486hunter

Perhaps this is a little strongly worded but, on the whole, I tend to agree with this statement. If you want to change the world, academia is probably not for you -- if you want to "make an impact," you'll probably be ultimately better off getting an MPP, entering the non-academic world and doing just that. As a Public Policy PhD student, I care deeply about policy but I am cognizant of the fact that much of the work I do will be important only to a small community of individuals. In order to be content in academia, I think you have to love research and be content with this standard as a measure of your success. If your work ends up being influential in policy circles, that's icing on the cake.

This paper may shed some light on this question: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0105_0800_0603.pdf The authors (Athey, Katz, Krueger & Levitt) find that first-year grades are a strong predictor of placement. However, even when a variety of student characteristics are added to the models, the explanatory power is low. The takeaway: Grades may be an indication of future placement but the vast majority of the variation in placement success is not explained well by what we can quantify about a student. So, as long as you're passing your classes and you're learning something, I wouldn't get too hung up over your GPA.

So it will say 70th percentile and below if you did not receive honorable mention. You can either be in the 1st %ile or the 70th. That said, you can probably figure out roughly where you stand on the basis of your ratings. I got two "Excellents" on intellectual merit and a "very good" and a "good" on broader impacts. Didn't get honorable mention.

Awesome! I am in his class this semester. He's a terrific professor.

So when is everyone moving? I just got a place and will be moving out there on July 17th!

This is rare though not impossible -- for example, David Autor at MIT, Brian Jacob at Michigan. As best I can tell, the academic job market for Public Policy PhDs is tough, though it can be a lot easier if your research interests coicincide with interdisciplinary fields like public health, criminology, etc. One strategy which I have heard can make it easier to fit in well on the academic job market is to structure your degree in such a way so as to get a disciplinary focus in a particular field -- like Econ, Soc or Poli Sci. This will enable potential employers to understand what they are getting. E.g. An applied microeconomist with a substantive focus on social policy. Or an applied Political Scientist with a substantive interest in international development.

My two cents. I will be starting a PhD in Public Policy at UC Berkeley in the fall. I thought about pursuing a PhD in economics but felt that given my interest in social policy and that I have no interest in theoretical work, I would always be on the fringe in an econ department. So I chose Pub Pol. That said, if you want to remain in academia, if you feel you can have your interests supported in an econ department, I'd go with Econ. Public Policy is essentially a made-up interdisciplinary social science field and I think your placement options will probably be better with a Econ PhD, other things equal. To address your specific questions: 1. It all depends on what you want to do. Most Public Policy curricula rely on the core courses in the traditional social science disciplines -- economics, sociology or political science. If you want to be an applied social science researcher but you want substantive training in Economics, then you would be advised to take the core courses in the Econ department. For example, I will be taking micro and metrics but not macro. 2. No, this is not necessary. You can apply directly to PhD programs in Public Policy. However, it will be helpful to have a graduate degree or research experience in a field related to your research interests. 3. International/development policy is a very important field in most policy schools -- sin fact, some schools (e.g. WWS, HKS) tend to be more international policy focused than domestic policy focused. It's important to identify several key faculty members whose work interests you -- this will give you a sense of whether or not your interest in development policy will be well supported at a particular school.

There is no consensus on how to specify a model. Regression modeling is probably mroe art than science in many ways. In general, I would say that your model ought to be guided by relevant theory. That said, there are ways to test for which model fits the data better, provided all models have the same dependent variable. AIC/BIC/chi squared test, etc.

I don't think the standard rankings apply to this program. It's simply too different from a standard program. In my opinion, if you are interested in a heterodox program, you should identify top faculty members you are interested in working with and put your faith in them.

Another option for studying Political Economy might be to apply to the joint Econ-Public Policy programs at Michigan and Duke. This would allow you the flexibility to design a program that is grounded in economic theory but also draws upon the resources of the Political Science department.

I know that a number of hard science grads get stipends in the 30k range. And I don't doubt that your friend is one of them. I'm just saying that this is not the norm across the entire spectrum. On average, I would guess that the difference bwteen econ and the hard sciences is likely

A few points: (1) 20-30k is high, even for the hard sciences. 10.5k is a nice stipend but it's probably on the low end for econ. So the difference is not as large as you suggest. (2) Hard science departments are much more profitable for a university than social science departments. In addition, hard science graduates are, on average, a little bit more marketable in the non-academic sector compared to similarly credentials Econ graduates (there are exceptions, I know).

It truly does not matter -- both of these schools are terrific. I would recommend that you go to whichever school you believe will offer you the most enriching experience, both academically and socially.

