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

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's gotta to be one of the 25 or so most common questions on this forum.

This (What has ECON done for THIRD WORLD DEV? Convince me to go PhD) is one of the last threads on this subject that I can recall

[frankcw]

Originally Posted by israelecon

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.

I can't agree more. My father spent a lot of time in his office and had no time talking to me and my mother. I think it is part of a reason while my parents got divorced. My father doesn't earn much, but he still had an unsuccessful marriage.Therefore, for family reason, I want to be a professor. Besides, the econ theory really attracts me.

[econfanatic]

Well, the reason why I want to pursue a PhD in economics is to avoid facing the Real World at any cost! (and not to forget that I'd rather build my own World where everything seems to make sense and ignore the one that is out there just because its problems are too complex to be understood) hehehe! No, I was being a bit extreme here, but the truth is that I just don't feel confortable being at an office for 12 or 14 hours a day, even though I made tons of money.

Also, while in college, I found a passion I didn't have before. For the first time in my life, I could be studying for hours something that I didn't care if it was useful or helpful, I just did it because I loved it. There was something that truly attracted me about it. Just the idea of trying to model people's actions is fascinating, no matter who gets a benefit out of it (or if somebody does get a benefit after all).

Finally, unless we set axioms (and most of all, agree on them) stating what should be considered a valid reason to follow an academic path, we cannot just say that trying to become a PhD in economics just to escape reality is not a good reason. This person might end up being more succesful than most of us. Furthermore, someone who studied a PhD just for the brand, might end up truly helping others while leading an international organization and taking advantage of the (research) tools obtained at grad school. The only way that you know if a PhD is right for you is when you realize HOW (not why) a PhD will truly help you achieve what you are looking for, no matter what it is; otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

[representative_agent]

I think it all depends on your measures of success. In academia, the general measure of success seems to be the number of publications in top journals and the number of citations. We all are surrounded by an academic environment and probably most of us consider this measure as legitimate. The first thing I do when I have a new professor for example is to check is publications.
But will you be publishing in a top journal? And will you get citations? The 95th percentile paper has zero citations. And even the median JPE paper gets zero citations. In other words: nobody cares. I think that israelecon's 2% are a very optimistic guess.
And what about your non-academic environment? Do they care about what you do? Will you be able to talk to them about what you do? A neuro-scientist can at least tell his children that he wants to understand how the picture gets from their eye into the brain and how this leads to actions by their hands. But do you really want to discuss the existence and stability of equilibria over dinner? My point is that people outside your field will rarely be able to understand and value what you do (except if you are Steven Levitt). Your children cannot tell their friends what their father or mother does.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very excited about economics and about doing research. But I think we should do it for the right reasons. And we should know the price. I think that if your goal is to "make an impact", you risk being very disappointed in 30 years from now. You'll hardly ever get to hear a "thank you" for what you do.
Asked why he still goes on doing research, Reinhard Selten said: "because I have to".

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by representative_agent

I think it all depends on your measures of success. In academia, the general measure of success seems to be the number of publications in top journals and the number of citations. We all are surrounded by an academic environment and probably most of us consider this measure as legitimate. The first thing I do when I have a new professor for example is to check is publications.

I agree this generally true, and certainly I do this to evaluate economists whom I'm an unfamiliar with. But then getting esteem of my peers is not what matters most to me. I'd rather spend my life researching something I love and be mostly ignored, rather than research that I have no passion for while getting widespread acclaim. On the other hand, I think if you're getting totally ignored, it's a function of the topic you choose and how well you sell your research. Look at it this way, every good paper I've read in preparing for my field exams the last couple weeks, I could explain the fundamental purpose (i.e. WHY it's being written) to an open-minded outsider in a few sentences -- yes, even if it's a paper that's mostly focusing on necessary and sufficient conditions for stability of equilibria.

But will you be publishing in a top journal? And will you get citations? The 95th percentile paper has zero citations. And even the median JPE paper gets zero citations. In other words: nobody cares. I think that israelecon's 2% are a very optimistic guess.

I don't feel a citation is the be-all of happiness. You can write a good paper that explores a worthwhile topic that doesn't get cited yet still gets read and adds to the literature -- people know not to repeat what you just tried.

And what about your non-academic environment? Do they care about what you do? Will you be able to talk to them about what you do? A neuro-scientist can at least tell his children that he wants to understand how the picture gets from their eye into the brain and how this leads to actions by their hands. But do you really want to discuss the existence and stability of equilibria over dinner? My point is that people outside your field will rarely be able to understand and value what you do (except if you are Steven Levitt). Your children cannot tell their friends what their father or mother does.
Don't get me wrong.

OK, this is the part that worked me up the most. You're making a totally unfair comparison. You can sell economic research to children in a way that makes sense in the greater good of the world -- but the end results, not the tools to get there. You make a false analogy. I mean, what does a molecular biologist tell their kids? That they're studying the origins of life? Yes. Or do they go over the mechanical details of their polymerase chain reactions during countless tedious hours of lab? Of course not. It's the same difference. These existence theorems are tools to validate the models we create, not ends of themselves.

I'm very excited about economics and about doing research. But I think we should do it for the right reasons. And we should know the price. I think that if your goal is to "make an impact", you risk being very disappointed in 30 years from now. You'll hardly ever get to hear a "thank you" for what you do.
Asked why he still goes on doing research, Reinhard Selten said: "because I have to".

