humanitiesphd

Anecdotal evidence is obviously going to be incomplete--and ideological. You can tell me this and that has been your experience, and collect those experiences to back up your claim. I will listen to it. But in the absence of concrete data, I'd also want to listen to stories of people who took the time and effort to make informed and well-executed decisions to transition into economics: positive stories. These people could tell me about their experience--and that would also be instructive and hopeful. You really must be some sort of psychoanalyst, chateauheart, to wonder about my identity. I really did not ask for that kind of advice. Please, keep it to yourself. The notion that your experiences should be privileged over those of other people, including @dogbones... now that's a remarkable claim, particularly in this political climate. I am obviously going to ignore your "advice." Perhaps it was my mistake to come here in the first place--I should simply ask graduate students in my program, and talk to faculty here as well. I never said that it is not competitive to get into an economics program. I simply want to try. Thank you, @startz, for finally giving helpful advice! It will go a long way. I'm also not accusing anyone of sexism. I'm saying this has been my experience, and what I'm hearing from two of you fits those patterns of experience. Nor is gender irrelevant. Everything is gendered. If it wasn't, why would the physics program--seemingly "objective" discipline-- at my school have so few women? Or even the math program. How you respond to me, making assumptions about me, is itself a gendered activity. As to needing recommendations from my current program, you all are right, but the economic historian is rather supportive of my decision to take economics courses. I just got an email from him and he even suggested attempting to get a joint PhD from my current school. It wasn't in the handbook, but that's going to be one solution to my "identity." (lol) I am not a prospective applicant. I have at least three years to prepare. That's not an insignificant amount of time. I should also say that my reasons to change my discipline, and whether I will actually get into a top program, is besides the point for people here. As @startz has well understood, what I simply asked for is things I should think about in order to possibly make that transition.

Thanks, @dogbones! Don't worry -- I know better than to listen to negative comments, esp. those that suggest that I cannot do something. Men have always done this in my life, but often it simply reflected their own shortcomings. "You can't get into a top college!" "You can't get into a top history PhD program without a masters!" "The GRE will be hard for you! You should study for it!" "You will find coding very difficult." All of it was garbage. It's also quite ridiculous to keep pushing points that I already acknowledged. I already said I would get more math experience in graduate school--I know I need more of it. I am permitted to take literally whatever course I want. People really have got to read better. What I would have actually appreciated is, for example, recommendations for certain courses that would be important for admission. Whether I ultimately make it into a top program is my business.

Funny. For a PhD student/academic in a data-based discipline, you, chateauheart, sure love to stick to anecdotal evidence (like I do). Perhaps you should be a historian too. As to the data that backs up the claim about the inherent quality of economics PhD applicants, I did not say I refused to accept your claim. I said I would like actual data that demonstrates this claim, as measured by the quality of research experience among the applicants. I can believe your claim but I cannot accept it based on shoddy reasoning. And I already indicated that I know I can get a consulting job through my university. If it was just about money, I'd go ahead and do that right now. And to @therealslimkt ... wow, you sure do make a lot of assumptions! Standard, for someone in economics. I attended a top university as an undergraduate, and the math courses I took did not have much to do with 'application' at all. There was only one tier of courses that served both mathematics and other majors (the only exception was a quantitative methods class for the social sciences--which includes economics, I guess?) But perhaps that was your experience? Besides, I was actually planning to be a quantitative economics major until other departments called. You make a very good point about who I'm seeing around me. You are probably right! The grass is actually not greener on the other side. Anyway, this whole thread was more of a thought experiment than an actual line of action. It was fun to see how you all talk--especially you, chateauheart. You sound like a psychoanalyst (the 'ego')! That was hilarious. That said, I'd like to thank most of you for actually good feedback.

