Tenure for sure after getting the econ phd?

[Bayern]

This question came up to me from my experience in my university, but not in our econ dept. Two profs in our college did not get tenure, one got PhD from Berkeley (Physics prof) and the other from UChicago (Math prof). How come profs from such reputable organizations (most probably top 10 in their fields) do not get tenureship in a small less known Top 50 LAC?? Is the difficulty of getting academic job so difficult even in econ? I would be very happy if I could work in a Top 50 LAC, but bearing in mind they are from top-10 phd schools, what happens if I cant get into top 20 phd schools in econ, I would have to go for a tier 3 school to teach ?(which I would not definitely prefer)

[TruDog]

It is become more and more common for tenure to not be offered to professors for several reasons:

 

1. Tenure puts a long-term financial burden on the college and also guarantees some sort of medical benefits, whose cost has risen by over ten percent a year.

 

2. Tenure eliminates most of the flexibility for a college to undergo a sweeping reorganization. All of the tenured faculty will have a job (or get bought out) no matter whether their department still exists. This makes eliminating small, financially unsupported programs difficult.

 

3. Eliminating tenure forces professors to not relax after earning tenure and to continue meeting high scholarly standards. I know numerous cases of professors in economics who have not changed their teaching notes in decades, in spite of new theories...and this is much worse in some other disciplines.

 

4. State governments (in the case of public institutions) and/or university trustees are pushing to cut back on tenured positions to help increase accountability. There have been strong movements from outside groups (mostly from the political right) to get rid of the academic 'deadwood' and have leaner faculty structures. As these groups often push for part-time and distance education, adjunct faculty seem to be the perfect fit.

 

In the not-too-distant future, I would expect tenure to become a relic at most public and lesser-endowed private institutions. At the top private LACs, with their large endowments and tradition of treating faculty very well (and with trustees who are largely happy alumni), tenure should continue. Where budgets are a constant concern and trustees tend to be political appointments instead of alumni, tenure won't be around much longer.

[sonicskat]

Don't think that them not getting tenure had anything to do with their pedigree. At most LACs, they pretty much don't care where you came from (to an extent) as long as you are a good educator. Chicago and Berkeley are fundamentally different schools than most LACS in that they have focused on their research, while your institution might stress teaching (as mine did). Also, personality might take on a greater role in this type of school since there is more interaction with students and more evaluations.

 

At my LAC school we didn't have one professor from a top 5 school. The best pedigree was from the teens. With that being said, the best professors came from tier 3 schools or lower.

[gangstarap]

Bayern, why don't you apply to Finance PhD programs instead of Economics? Finance professors almost always get tenure, and besides, admission to Finance programs is waaaay easier... you've said it yourself many times in other threads... it must be true LOL!

[ljqinswufe]

Bayern, why don't you apply to Finance PhD programs instead of Economics? Finance professors almost always get tenure, and besides, admission to Finance programs is waaaay easier... you've said it yourself many times in other threads... it must be true LOL!

Finance may be really another good choice

But I don't have such a problem, because if I could get admission for Eco PhD and finish my study, I could come back to China to get into even the best university in China for teaching, because the Economics education in China is really not good.

[asquare]

Tenure is far from a sure thing in top departments. I don't know how relevant this is to your question, but you may want to take a look at this report Princeton released in 2005. It's about gender, but it has some very interesting statistics about promotion rates.

 

Of the assistant professors hired by the econ department between 1980 and 1994, 17 percent of men and 38 percent of women received tenure at Princeton by 2002. (Women were a very small fraction of all hires, putting the overall tenure rate somewhere around 20 percent, I think).

 

This is relevant to your question because there's a spillover effect. When assistant professors at top-5 or top-10 schools are denied tenure at those schools, they are often offered tenure at a school slightly further down the rankings. And to make room for them, assistant professors at those slightly lower ranked schools may be denied tenure themselves, and shifted down the rankings a bit.

 

Of course, this isn't always true -- some people move up the rankings at tenure time or before their tenure clock runs out at their original job. But since many schools hire more assistant professors per year than they have senior faculty leave, not everyone can be promoted or departments will become too large.

 

Sorry this isn't directly on your topic, but it's interesting stuff and I thought people might want to see that report from Princeton.

[jjmann]

These are all very interesting information actually. I never knew finance tenures are lot more easier to get. If someone could say the reason for that, it would be great. Also Sonicskat has a very good point about pedigree really doesnt matter for LACs (Although I do not much about this point, but it sounds quite reasonable)

[asquare]

Don't think that them not getting tenure had anything to do with their pedigree. At most LACs, they pretty much don't care where you came from (to an extent) as long as you are a good educator.

I don't think that is true, at least not of the top LACs (Williams, etc.). If it were, you would see these schools hiring junior faculty from all across the spectrum. Look at Williams as an example. Of their tenure track faculty, PhDs were received at Harvard, Columbia, U-Mich, UC-Davis, Princeton, UC-Boulder, Minnesota, etc. You can say that the UC-Davis and UC-Boulder degrees indicate that pedigree doesn't matter, but I would argue that if pedigree really didn't matter, then there would be more UC-Boulder-type schools and less Harvard.

