy teaching. I think that is good enough reason

[jukis]

Markos, I didn't say ppl produce ground breaking research when they go to top 50. I said you have no chance of teaching at Harvard if you come out of Clemson unless you have produced some ground breaking research; that's the only caveat as I see it for you to achieve a position at a far higher ranked university than the school where you earned a ph.d. (edit: to OP: when I said top 50, I meant US top 50, not world wide). Regarding being able to teach undergrads at universities requiring a phd, this is only the case if departments also support research at least at the masters level. For example, you can even teach at Williams College (top liberal arts college that also has a development masters prog in econ; 4-year) w/o a phd; you however might have a senior teacher's or lecturer's status in the begining. But if you teach well and get good evaluations from undergrads your workload and coresspondingly your status will go up. Obviously, if you love doing research then a ph.d. is your cup of tea, but that's the only justification for wanting it, as I see it. It's not necessary for teaching; its extreneous to teaching. Ph.d=Hardcore research.