I thought I'd revive this. I am a graduate of IDE and can comment on some of the questions posed above. (1) IDE is policy-oriented in the sense that it is not necessarily intended as a springboard to a Ph.D. program. Though approximately 1/3 of students eventually go on to receive a Ph.D. (either in Econ or in a related field), the majority of graduates work for central banks, NGOs (World Bank, IMF, etc) or in the private sector. If you are not sure whether you want to continue on to the Ph.D. and are interested in working for a few years, IDE would seem to be a very good choice. (2) Though it is policy-oriented, the core courses are fairly rigorous -- but definitely not at the Ph.D. level. E.g. The micro course I took used Nicholson and was supplemented with some more rigorous material in class. (3) The degree can be used (and has been used) as a springboard to Ph.D. programs. Supplementing the core with some Ph.D. level field courses or advanced math is one way to do this. However, the top Candian programs, LSE, etc. are more appropriate preparation for the Ph.D. (4) Regarding admission, the latest word is that they offer admission to about 1/4 of applicants. The vast majority come from outside the US. My sense is that 770+ math GRE score is desired but they are definitely willing to forgive a lower score if other elements of the application are strong. The mean is given as 750 on the website. Obviously strong grades are important. Mathematical preparation through multivariate calc and linear algebra seems to be the norm. A few people hadn't had this and were required to take a summer mathematics for economists course. Some people have substantially more math. There's a broad range. In any case, I hope this is helpful to future applicants. I will try to keep checking this thread if people have questions.

Field courses may not be strong signals but I'd also bet that with a few exceptions, not taking any field courses may raise a few eyebrows.

There is enormous demand in the private sector for quantitative skills consistent with attainment of an MA in Economics. With the exception of a very small group of employers who are looking for people with skills and knowledge of economics consistent with a Ph.D., no one is going to see an M.A. in Econ as a negative asset in the job market. And earning a master's will certainly not lower(!) your earning power. That's complete nonsense and isn't even remotely believable. Don't listen to this guy -- he's letting his personal bias get in the way of giving you an informed opinion. It's up to you whether or not a Ph.D. program is right for you. But you should not believe that you will not be marketable without a Ph.D.

Of course, even a singles hitter needs to hit a homerun once in a while. And I'm not suggesting that one can build a successful career by publishing in obscure journals. What I am suggesting is that there is an alternative to the model of publishing 1-2 articles a year in QJE/AER etc. There are a number of second/third tier journals that are well-regarded in particular subfields and these journals might be an appropriate place for a paper that doesn't have the widespread appeal necessary to make it into a top journal. It also depends upon what one's goals are. Sometimes you have an idea for an interesting paper but the analysis is straightforward and doesn't involve anything particularly clever (no instrumental variables, no structural models, etc). Or you simply want to summarize past literature and suggest where it may be lacking. Nothing fancy but something that is still interesting to those studying a particular topic. If your goal is simply to publish in top journals you wouldn't touch this sort of work. But if your goal is to do research that you find interesting, there is still a place for this type of work in the literature and there are probably others who will be interested in what you have to say. Academia is a pretty big place and there's room for lots of stuff.

I agree -- it is one thing to strive to be the best. But to demean the accomplishments of others in such a crass way is exceedingly distasteful. This professor could have chosen a much more tactful way to impart that, in his opinion, you should aim higher.

Not every article (even if it is excellent research!) is destined for a top journal. With regard to empirical work, top journals want to publish research that is both good and convincing. But often even the most nuanced analysis fails to make up for deficiencies in the data. This is not to say that the research isn't excellent and, in fact, the article may still make an important contribution to the field. It's just that given the selectivity of top journals, these articles may end up in something lower ranked (or a journal that is more topically focused). It's also worth noting that there is more than one way to build a solid academic career. Some academics are homerun hitters -- they aim to publish 1-2 articles a year, each of which is destined for a top journal. Other research endeavors are not worth their time. Others are singles hitters -- they are much more prolific but the quality of the journals in which they publish is more variable. Both approaches can bring success.

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.

I think it's a ranking of standard departments. I don't think Berkeley, Maryland, Cornell's ARE, etc were included.

My two cents: Both are terrific schools. It's college -- go where you'd like to go and where you think you will have the best experience. Take the right classes and seek out the right research experience and the Ph.D. in Economics will work out if you haven't changed your mind.

Very well put. Even though I expect my research to be applied and "relevant to public policy", I certainly don't have the expectation that my research will have a major impact on the world. If it does, terrific. But if one's goal is to make an impact on the world, academia might not be the best route to take. For me, I love doing research and learning from the research of others. If you like to devise analytic strategies that will inform our knowledge of public problems or economic behavior, I think a Ph.D.may be for you. Though naturally this seems more like a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

I'd agree that AEI is more academically oriented than Cato or Heritage but it's pretty hard to argue that AEI is centrist/not ideological. From AEI's own website: AEI's purposes are to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate. Its work is addressed to government officials and legislators, teachers and students, business executives, professionals, journalists, and all citizens interested in a serious understanding of government policy, the economy, and important social and political developments. Source: AEI - About AEI - AEI's Organization and Purposes

AEI is definitely ideological -- they produce research that supports preo-business and/or free market policies and an aggressive foreign policy abroad (American Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That said, they do a bit more serious research than a place like Heritage. Brookings is often described as center-left but I'd say it's non-ideological. Brookings Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia