Jump to content
Urch Forums

Lazy Econ PhD Grads


fkrueg1

Recommended Posts

"The 50th percentile at almost all universities has a score of 0.1. That’s equivalent to publishing one paper in a second-tier field journal over six years."

 

So a second tier publication is worth practically nothing. That explains why the numbers are so low. There are only so many slots per issue in first tier journals, and they are probably going to established researchers.

 

It would be interesting to see how other disciplines line up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a similar article which discussed the connection of research productivity to rank of PhD program. If I recall correctly, they did not find an incredibly strong correlation between rank of PhD attended and publication record. Another nail in the coffin of those who suffer from the "non-top-10 program is a waste of time" mentality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a similar article which discussed the connection of research productivity to rank of PhD program. If I recall correctly, they did not find an incredibly strong correlation between rank of PhD attended and publication record. Another nail in the coffin of those who suffer from the "non-top-10 program is a waste of time" mentality.

 

No learning is ever a waste of time.

 

Besides what else is there to do but get a phd? Strive for middle management? Blech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No learning is ever a waste of time.

 

You'd be surprised how many people have this belief. I think everyone starts out thinking that they are gonna be the star student at a place like Hahvard or MIT, but then have their expectations lowered either by forums like this or by the application process itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised how many people have this belief. I think everyone starts out thinking that they are gonna be the star student at a place like Hahvard or MIT, but then have their expectations lowered either by forums like this or by the application process itself.

 

Evidently a better strategy is to just be good somewhere rather than the best at the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised how many people have this belief. I think everyone starts out thinking that they are gonna be the star student at a place like Hahvard or MIT, but then have their expectations lowered either by forums like this or by the application process itself.

 

It's just like being a kid and thinking person XYZ is the smartest person in the world. As you update your priors your expectations adjust. My case is no different - I went to a small state school where I was ill-advised. I had no idea, before finding this forum, that most applicants were math majors in addition to econ, or had enough math background to nearly have a major (or minor). I thought that I was an exception.

 

From such a limited perspective the information on admissions pages regarding minimum math included "calc 1-3, and stats" is deceiving. Even stating that successful applicants usually also have linear algebra is deceiving. It seems like it would make more sense to just say that successful applicants almost always have courses A-Z, listing what is actually most common. Hell, why not include that most applicants have some grad work under their belt, if that is also true. /derail off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just like being a kid and thinking person XYZ is the smartest person in the world. As you update your priors your expectations adjust. My case is no different - I went to a small state school where I was ill-advised. I had no idea, before finding this forum, that most applicants were math majors in addition to econ, or had enough math background to nearly have a major (or minor). I thought that I was an exception.

 

From such a limited perspective the information on admissions pages regarding minimum math included "calc 1-3, and stats" is deceiving. Even stating that successful applicants usually also have linear algebra is deceiving. It seems like it would make more sense to just say that successful applicants almost always have courses A-Z, listing what is actually most common. Hell, why not include that most applicants have some grad work under their belt, if that is also true. /derail off.

 

Actually, this entire thread is a derail (not admissions related) so you're probably fine. You might even be getting the thread back on track by bringing it back around to admissions criteria.

 

We may have a skewed sample on here, whereby biases in our perception of the admissions process lead applicants who have been influenced by this forum to have greater math preparation. Also as this forum seems really top-30 heavy, expectations of preparaton might be high. Anyone agree or disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article seems to get it right when they make reference to the sectors that hire PhDs to do research that doesn't involve publishing in academic journals. If the median student in most programs goes on to the private, public, non-profit, or teaching sectors, it's kind of silly to look at the median student's academic publication record. That'd be roughly equivalent to coming up with a metric to measure professors' contributions to some out-of-sector goal: probably non-zero, but lower than those who do it for a living.

 

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the JEP promotes the academic sector in the way other sectors promote themselves internally. We should probably take issue, however, when that self-promotion comes with a dose of condescension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may have a skewed sample on here, whereby biases in our perception of the admissions process lead applicants who have been influenced by this forum to have greater math preparation. Also as this forum seems really top-30 heavy, expectations of preparaton might be high. Anyone agree or disagree?

 

This forums ability to skew the sample is only a byproduct of the actual preferences of economics Ph.D. programs. While this board does tend to stroke mathematics (notably RA) as the holy grail of admissions, it isn't any different than what a top-50 professor would tell you re: mathematical preparation. That is unless they are a dinosaur and haven't sat on an adcom in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forums ability to skew the sample is only a byproduct of the actual preferences of economics Ph.D. programs. While this board does tend to stroke mathematics (notably RA) as the holy grail of admissions, it isn't any different than what a top-50 professor would tell you re: mathematical preparation. That is unless they are a dinosaur and haven't sat on an adcom in a long time.

 

But aren't our perceptions of the actual preferences of Top 50 programs heavily influenced by the information on this forum? I mean the empiricism of this forum is one of its strengths but no sample or experiement is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. You've done a good job rephasing exactly what I said before.

 

I'm just saying perhaps our assessment of the admissions criteria suffers from omitted variable bias. :)

 

Taking as many math classes as possible is obviously a dominant strategy, as is performing well in a research assistantship. But the folks at Harvard are probably not trying to trick you by saying you need calc 1-3, math stats and possibly linear. If they weren't willing to accept people with that background, and didn't accept people with that background with some regularity, they wouldn't say they are. As you travel further down the rankings, I'm wiling to guess that background becomes more and more common.

