Letters of Recommendation from Non-Economists?

[loudandclear]

Until a few weeks ago, I had been planning on getting my PhD in political science, but I've recently decided to look really hard at Econ programs. While I am a double major in Political Science and Econ, all of my research experience is in poli sci. At some level, I don't think this should matter; for one professor I built a foreign aid database and conducted data analysis, for the other we developed new estimators and designed monte carlo studies. Regressions are regressions, right? At the same time, I worry that this might be discounted. Further, I need three letters, and I only know one Econ professor well enough to get a solid letter. How bad would it be to have two letters come from poli sci faculty, particularly if the subject matter of the research is mostly economic in nature (foreign aid and development) and one of the two professors is essentially an econometrician? I am certain these would be glowing letters, but how much will they be discounted?

The economist is young in his career, but seems to be fairly well known and is publishing in top journals.

I'm not too concerned about getting into a top 5 program; I think I'm shooting more for the 10-20 range. My GPA is 3.88 and my GREs are 780Q 720 V. I've taken Calc I, II, linear algebra, and multivariable calculus (4.0 math GPA), and I'll have taken real analysis and differential equations before I start the program, although these won't show up on my applications.

Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Bayern]

This post might help you a bit

http://www.urch.com/forums/phd-econo...sequences.html

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by loudandclear

I'm not too concerned about getting into a top 5 program; I think I'm shooting more for the 10-20 range. My GPA is 3.88 and my GREs are 780Q 720 V. I've taken Calc I, II, linear algebra, and multivariable calculus (4.0 math GPA), and I'll have taken real analysis and differential equations before I start the program, although these won't show up on my applications.

IMHO, it seems like it will be difficult to get into an econ program ranked between 10 - 20 with 2 political science LORs. I mean, it's going to be difficult enough competing with people who would have already taken real analysis, differential equations, etc (and excelled in them). My understanding is that the 10 - 20 range is very very competitive. These students will also have glowing LORs from econ profs. The thing thats unfortunate is that it is difficult for political science profs to evaluate your ability to succeed in a Econ PhD program. I think you'll be able to get into some programs, but you're probably better off aiming for the 30 - 50 range (with a few reaches between 15 - 30 and a few safeties between 50 - 75). By the way, if you want to specialize in political economy in grad school then maybe the 2 LORs won't be as big of a deal, but then again I don't really know much about this.

[kartelite]

While poli sci profs may not have had to go through an econ phd program themselves, I'm sure they are familiar with the demands such programs require. Statistics and game theory play big roles in poli sci. I didn't have any economists write letter of reference's and got a few admits in the 10-30 range, and honestly I think economics is in more need of "thinkers" than "mathematicians," so your varied background should be an asset, especially as you seem to have a pretty good analytical foundation as well.

[IntEcon80]

Originally Posted by kartelite

While poli sci profs may not have had to go through an econ phd program themselves, I'm sure they are familiar with the demands such programs require. Statistics and game theory play big roles in poli sci. I didn't have any economists write letter of reference's and got a few admits in the 10-30 range, and honestly I think economics is in more need of "thinkers" than "mathematicians," so your varied background should be an asset, especially as you seem to have a pretty good analytical foundation as well.

I def agree with you. Every time I read this board I feel like I am in a Math Phd forum. I come from a physics background and I was hoping to learn more about "economics" but it seems that its all about real analysis, real analysis and real analysis lol. You are right kartelite, econ need more "thinkers" than "mathematicians". Of course a great background in math is very important, but I think economics is really a social science. I audited a grad macro course last year, and the professor repeateadly said at many occasions that in the homework many students were not able to give clear and logic answers to the economics questions but yet had little to no trouble doing the necessary maths.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by kartelite

and honestly I think economics is in more need of "thinkers" than "mathematicians," so your varied background should be an asset, especially as you seem to have a pretty good analytical foundation as well.

IMHO, I think this is a little off the mark. Economics may need more thinkers in general, but PhD programs are generally looking for people good at math. They could probably care less if someone is a great thinker, such as, a really intelligent philosopher if the person is not pretty good at math. My school has a PhD program ranked approximately 30th, and in our brochure for prospective graduate students, it literally says "top economics programs are not looking for well rounded applicants, take math, math, and more math and make sure you do well on the QGRE." So whether or not econ programs need more thinkers, I would say they generally admit people with more math capabilities than anything else. In fact, undergrad math is probably a really strong signal as to whether you can handle a PhD program in Econ. One of my best friends is a smart guy, he'll probably wind up at Harvard or Yale Law School. But I doubt he could ever handle a PhD in Econ program because he's not that into or great at math. The funny thing also is that I doubt any PhD programs would ever take the guy because of the lack of math, even though he has a huge national scholarship, good LORs from other profs, etc. By the way, you are somewhat implying that "mathematicians" aren't really "thinkers."

