Review of Colander's "Making of an Economist: Redux"

[savingtheplanet]

Arnold Kling over at Econlog reviews David Colander's "Making of an Economist: Redux", with excerpts.

Useful reading for us all.

cheers,
SavingThePlanet

[EconCandidate]

This was interesting. I read the original book and am looking forward to reading the updated version.

[econphilomath]

It was kind of depressing if you ask me. I see no inmenent change in the trends described. It could be that in the future even the applied economics will know their euler equations, hamiltonias etc.

[Skipper]

I bought the book last week, and was disappointed. 90% of the book could have been summarized in a 2-page chart. Much space was wasted describing survey results. There are also tons of interviews with grad students that I didn't find particularly illuminating.

[savingtheplanet]

I bought the book last week, and was disappointed. 90% of the book could have been summarized in a 2-page chart. Much space was wasted describing survey results. There are also tons of interviews with grad students that I didn't find particularly illuminating.

Good to know. Thanks.

[Skipper]

I do think the book would be useful for students who attend one of the schools profiled.

However, I don't think there was enough material to justify a book. It seemed like a journal article that was stretched into book form.

I was hoping to find more of an indepth account of what grad school is like, sort of like "One L" is for law school.

[polkaparty]

I enjoyed the second edition, although given that I also read the first edition, it didn’t provide much new information. Both the first and second edition books are indeed follow ups to journal articles. The follow up survey was published in the winter 2005 JEP. So the summary Skipper desires is already available in that article.

The main point of this book (both editions) was to publish the interviews. I think it’s quite interesting that Skipper found these unhelpful. This is anecdotal evidence supporting Colander’s argument that current graduate students know what they are getting into. When the first edition was published (1990), many students apparently thought graduate school would be just like their undergraduate studies. Since then applicants have become much better informed (with the great help of this message board no doubt).

Furthermore, one goal of this book was to provide a comparison dataset for the first edition and look for changes. Hence, reading the first edition will make reading the second more enlightening.

Also, a primary theme in Colander’s work is methodology and the structure of graduate economics education. If you’re interested in these topics, this book also has some interesting commentary.

I suggest reading both editions, which can easily be done in one night, even for a slow reader like myself.

[asquare]

Which schools are profiled?

[Skipper]

Which schools are profiled?

Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, and Columbia

[Skipper]

The main point of this book (both editions) was to publish the interviews. I think it’s quite interesting that Skipper found these unhelpful. This is anecdotal evidence supporting Colander’s argument that current graduate students know what they are getting into.

The interviews were OK, but they weren't very indepth. I guess the bottom line is that I was hoping the book would provide an insider's view on what econ programs are like, which maybe wasn't the author's purpose.