How do you know if a PhD is the right thing for you ...

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by mogelsworth

That's a good point. I was thinking more along the line that if you don't have a very strong reason for being in the program, struggling through the first year may not be worth it. If there's not a light at the end of the tunnel...

True... in other words, you may realize there are career paths where you can impress people that require a lot less effort than first year of an econ phd. First year does have the highest attrition rate, and it does come first. But I stand by what I said in that it only gets harder going forward for those who have no sincere passion.

[asianeconomist]

Originally Posted by Golden Rule

True... in other words, you may realize there are career paths where you can impress people that require a lot less effort than first year of an econ phd. First year does have the highest attrition rate, and it does come first. But I stand by what I said in that it only gets harder going forward for those who have no sincere passion.

I second that. I know a few people who consider Econ PhD as a brand-name degree, whereby their objective is to land a job at IGOs. It is pretty easy to convince them that what they really want is not a Econ PhD, but a more marketable degree like MPP/MBA.

[israelecon]

Originally Posted by tennisboy85

if you have no research experience or teaching experience? I am talking about people like Israelecon. Are you only doing it to get the prestige of a top PhD program and higher salaries? Or do you just want to leave your country? I feel like here in the US nobody would try to get into any PhDs without having any research experience, its mainly people from abroad who do it.

since i was mentioned i guess i should answer.
firstly, i am a canadian citizen so that leaving israel is not exactly so difficult for me and a phd is definitely not the only way to do it.
i may be a special case because my father is an economics professor himself, so i kind of already know what i am getting into. i.e. i myself have no research experience per se, but i have seen research up close and i have discussed research ideas etc. with my father. also, since he works at home i get to discuss things with his colleagues as well when they come to work with him. so in my case i may have a bit more of an idea of what research entails than others in my position (although i am not sure about this). but certainly i think this kind of background has given me more preparation for research than would entering data sets and programming stata, as golden rule put it. in general most of the research experience people put on the profile is not "real" research experience in the sense that that is not the kind of stuff you will be doing as a professor, either because its not good enough (maybe good enough for a student, but not for a prof) or because they will get their RA's to do it for them while they do the "real" research. so i wouldn't put too much weight on what people usually call research experience, although i am aware that some people do have real serious research experience and that probably is very helpful. but that is probably more the exception than the rule.
as to the job itself, i see three main advantages.
1. the academic atmosphere. i.e. you have a job that lets you continue to learn your whole life and keeps you in the forefront of human knowledge in some field.
2. the academic freedom. you do what interests you.
3. the freedom. this is related to what others have said about not getting a real job. many of my friends never saw their fathers, sure their family was richer than mine and lived in a fancier house, but thats because their fathers worked all day for it. my father had the flexibility to be home whenever he wanted (except the 5 hours a week he had to teach). i want the same flexibility when i raise a family and i think that an academic position is the best paying job that will give you this freedom, and i am willing to take a pay cut for that flexibility.
so actually, as opposed to the above suggestion i see an academic job as a way of buying freedom by taking a smaller salary.
obviously the reason i want to do the phd in the US is because of the prestige and the quality of the education (and the fact that they are paying me). but that is not the reason i chose to follow this route in the first place.
it seems to me that what happens a lot in the US (and the reason you observe what you do) is that since US college graduates are so young 20-22, they are very enticed by all the money they can make in consulting, for example. they work in that for a couple of years and realize that yes its a lot of money, but no i don't want to do this for my whole life and then they go and do a phd.

[tennisboy85]

Alright, I have to admit that is a very sound reasoning and it seems that you have a very good idea of what you are getting into. Indeed, you almost convinced me that I should get a PhD without any work experience as well. I just wanted to make sure that you know what you are getting into and that a PhD is what you really want. I am from Europe and I know that a lot of people there get PhDs who do not intend to do research and get into academia, they just do it for the higher salaries and the prestige. I just wanted to make that you know that in the US it is different.

[Legatus]

I feel like here in the US nobody would try to get into any PhDs without having any research experience, its mainly people from abroad who do it.

Really? I see it the opposite. At least in Canada the typical route is to do a Masters degree first (usually including a thesis or major essay of some sort) and then move on to the Ph.D. The U.S. seems to be the only country which does away with the M.A. step.

[jeeves0923]

I'd say undergraduate research is probably more common in the US than in Canada. For my honors diploma, I had to do a thesis. My advisor encouraged me to start undergraduate research my sophomore year.

[fp3690]

It's like true love, you know it!

[israelecon]

well its all a question of what you call research. i also have to write a thesis and some papers in econometrics, but i wouldn't call it research, its just not on the level of what i would expect from real research.

[mojito08]

i have another doubt, guys. how would you say economics is useful to the world? i have always been struggeling with sciences, medicine and economics and now i am kind of rethinking it all over again. is economics something that can have real impact, be useful to people? i dont want to do all these studies and realize that everyhting is more or less just TALKING about stuff, not actually doing them...i dont know if you understand me...i am in a big dilemma now.

[israelecon]

it is true that economics is a lot of just talking about stuff. but, i think that this "just talking" enhances our understanding of the world and that allows us to make the world a better place. for example, would the great depression have happened if we had the economic understanding we have now? i don't think so. so in that sense i think "just talking" does help. on the other hand, it is true that most researchers will have little influence on the future and on social welfare in general. but that is not specific to economics, that is true of any research field. also medical researchers rarely come up with life saving research, but a few do. and you need all those researchers so that 2% can actually make a difference, because you don't know ahead of time who those 2% are.
there are very few jobs where as you say you are actually doing stuff and can see the fruit of your work immediately and see your impact. maybe a doctor or a psychologist (but those are making an impact on a small scale). the question is what are you looking for in a profession? to change the world? in that case you are likely to get disappointed no matter what field you enter. to make yourself a better person, more educated etc.? then i think research is a great option.
what other options are you considering? what are you looking for in a job? what attracts you to each of the fields you are considering?