 

I think LACs want to be able to brag in their admissions brochures about how well qualified their professors are (in addition to how small classes are and what wonderful relationships students can have with faculty members). Incoming students and their parents are impressed by professors who studied at Harvard/Princeton/etc. More importantly, top LACs aspire to send their students to top graduate programs. Having faculty who studied at these same top graduate programs helps. (Not because you need LORs from alum to get in; because faculty who attended top grad programs are more familiar with what it takes to get in to those programs and succeed once there.)

 

I don't think pedigree affects the tenure decision much. I think that is based on publications and, especially at an LAC, teaching reviews. But I do think that where you got your PhD affects where you are hired, and that PhDs from higher ranked schools are more likely to be hired by top LACs than PhDs from lower ranked schools.

[sonicskat]

I never said that pedigree has anything to do with the hiring process. I certainly agree with you there asquare. I was just discussing the tenure decision.

 

It makes sense that lots of junior faculty from top universities do get jobs at good LAC schools. They are paid better than state universities and still allow them enough time to engage in their research. It is also much easier to find institutional funding. Lastly, it is a good safety net for them. If they can't move up the academic ladder too much and have a chance to get tenure at a cozy private school, they will probably lead a much better career as far as teaching and earning an income than at a big university.

[asquare]

sonicskat, then we agree :) I was just responding to this comment:

At most LACs, they pretty much don't care where you came from (to an extent) as long as you are a good educator.

I think LACs do care where you came from, though I agree with you that it comes out in hiring not tenure.

[gangstarap]

These are all very interesting information actually. I never knew finance tenures are lot more easier to get. If someone could say the reason for that, it would be great. Also Sonicskat has a very good point about pedigree really doesnt matter for LACs (Although I do not much about this point, but it sounds quite reasonable)

 

Oh ya, just ask Bayern... Finance PhD students are much less intelligent and qualified relative to their Econ counterparts... this is evident in the much fiercer competition for Econ PhD spots... then, when you become a Finance professor, it's so much easier to get tenure since everyone is much dumber than the profs in the Econ department... :rolleyes:

[quantwanabe]

Maybe the first thing for us would be to pass our quals, get a research topic, and then we can worry about the job market. Getting a a tenure-track job in any university is not an easy task.

[Bayern]

Oh ya, just ask Bayern... Finance PhD students are much less intelligent and qualified relative to their Econ counterparts... this is evident in the much fiercer competition for Econ PhD spots... then, when you become a Finance professor, it's so much easier to get tenure since everyone is much dumber than the profs in the Econ department... :rolleyes:

 

 

Well, you are forgeting that a lot of econ phds go for the finance professor jobs, so the competitions is not only between finance phds. And I also believe (and its only a belief, no stats to back it up) finance phds are very well qualified by the time they finish their phds. So it will not be easy at all to get a tenure in a finance phd even.

[jjmann]

Maybe the first thing for us would be to pass our quals, get a research topic, and then we can worry about the job market. Getting a a tenure-track job in any university is not an easy task.

 

you are quite right there quantwanabe, but it is better to get an understanding of how difficult the econ job market is, before getting on with the econ phds. Some people DO have the illusion that after crossing all the hoops of econ phd, evthing will be lot more easier once the phd is over (especially after all the hard work). But well it is not true. People from Harvard, Chicago gettin rejected from Top 40-50 LAC, that must be frustrating. It leads me to ask the question, why is there so much competiton in econ phd? Ppl from econ, finance, physics, math apply here. Why? I know the aspiration to be an economist and the interest for the subject are points. But why so many people want to get the econ phd? especially after so much hard work during phd, and even after the phd for the competition for tenure. The econ phds are also paid less than some other phds such as the finance phds. So why so much attraction? very curious

[Jhai]

If you really want to be assured tenure, get a Ph.D in accounting. The demand for them is huge - even larger than the demand for graduating accounting majors. But, um, most people find accounting even more boring than economics.

[Bayern]

Is that really true Jhai ?! Very Interesting. But someone will have to take quite a lot of accounting courses, right?

 

jjmann also has a very interesting question there. Why is so many ppl after econ phd when there is less money involved, lots of hard work, and also difficulty in getting tenure after all the hard work? (For me, its more of interest in econ, development, research and teaching... thts why the econ phd). It will be interesting to hear the comments

[apropos]

Is that really true Jhai ?! Very Interesting. But someone will have to take quite a lot of accounting courses, right?

 

jjmann also has a very interesting question there. Why is so many ppl after econ phd when there is less money involved, lots of hard work, and also difficulty in getting tenure after all the hard work?

 

Economic analysis is applicable to a broad number of questions concerning economic activities and other social phenomena. It's a very broad and practical field, so I am not surprised that economists are employable in large number of settings and that there is a large number of applicants for PhD programs.

