Search the Community

Most people find Year 3 to be the most mentally challenging time of their PhD. You are just starting to define your research agenda and projects, but the pace is slow and the feedback is almost always negative. Around this point, PhDs begin to question their ability to write a dissertation, become an academic, or even do useful work in general. Below is advice I wish I would have gotten prior to my (very rough) 3rd year in a Management (Macro) PhD program. You'll soon see that writing a paper is just your small contribution to a conversation that the rest of the field is having, nothing more and nothing less. Thus, you need to be (1) interested in the topic of conversation and (2) understand how the rest of the field discusses topics and is expecting the conversation to evolve. Most PhDs with bad advisors don't fully understand the critical importance of point (2). The current state of our field is built by a complex social process of egos, ideas, and tradition which is unlike any other industry. You can easily see this in the field's large amount of conventions that would be obscure, counterintuitive, or bizarre to laypeople and even other academics. For most people, it takes a year or two to figure out how to come up with ideas faculty will find interesting, how to write papers are written to appeal to reviewers, how topics evolve in a predictable way, etc. Don't be hard on yourself when it takes you a while to figure this out. Around the middle of year 4, assess if you meet both criteria (1) and (2). For example, you may realize that you like what you research but learn that you find the entire writing, review, and publication process glacially slow, overly focused on almost useless theory, beholden to fads, reliant on bad science, and that you've made no meaningful contribution when all is said and done. If you (1) lose the fire for topics of interest or (2) realize that you don't like the often dysfunctional academic production function, you should ask yourself whether you want to do research academia for the next 40 years. The job essentially doesn't change as you get more senior-- you just do a bit more teaching and service. If you aren't energized by (1) and (2), it can be a miserable life. There are many tenured professors in this position. If you fall into this camp, start looking at adjacent industry jobs, which would almost certainly be a better fit, allow more mobility, give you more locational flexibility, and often have relatively higher pay once you get five years out of your PhD. Industry has other issues (e.g., less autonomy, less temporal flexibility, less pure intellectual engagement), but in the long run, you'll almost always be judged on your current skills, ability to learn, ability to work well in a team, and by what you can produce. Make sure to find the best fit for you (and your loved ones!).

Which is better for macro? Would it be different if the career goal is not academia but IO and central banks? Thanks!

I've received an offer for a Canadian economics PhD program just outside of the top 2 UBC/UofT (a top 5 school). I also have a business PhD offer from another school which has a very high academic placement rate. I like economics more than business, but because I really want to be in academia, I'm a bit scared to take the economics PhD offer since only UBC and UofT consistently place in academia. The school which has offered me the Economics PhD program has placed some people at good academic positions, but there is also an equally large number of placements who go into government or industry. Is going to a Canadian economics PhD outside the top 2 too risky if you want to place in academia? Any opinions, thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I have 3 options: UNC-Chapel Hill ($), IC Irvine ($$), and Rochester ($). I visited Irvine and loved it. Also as a note, I am very open to an industry position rather than academia in the future, might even prefer it. Interests are applied micro, metrics, and labor. So, apart from choosing a school, I am worried I will not make it at Rochester, which seems like the obvious choice. I am a 3rd-year undergrad majoring in statistics and economics, with a minor in math (up to real analysis and diffeqs). The admissions person warned me that many Americans who come straight from their undergrad do not make it, and that worries me. Does anyone have any advice on what to do and whether or not I would make it? Also, with not being deadset on academia, I am not sure how much rankings truly matter.

am i correct to observe a us/non us phd divide in business academia? if u attend an aussie school, u have a decent chance of placing in non us regions (aus/europe/hk/etc) but your chances of placing in the usa is very low and difficult. in academia, there seems to be a border between us and non us schools with very tough visa rules.:crushed:

Here are my basic statistics GMAT: 750 (98%) Undegrad GPA: 3.59 Graduate GPA: University of Oxford (Said) M.Sc 2008 with upper secondary and an MBA from Emory (Goizueta) 2011 Research Experience: I had a few publications back in 2008 and am working on a white paper right now with a colleague in Oxford 2018 Teaching Experience: 2 years visiting lecturer Work Experience: 8 years in multinational banks in NYC and Asia Concentration Applying to: Organizational Behavior (I think) Number of programs planned to apply to: Want to focus on Canada because I am a Perm Resident. So UoT (Rotman), York (Schulich), UBC, Queens and McGill Dream Schools: University of Toronto but I met a York University professor who had research interests IDENTICAL to my own 1. Questions or concerns you have about your profile? I have finished my MBA back in 2011 so I'm kind of out of touch. I am trying to fix that by contacting some of my Oxford fellow alums in academia and working on a white paper with them this year (I will probably be third author). Will I still be considered too disconnected from academia for the top Canadian schools? Any additional specific questions you may have: As a gay man I want to focus on sexual minorities in the work place. Although there is plenty of work on gender and race minorities, there is not as much work done related to LGBT discrimination, etc. 2. Is that a bad sign that very few researchers in Canada (or even globally) work in this area? 3. Would it come across as self serving that a gay man wants to study LGBT issues in corporations? 4. Would OB the best area for me to apply within a business school?