I've known middle-aged economists with the "because I have to" attitude and I pity them. I enjoy every aspect of economic research to the extent that I can still get a good night's sleep. I expect the research I do to "make an impact" but not in the sense that you seem to describing. I think every published paper adds something to our knowledge, and I'm happy taking small steps to larger goals even if I don't fully realize them myself.

[representative_agent]

I noticed that somehow my translation of Selten might be a bit ambiguous. "Because I have to" doesn't mean "because it is my job" but rather "because I'm driven by some internal force that doesn't give me any rest".

[asianeconomist]

Ooh this thread is getting hot !

I want to study economics because I hate doing about everything else.

[israelecon]

Originally Posted by asianeconomist

Ooh this thread is getting hot !

I want to study economics because I hate doing about everything else.

hmmmmmmmm.....i guess you subscribe to the "pain avoider" school of thought as opposed to the "pleasure seeking" school.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by representative_agent

I think it all depends on your measures of success. In academia, the general measure of success seems to be the number of publications in top journals and the number of citations. We all are surrounded by an academic environment and probably most of us consider this measure as legitimate. The first thing I do when I have a new professor for example is to check is publications.

But will you be publishing in a top journal? And will you get citations? The 95th percentile paper has zero citations. And even the median JPE paper gets zero citations. In other words: nobody cares. I think that israelecon's 2% are a very optimistic guess.

I agree. The fact is, most economists will not be "superstars." Furthermore, it seems to me that there are many academic jobs that aren't that attractive (high teaching loads, little research, low pay, little control over location).

I also do find it somewhat disheartening that you could work very hard on a paper and have only a few people actually read it, and even most of them will forget about it within a couple months. I personally believe that the solid academic jobs are some of the best in the world. However, I also believe that many of the below average academic jobs are not that great. This is just my own personal opinion however, and I fully realize that many TMers disagree, and I honestly understand where they're coming from.

Originally Posted by representative_agent

And what about your non-academic environment? Do they care about what you do? Will you be able to talk to them about what you do? A neuro-scientist can at least tell his children that he wants to understand how the picture gets from their eye into the brain and how this leads to actions by their hands. But do you really want to discuss the existence and stability of equilibria over dinner? My point is that people outside your field will rarely be able to understand and value what you do (except if you are Steven Levitt). Your children cannot tell their friends what their father or mother does.

Well you could always emphasize that you teach college students about the great and very important discipline known as economics. In fact, most academics probably contribute more to other people through teaching their discipline rather than doing research. Again, this is just my opinion and I realize (and understand) that many TMers will probably beg to differ.

In all honesty though, who cares what others think about your job? Human interaction/relationships should not be mainly focused on peoples' jobs. Seriously, how anti-social does a group of people have to be in order to only have their jobs to talk about. In reality, most people will have a slight curiousity and mild interest in what you do (as you probably will about their work). Therefore, spend a few minutes talking about what you do, and move onto a conversation that you both find more interesting. Many non-economists will not understand what you do, and will find it either difficult to understanded or possibly boring. This reminds me of some of the really smart people who have trouble making friends and having relationships with the opposite sex, because they spend way too much time talking about the things they're good at and understand, yet they don't have the basic social skills to just shoot the sh*t with somebody for awhile talking about something else.

Don't get me wrong, because I'm not saying that people shouldn't get into in depth conversations about economics, science, politics, etc. I'm just saying that not everyone finds these things as interesting as we aspiring PhDs do. That's why I try to limit my conversations about these things to others that seem to have a genuine interest in them as well. For example, me and my roommate will sometimes sit around and talk political philosophy for hours, but it's because we both enjoy talking and thinking about it (obiviously, we also have many conversations that don't relate to this "more serious" stuff). Likewise, when I'm talking to some of my other friends who don't enjoy this stuff, I lighten up on it and try to discuss other things. Lastly, I truly find it fascinating to talk about economics, which is one main reason I'd like to work with economists in the future. I mean, how cool would it be to go grab a couple beers with a fellow economist and talk economics (hopefully, I'll even get some of this as a grad student with faculty and fellow grad students).

Originally Posted by representative_agent

Don't get me wrong. I'm very excited about economics and about doing research. But I think we should do it for the right reasons. And we should know the price. I think that if your goal is to "make an impact", you risk being very disappointed in 30 years from now. You'll hardly ever get to hear a "thank you" for what you do.

I also think that people should do it for the "right reasons." In my opinion, the right reason to become an academic is often a fairly selfish one, that is, "I want to be an academic because I am fascinated with economics, and I don't care if anyone else gives a rats behind about my research. I'm doing this for me. If others find an interest in what I do, or if I make some important contributions to the world and the field, then it's all the better." Interestingly, I heard Steven Levitt say something similar on his interview with Charlie Rose. Basically Levitt said you should study economics for very personal reasons, because it's unlikely that your work will "change the world." Put differently, I agree representative_agent that studying economics in the hopes of "changing the world" or "making an impact" will likely be setting yourself up for future failure, dissappointment, and unhappiness.

[Golden Rule]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

I also do find it somewhat disheartening that you could work very hard on a paper and have only a few people actually read it, and even most of them will forget about it within a couple months.

I would suggest not having rational expectations, i.e. don't act like the people in your models (unless you're a behavioral economist ) Ex-ante, the next paper I write is always going to be awesome, gain a ton of respect, and be the first step towards my research agenda that might change the world. Ex-post, when it doesn't work out , well, that paper was still a good learning experience, one I can build on so that my next paper is going to be amazing!!

I find it's hard to be productive when I allow myself to be conscious of any possibility of failure -- if I do, then failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.