 

Maybe the decision to study economics is not fully motivated by the expected payoffs (just like the decision to study Physics or Rhetoric) Also, you don't have to be a tenured professor to teach. Neither you have to teach to make a living - there are plenty non-academic jobs for economists. You seem to be making it sound like getting a PhD in economics is a losing proposition (financially). I disagree somewhat. I hope that most of us will be going to graduate school for the love of this subject and not because of the payoffs, but let's do the math anyways.

 

First, compare doing PhD in Economics vs PhD in other social sciences vs sciences vs humanities. Economists on average earn more than the professors of these subjects. Economists are also tend to have good employment opportunities outside of academia.

 

Next, compare PhD in Economics vs MBA. According to US news, on average, people who graduate from the top 30 or so MBA programs start making between 80 and 100K straight out of school (depending on where they graduate). To get there, it costs them two years of their time plus $60K to $100K of out of pocket money. If this was on borrowed money, it might take two years or more to repay such loans. Getting PhD in Economics takes about five years, but if you were funded from day one, you might end up spending $0 of your money on this degree. The payoffs are similar. Fresh assistant professors of economics at research universities start earning around 85K/year (actually about 9 months). Those who go to work in the industry or government might start with a low six figure salary.

 

Finally, a lot of applicants come from foreign countries. US-trained economists are a very sought after commodity in much of the world. Many of those students go back to their countries and become professors at the leading universities there or central bank/government economists.

 

As for finance and accounting PhD programs, you don't see as many applicants to those majors primarily because the entering class in those majors is also very small. Except for the very top business schools, such as Berkeley or UCLA, most business schools aim to fill between one and three spots in Finance. (still, UCLA gets +500 applications for all business school PhD programs combined) For example, I heard that Purdue's entering class for Finance PhD is only two or three students. I also suspect that finance adcoms read your SoP carefully and expect you to write a more focused SoP than what's expected at a typical economics department, which I probably make success there even more difficult.

 

PS: I am personally interested broadly in subjects like asset pricing and international finance (but this is not set in stone yet) which would make a good fit at most Finance PhD programs. However, I thought that my profile wasn't good enough to get into a good finance program. Besides the usual worries, like my overall GPA, I haven't taken finance courses beyond the usual investments course, my writing sample explored an issue in labor economics, and none of my LoR writers was a professor of finance. So, I applied to Economics PhD programs only because I thought that my application would be non-competitive at Finance departments for these reasons.

[stupidolive]

I talked with my professors (in top 50 LAC). they told me that graduating from a top 10 does not guarantee a job in LAC mainly b/c they may be great researcher but not teacher, as someone said before in this thread. He told me that many from top 5 didnt even get an interview with my school for a visiting position. some of those who came for lecture give boring talks!

In my college, research is an important factor in tenure consideration. but student input is also taken into account. Getting tenured is tough but i dont think not getting one for now is the end of the world as long as that person continues to produce great research.

Personally, I am not worried about it yet because there are 5 more years ahead. And i think, as i read somwhere in this forum, not all of us entering the program will finish it anyway.

[asquare]

I talked with my professors (in top 50 LAC). they told me that graduating from a top 10 does not guarantee a job in LAC mainly b/c they may be great researcher but not teacher, as someone said before in this thread.

I'm sure that is true: graduating from a top 10 doesn't guarantee a job anywhere. But the broader point that that LACs care about teaching ability as well as research (and place more weight on teaching than research universities do) is also true. In fact, it is something you have to be a little strategic about as a graduate student. If you want a job at an LAC, then you need to build up teaching experience. That can mean TAing even if you have other funding for the year, and definitely means getting experience with other classes besides just 101. Sometimes, grad students try to get out of teaching, and failing that try to get the easiest/least committment teaching job possible. But if you want to get a job at an LAC, you have to balance the desire to minimize your work as a TA with the desire to get experience that LACs value and that helps you develop your skills as a teacher.

[polkaparty]

Why is so many ppl after econ phd when there is less money involved, lots of hard work, and also difficulty in getting tenure after all the hard work? It will be interesting to hear the comments

 

This thread, Why PhD?, from a while back, has responses to your question.

[bscout]

But why so many people want to get the econ phd?

Many people relative to what?

[jjmann]

Many people relative to other fields such as business, sociology, maths, physics, some other sciences etc

[veroniquaz]

Many people relative to other fields such as business, sociology, maths, physics, some other sciences etc

 

any stats to substantiate this statement?

[jjmann]

Nope, no stats to back it up. But still tht should not stop someone from answering, why a lot of ppl are after econ phd. Especially considering the fact, people from other backgrounds also apply for econ phd (physics, math, sociology, etc). Why does this happen?

[Bayern]

Thanks a lot for the comments everyone. They were very valuable indeed. Lot of excellent observations!

I would also ask anyone interested to read the thread mentioned by polkaparty. It says a lot. I am guessing a lot of people already read that thread, because most of the people responding to this thread are quite experienced and old in this TM.