[kartelite]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

IMHO, I think this is a little off the mark. Economics may need more thinkers in general, but PhD programs are generally looking for people good at math. They could probably care less if someone is a great thinker, such as, a really intelligent philosopher if the person is not pretty good at math. My school has a PhD program ranked approximately 30th, and in our brochure for prospective graduate students, it literally says "top economics programs are not looking for well rounded applicants, take math, math, and more math and make sure you do well on the QGRE." So whether or not econ programs need more thinkers, I would say they generally admit people with more math capabilities than anything else.

It is certainly necessary to have a certain level of mathematical sophistication to handle the coursework you'll be seeing your first year, and having a strong math record reflects that. However, I don't believe that either mathematics or classical economics training is necessary to make meaningful contributions as an economist. Look at the brilliant contributions given to our field by "thinkers" such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Max Weber...even John Nash was not an economist (yes he was a mathematician), as people tend to forget.

If you want to be a great economist, I think eventually you have to dare to approach questions from a different angle. Obviously understanding current theory is helpful, but I shudder to think how Adam Smith may have fared had someone given him an exam on regression analysis or proving convexity back in 1776.

In fact, undergrad math is probably a really strong signal as to whether you can handle a PhD program in Econ. One of my best friends is a smart guy, he'll probably wind up at Harvard or Yale Law School. But I doubt he could ever handle a PhD in Econ program because he's not that into or great at math. The funny thing also is that I doubt any PhD programs would ever take the guy because of the lack of math, even though he has a huge national scholarship, good LORs from other profs, etc.

Sounds like a loss for the Econ profession.

By the way, you are somewhat implying that "mathematicians" aren't really "thinkers."

I have a BA and MS in math, so of course I don't mean to imply that. I just think we need a diversity of thought that only picking mathematically-inclined people may not provide.

Addendum: The way I see it, economics is an axiomatic science just like math. But instead of starting with assumptions like, "Between every two points in space there is one line that connects the two points," we start with, "People behave rationally," which then leads to other questions. How do we define rational? By someone who maximizes utility (if you're Aristotle you'd say people don't always do that, but let's not worry about that for now). Okay, so what is utility? Consumption? Leisure? Altruism? Getting to heaven? I think beliefs about utility are heterogeneous within and between cultures and countries, and especially in our ever more-globalized world these questions will need to be more closely examined.

[thewhiterabbit]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

IMHO, I think this is a little off the mark. Economics may need more thinkers in general, but PhD programs are generally looking for people good at math. They could probably care less if someone is a great thinker, such as, a really intelligent philosopher if the person is not pretty good at math. My school has a PhD program ranked approximately 30th, and in our brochure for prospective graduate students, it literally says "top economics programs are not looking for well rounded applicants, take math, math, and more math and make sure you do well on the QGRE." So whether or not econ programs need more thinkers, I would say they generally admit people with more math capabilities than anything else. In fact, undergrad math is probably a really strong signal as to whether you can handle a PhD program in Econ. One of my best friends is a smart guy, he'll probably wind up at Harvard or Yale Law School. But I doubt he could ever handle a PhD in Econ program because he's not that into or great at math. The funny thing also is that I doubt any PhD programs would ever take the guy because of the lack of math, even though he has a huge national scholarship, good LORs from other profs, etc. By the way, you are somewhat implying that "mathematicians" aren't really "thinkers."

From the little bit I know (not in a PhD program yet though!) I think this board has a tendency to exaggerate the role of math.

It is true that one route to the PhD is to do 10 graduate-level math courses during undergrad. But in the end the goal is good *researchers,* not good mathemeticians. Some research (like, say, super-theoretical metrics or micro) will require one to essentially be a mathemetician, other areas do not. You need a baseline level, but I don't think the admissions process resembles ordering every application up by demonstrated math ability, then taking the first 20 apps off the stack.

A few random counter-examples:

1. I was told by 3 MIT econ profs to not worry too much that I don't have real analysis, which is definitely contrary to the wisdom on this board. They said that proving one's math abilities is important, but it's just about showing you can do the work, not having a second degree in math. One demonstrate the minimum in several ways. It's just easiest for some people to demonstrate their capability with Analysis because that is known to be rigorous everywhere... a standardized test if you will, like the SAT ;-)

2. Some of the best young economists come from "non-traditional" backgrounds. The first example which comes to mind is Esther Duflo, with a history background. The fact that she's a big thinker and not a math geek I think must have played a role in her helping to revolutionize development at a relatively young age.

3. Some of the best research is high on the creativity/ingenuity factor and low on the level of maths needed to understand. First example that comes to mind is Acemoglu's Colonial Origins of Development paper, but there are many, many others (see #2)

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by thewhiterabbit

From the little bit I know (not in a PhD program yet though!) I think this board has a tendency to exaggerate the role of math.

It is true that one route to the PhD is to do 10 graduate-level math courses during undergrad. But in the end the goal is good *researchers,* not good mathemeticians. Some research (like, say, super-theoretical metrics or micro) will require one to essentially be a mathemetician, other areas do not. You need a baseline level, but I don't think the admissions process resembles ordering every application up by demonstrated math ability, then taking the first 20 apps off the stack.

A few random counter-examples:

1. I was told by 3 MIT econ profs to not worry too much that I don't have real analysis, which is definitely contrary to the wisdom on this board. They said that proving one's math abilities is important, but it's just about showing you can do the work, not having a second degree in math. One demonstrate the minimum in several ways. It's just easiest for some people to demonstrate their capability with Analysis because that is known to be rigorous everywhere... a standardized test if you will, like the SAT ;-)

2. Some of the best young economists come from "non-traditional" backgrounds. The first example which comes to mind is Esther Duflo, with a history background. The fact that she's a big thinker and not a math geek I think must have played a role in her helping to revolutionize development at a relatively young age.

3. Some of the best research is high on the creativity/ingenuity factor and low on the level of maths needed to understand. First example that comes to mind is Acemoglu's Colonial Origins of Development paper, but there are many, many others (see #2)

I think people are missing my point. I am not saying you need a graduate degree in math or even graduate math courses or even a bachelors in math. I am also not saying that you can't be a good economist without being a math genius. What I am saying is that taking and doing well in math courses is one of the best ways to get into the best econ program you can. I had a professor tell me last Wednesday that "mathematics is the language of PhD level economics, and you have to speak the language." Obviously economics is about much more than mathematics and requires economic intuition and creativity. If it didn't we'd all be out of jobs since you wouldn't need economists, just mathematicians. But you still can't get around the math if you want to be accepted into a PhD program in economics. My original point was that I thought (and I could be wrong) that political scientists LORs would bear much less weight to economic adcoms. Especially at top 20 programs where many kids have glowing economists LORs, 800 QGRE scores, A's in many tough rigorous upper level math courses, etc. I'm not trying to be rude and someone correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I thought. I am a good example, as I won't have glowing LORs, nor a degree in math, which is why I figure I am probably limited to programs ranked between 25 - 50.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by kartelite

It is certainly necessary to have a certain level of mathematical sophistication to handle the coursework you'll be seeing your first year, and having a strong math record reflects that. However, I don't believe that either mathematics or classical economics training is necessary to make meaningful contributions as an economist. Look at the brilliant contributions given to our field by "thinkers" such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Max Weber...even John Nash was not an economist (yes he was a mathematician), as people tend to forget.

I am not trying to say whether the emphasis on math is right or wrong, good or bad. I am just trying to be realistic and say how it is, and it seems that math is very important for modern economics.

Originally Posted by kartelite

If you want to be a great economist, I think eventually you have to dare to approach questions from a different angle. Obviously understanding current theory is helpful, but I shudder to think how Adam Smith may have fared had someone given him an exam on regression analysis or proving convexity back in 1776.

We definitely wouldn't want to lose the great ideas of Smith and Ricardo. But that doesn't mean that current economics is mistaken. I personally want to learn about the current math methods, as well as the old school philosophy point of view. I think this will better prepare me for a career in economics. Furthermore, we probably still have people who contribute to economics without being great mathematician types. It seems like F.A. Hayek was more of a philosopher, but he made great contributions to economics.

Originally Posted by kartelite

Sounds like a loss for the Econ profession.

Not neccesarily. Just because my friend is a smart guy doesn't mean that he'd make contributions to economics. Are people like Hayek, Smith, Ricardo, and Nash losses to the medical field or psychology? Maybe if they went into other fields, they wouldn't have really contributed, and maybe we wouldn't even talk about them today.