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

[asa_sl]

to do development econ research.

[israelecon]

Originally Posted by thescienceboy

I'm just wondering how someone can come up with original ideas in his/her job market papers without being passionated about economics?

i don't see why not.
i think what you need the passion for is maybe to give up the big money you can make in the private sector and earn decent but not as much money in academia. but even for that i don't really think you need to be passionate.
i just don't think you need to be passionate about something to be good at it, just like being passionate about something does not necessarily make you good at it.

[asianeconomist]

Originally Posted by israelecon

i don't see why not.
i think what you need the passion for is maybe to give up the big money you can make in the private sector and earn decent but not as much money in academia. but even for that i don't really think you need to be passionate.
i just don't think you need to be passionate about something to be good at it, just like being passionate about something does not necessarily make you good at it.

That might be true in the short-run, but in the long-run passion and performance must go hand in hand. Let's put it this way: All successful economists must be passionate about what they do, but not all passionate economists are successful.

[thescienceboy]

Originally Posted by israelecon

i don't see why not.
i think what you need the passion for is maybe to give up the big money you can make in the private sector and earn decent but not as much money in academia. but even for that i don't really think you need to be passionate.
i just don't think you need to be passionate about something to be good at it, just like being passionate about something does not necessarily make you good at it.

What does it mean for you to be good at economics? I think you narrow it to understanding of what has already been accumulated by other researchers, But it's just a "passive" part of the PhD program. Your value in academia will be determined by your ability to create. And creativity is determined to great extent by passion. To get tenure even at my not so highly ranked university you need to work 10-12 hours a day to generate necessary number of articles. I heard to get tenure at top10 you need to create a new field/subfield or make other significant contributions. Can you do it being indifferent about your field?
And the last, PhD is not a professional program. The aim is not to prepare you to be good at IO, Micro or Labor economics but to help you to become a researcher.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by thescienceboy

I'm just wondering how someone can come up with original ideas in his/her job market papers without being passionated about economics?

It's probably easier to write a dissertation with a passion for economics, but I don't know if it's neccessary. I don't think I personally could do the PhD without passion, but maybe others could.

I'm reminded of a few professional athletes (I'm drawing a blank on their names). One was a top 5 - 10 ranked international tennis player that said, "I only practice 3 - 4 times a week because I don't like tennis that much." The other was a really good baseball player who said, "I never really liked baseball, but I was very good at it, and it paid well."

Originally Posted by israelecon

i think what you need the passion for is maybe to give up the big money you can make in the private sector and earn decent but not as much money in academia. but even for that i don't really think you need to be passionate.
i just don't think you need to be passionate about something to be good at it, just like being passionate about something does not necessarily make you good at it.

In all honesty, I don't think you neccesarily need more passion to become an academic. I'm convinced that many want to be academics because it's a pretty attractive job (great job security if get tenure, decent salary, a lot of flexibility, and lots of free time if get tenure).

I heard that back in the day, professors at the top schools used to teach 15 credit hours per semester (probably more at lower ranked schools). I wonder how many academic economists would choose another job under these circumstances as one of the main attractions of academic life is the free-time? Or how many academics would still want to be academics if summer teaching was a requirement?

In other words, I don't think it's neccesarily true that academics have any more passion about economics than economists in governement, private sector, think tanks, or international organizations. I think it's just that they find different careers attractive because of various individual preferences (which don't just include money). Some people like the freedom and flexibility of academia. Some people like the research aspect of academia. Some people hate teaching and dislike academia. Others want to make big bucks. Some people people have poor social skills and some people have strong social skills. Some people want to make a difference in the world.

I don't know about you guys, but I just want the job that makes me happiest in life. Unfortunately, it's not clear to me what that job will be (and I'm constantly trying to figure it out).

[486hunter]

The other was a really good baseball player who said, "I never really liked baseball, but I was very good at it, and it paid well."

I believe this was John Halama.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by 486hunter

The other was a really good baseball player who said, "I never really liked baseball, but I was very good at it, and it paid well."

I believe this was John Halama.

Actually, I believe it was someone else. Did Halama have similar feelings?

[israelecon]

Originally Posted by thescienceboy

What does it mean for you to be good at economics? I think you narrow it to understanding of what has already been accumulated by other researchers, But it's just a "passive" part of the PhD program. Your value in academia will be determined by your ability to create. And creativity is determined to great extent by passion. To get tenure even at my not so highly ranked university you need to work 10-12 hours a day to generate necessary number of articles. I heard to get tenure at top10 you need to create a new field/subfield or make other significant contributions. Can you do it being indifferent about your field?
And the last, PhD is not a professional program. The aim is not to prepare you to be good at IO, Micro or Labor economics but to help you to become a researcher.

i have to disagree. many people work 10-12 hours a day and they are certainly not passionate about their work. accountants work more than 12 hours a day sometimes, i haven't yet heard of the accountant who is passionate about filling out tax returns.
also, there is a big difference between indifference and passion. i find economics interesting, i find many things interesting, some of them even more than economics, b ut i think i will be best at economics thats why i chose economics. so while i am not indifferent to economics i certainly would not say i have a passion for it, whatever that means.
besides, i am still not sure why you need to be passionate at something to be good at it, or want to spend time on it. maybe i just don't want to work a 9-5 job, and that is enough incentive for me to be as creative as i need to be.
another point i want to make is that in order to do research i don't think it is passion that you need, it is more intellectual curiosity. i.e. the ability and will to think about and (hopefully) eventually solve interesting problems.

[thescienceboy]

Originally Posted by israelecon

i have to disagree. many people work 10-12 hours a day and they are certainly not passionate about their work. accountants work more than 12 hours a day sometimes, i haven't yet heard of the accountant who is passionate about filling out tax returns.
also, there is a big difference between indifference and passion. i find economics interesting, i find many things interesting, some of them even more than economics, b ut i think i will be best at economics thats why i chose economics. so while i am not indifferent to economics i certainly would not say i have a passion for it, whatever that means.
besides, i am still not sure why you need to be passionate at something to be good at it, or want to spend time on it. maybe i just don't want to work a 9-5 job, and that is enough incentive for me to be as creative as i need to be.
another point i want to make is that in order to do research i don't think it is passion that you need, it is more intellectual curiosity. i.e. the ability and will to think about and (hopefully) eventually solve interesting problems.

I don't think that accounting is creative, so your comparison is not fair. Doing routine work and doing research is not the same. I do agree about intellectual curiosity, but the profs that we admire always have it in the same bundle with passion for what they do. Seriously, I've never seen a tenured prof who wouldn't be a big "fan" of his job. I won't believe that someone can become a good researcher not been entirely into it. Maybe, you just have different criteria for good/mediocre/bad than I do.

[pevdoki1]

I'm in 100% agreement with israelecon's post above. Right on, man