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.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/72960-1-lor-non-economist-pol-science-prof-consequences.html

[YoungEconomist]

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 LOR'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]

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 LOR'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[Bayern]

Replying to the original post... I think you should apply with the best resources you have. If 2 pol science professor can write you great letters for you, then you should try with those letters. Ideally, they want econ and math profs, but I am sure all the applicants do not have the same kind of profile. The problem is most of the people here are student themselves, many at undergrad levels... it is difficult for us to guess how much those letters will be discounted, and only the adcoms can you tell about it... we can just make assumptions from the current profiles and what some prof told us about this. It will be best, if you could contact a member of an adcoms at a good university with the help of your current economics professor.

[eqtisadi]

But what if I have two good LORs from Econ professors and I can have the third one from either a good Law professor (who is into Law and Economics among other interests) who knows me pretty well and thinks highly of me, OR another econ professor I will find in the department that is less enthusiastic about giving me a LOR?

Isn't there a diminishing marginal utility for LORs from the same department? Now, I'm not looking for comforting answers like "you'll be fine if you will get the 3rd LOR from a Law professor", because I have the other option. I just need to know which one will give a greater boost to my chances.

Oh, and although Law and Economics is interesting, I have many other interests, so I'm not planning on it as a concentration right now.

 

What do you think?

[savingtheplanet]

Letters not from economists are not worth very much. Seriously. I had a letter from a star political scientist that was GLOWING (i.e. best student i have had in xx years) -- but an admissions committee chair indicated that this didn't help me at all. A relativly impersonal letter from an intermediate micro professor carried more weight.

 

(Attending Michigan)

[Bayern]

eqtisadi... this post might help you, I posted it earlier in this post...

http://www.www.urch.com/forums/phd-economics/72960-1-lor-non-economist-pol-science-prof-consequences.html

 

I am kind of in the same situation as you are...

[loudandclear]

Just to clarify, both of the letters come from quantitative researchers in poli sci, and one of them is a methodologist, so my research with him has been in developing new estimators, monte carlo studies, and programming. Further, one of the two took the econometric and micro series as part of his graduate training at Rochester, so he says that he could speak about my abilities to succeed in an econ program. My primary question is to what degree this will be discounted.

[Palimpsest]

Just to clarify, both of the letters come from quantitative researchers in poli sci, and one of them is a methodologist, so my research with him has been in developing new estimators, monte carlo studies, and programming. Further, one of the two took the econometric and micro series as part of his graduate training at Rochester, so he says that he could speak about my abilities to succeed in an econ program. My primary question is to what degree this will be discounted.

 

I can't really speak to how much it would be discounted, but I would guess that a Rochester PhD would have a lot of sway as PS Profs go, as the program is pretty well-known for its application of of rigorous quantitative methods to PS.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Common Tragedies--an environmental economics blog

[Journal of Finance]

Math really counts little in your sucess of reseach. People who focus on math will generate a feeling of self-fulfilment and repeat this so-called "sucessful remind" themselves especially when they become a loser in economic research. I got the top1 among 200,000 people in math exam during entrance exam in China. But, I don't think I am smart at all by giving a perfect score in a standard test. Standard test like math is more easier than research with open questions. Of course, lower-tier econ schools will put a high weight on math training simply because they have no greater eonomists.

 

I am not saying math is not important, but ususally this "apparently sucess" will let a Ph.D student lose in a bigger picture.

[melc1316]

 

I know this is an old post, so you might not see this YoungEconomist, but I am coming from a nontraditional background (i.e. BA in International Studies and MS in Applied Economics) so I have less math than math majors/minors have. I have taken real analysis and linear algebra and I think I can prove my knowledge of calculus through my grad degree and current research but I was just wondering what about your background, or lack of math in your background, made you only look at top 25-50 schools? I'm surrounded by people who are applying to econ PhDs and are getting into top schools (top 15 and up we're talking about here) so I have that image in my head but I also don't want to overshoot and get let down completely due to my different background.

 

Thanks!

[Kaysa]

Only submit LORs from economists. The only exception to this rule is to submit one math LOR when your mathematical background is lacking.

 

Never submit LORs from other disciplines. The point of an LOR is to provide evidence that you have what it takes to succeed in an economics program. Academics in other disciplines cannot provide this evidence because they have absolutely no idea

 

1) What economics is

2) The skills one needs to succeed in economics

 

I know this sounds closed minded, but it is almost always accurate and the argument is two-sided. For example, statisticians usually don't care what econometricians write in their LORs, and the reasons are that mathematicians and econometricians do not think the same; each disciplines must overcome different hurdles that require different skills and abilities; and skills aside, mathematics programs are very different from economics programs.

 

Once you are on the other side and get a chance to read a couple non-economist LORs you realize that the information that they provide is usually not useful for building a case as to whether someone would make a good economist.