@Double Jump I never said that? Many econ PhD students have as much research experience as people in the lab sciences these days! Most students at top schools all had 2 years of research experience at a good school. What I'm saying is that economics PhD students are not admitted for their GRE scores -- that's simply a minimum requirement. Nobody gets into any PhD program because of their high GRE scores. They are admitted for their research abilities as well as mathematical maturity, among other things. This is simply to counter the point that the pool of economics candidates at any university is more qualified than those in other disciplines simply because of the higher GRE scores of economics PhDs. Need a better indicator to prove the increased "quality" of economics PhDs. Not going to buy the one about the GRE scores. To answer the general sentiment: my decision to go back into economics (or public policy) is motivated by the simple reason that my humanities program is not giving me the kind of fulfillment I had hoped (which it did during my undergraduate career). Clearly, I am also not using the quantitative skills that I worked hard to build--which would positively affect employment outcomes.

I tried to respond to the first set of questions earlier, but it said I need moderator approval. A) I was aware of job prospects through the humanities. Didn't matter to me as long as I felt fulfilled. I also have strong quantitative quills, so coupled with the university's career services, I knew I would find something. B) I no longer feel fulfilled. My program is very individualistic and there is no community. It is rather boring work.. The economics students have really great community because they suffer together. Reminded me of the good old days in my (non-econ) math-y classes (I took about 8 -- not sure if things like discrete math and computer systems count for economics PhDs. I read that you only need linear, multi, statistics and real analysis. I haven't taken real). I also got A's or A-'s in all of these courses. My history PhD program is very competitiv. For example, Columbia's history program attracts over 600 applications (I do not attend Columbia). There are some people who have already published books that have been important for federal and international bureaus. While econ PhDs are good at getting top scores, that's that. Says nothing about their ability to do research, for which they are actually admitted into PhD programs. @chateauheart, you are correct about the difficulty of admission to PhD programs in economics, but remember that I have an 'in' that all those applicants do not. I have met at least 2 students who were undergrads at this institution and were admitted directly to the PhD program -- but only this one. Every other school said no to these applicants. Nepotism clearly works. By the same token, students from my undergrad school got into ONE top school because of their advisor's connections (and insistence). These were good students with good grades, but no research experience at Chicago or something. So I'd say that you are underestimating how effective personal connections can be in a 'number-driven' field like economics.

The career prospects were not a surprise. I am not fazed by them, even if I finish this PhD. I know that if I work well enough with career services, I can find a position (outside academia) simply by the virtue of the name of the university, and my unique position as a humanities PhD with strong coding abilities/quantitative aptitude (beyond those two math courses, I took many statistics and computer science courses - 8, in total.) The PhD experience itself is less rewarding than I hoped. I wanted to be engaged in fulfilling work with collaborative, enthusiastic colleagues. Rather, it has been lonely work -- which is ok -- but there is no sense of coming together at all. The economics students in my school, on the other hand, work together almost all the time. Their offices are always filled with people. If they are suffering, they are suffering together. Reminded me of my experiences in my math and economics courses, where I worked with people. It was very pleasant to learn.

You are correct, zshfryoh1. I would be unwilling to settle for just any economics PhD. I do not think it would be totally unrealistic to go to a top program, eventually. I have, as I said, access to all courses in economics (and mathematics), and thus the ability to make connections with top faculty. Some humanities PhDs I know have gone on to decent, but not top, MBA programs (think Yale), as well as to top law schools (not interested at all). Most students, of course, are unwilling to take the routes I am considering, because they think they are above it. What about programs in public policy (I'm thinking RAND)? Would they be more accessible for someone of my background in 2 years or so? It seems like public policy programs have good placements. According to "career services" at my university, I do not need a degree in economics to get a job as a 'consultant,' the type geared towards undergraduates who are about to graduate from a top school with a random degree.

I am currently a first-year humanities PhD student. My university is ranked #1 for economics. It turns out that I also get significant leeway as to what I can do as a humanities PhD, including taking several courses in economics and mathematics. Lately I've been thinking about going back into economics, as there is not a lot that I can do with my humanities degree. In my undergraduate career, I took linear algebra and multivariable calculus, as well as a few courses in economics. I was thinking of enrolling in some economics and math courses for the next 2 years (undergraduate as well as graduate) and hopefully finding a research position and then applying to PhD programs in economics again. What do you all think / how should I proceed?