 

So I'm just wondering if we should look for some of these ommitted variables to take our model to the next level. Or are we satisfied with the model we have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most likely reason that schools don't post more stringent requirements is because they do not want to exclude foreign students whose universities do not allow for things like double majors. This is not my area of competency, but I think many Indian schools make it very difficult to study both math and economics.

 

Look at UPenn's suggest mathematical preparation. They list, by far, the most rigorous prep I have seen. I would not be surprised if these are the de facto requirements for most top-10 programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their level of excellent and the level of excellent described by competitive applications on this board are different. Folks on here have up to four analysis courses, graduate level math courses, differential equations series, and other stuff that I can't remember because it goes beyond me. Is it possible that meeting the level of excellent described by a top 10 program is still insufficient? Or is it possible that there is a disparity between perceived and actual returns for increased math prep. Is it possible that we see folks getting admitted with these courses but they are acxtually being admitted because of something else that is correlated with the increased math prep, but not dependent on it. Is it possible we could describe strategies to produce these ommitted variables in our own applications.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their level of excellent and the level of excellent described by competitive applications on this board are different. Folks on here have up to four analysis courses, graduate level math courses, differential equations series, and other stuff that I can't remember because it goes beyond me. Is it possible that meeting the level of excellent described by a top 10 program is still insufficient? Or is it possible that there is a disparity between perceived and actual returns for increased math prep. Is it possible that we see folks getting admitted with these courses but they are acxtually being admitted because of something else that is correlated with the increased math prep, but not dependent on it. Is it possible we could describe strategies to produce these ommitted variables in our own applications.

 

Two analysis courses, a course in diff eq, linear algebra, probability, and statistics are commonly required courses for any math major. Measure theoretic probability is usually a graduate level topic. At UPenn, I would not be surprised that having nearly a math major and taking graduate level economics is par for the course.

 

What would you suggest is the factor correlated with increased math prep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two analysis courses, a course in diff eq, linear algebra, probability, and statistics are commonly required courses for any math major. Measure theoretic probability is usually a graduate level topic. At UPenn, I would not be surprised that having nearly a math major and taking graduate level economics is par for the course.

 

What would you suggest is the factor correlated with increased math prep?

 

I'm not sure. I'm casting about for input as to what the omitted variables could be. It could be correlated with another variable besides math prep as well.

 

For instance to keep with the physics sequence hypothetical, perhaps students who exceed upenns standards of excellence in math prep are also more likely to take the three course sequence in physics. This sequence signals to adcomms a level of intellectual curiousity not strictly produced by ambition and provides an opportunity to apply quantitative skills in a different context. Perhaps this is what makes the difference between a top 10 reject and admit and not exceeding excellence in math prep.

 

To clarify I don'think a physics sequence is an omitted variable. I'm just using it as an example to describe the qualities of this hidden variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I'm casting about for input as to what the omitted variables could be. It could be correlated with another variable besides math prep as well.

 

For instance to keep with the physics sequence hypothetical, perhaps students who exceed upenns standards of excellence in math prep are also more likely to take the three course sequence in physics. This sequence signals to adcomms a level of intellectual curiousity not strictly produced by ambition and provides an opportunity to apply quantitative skills in a different context. Perhaps this is what makes the difference between a top 10 reject and admit and not exceeding excellence in math prep.

 

To clarify I don'think a physics sequence is an omitted variable. I'm just using it as an example to describe the qualities of this hidden variable.

 

This is getting downright unintelligible. Ph.D. admission in economics comes down to two things:

 

1 - Mathematical and economic preparation as it relates to your ability to handle first and second year coursework at the level of rigor supplied by a given program

2 - Your expected ability to create academic research

 

Number 1 is pretty straight forward. If you take the correct quantitative courses and do well (and actually learn the material), you'll likely be able to handle the coursework for an economics Ph.D.

 

Number 2 is what is much harder to estimate. This is where adcoms heed letters. If your letter writers can say that you are VERY likely to be a productive researcher, this matters very much.

 

Your physics example could fit into both Number 1 and Number 2, but this doesn't imply there is omitted variables bias.

 

The true model, in my humble opinion, is Admit = F(X,Y) where X is mathematical/economic preparation and Y is the conditional expectation of your future research output based on your previous research output, your letters or recommendation, your SOP, etc.

 

Adcoms don't give a **** about your intellectual curiosity outside of economics, unless it maps into Y.

 

Maybe admissions is subject to considerable omitted variables bias, but those variables are definitely unobservable or subject to significant amounts of noise. Almost certainly, they enter into the formula above in Y. The JEP paper cited in the beginning is evidence of this. Even the best programs have a hard time identifying the best future researchers. So if these things were observable, I'd argue that through the many iterations of cohorts graduating and the revealed success of graduates, that programs could identify what ex ante characteristics make good researchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying its efficient at sorting applicants by expected potential is a pretty low bar, as they could define expected potential anyway they want and create a perfect system to sort based on it.

 

Anyways, I don't necessarily think the system is broken. I think there were serious flaws in the way that study measured research output.

 

However, I still don't understand why we don't try to to better define function Y. It seems lazy to just say the variables are unobservable or noisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I still don't understand why we don't try to to better define function Y. It seems lazy to just say the variables are unobservable or noisy.

 

Maybe it is lazy, but it isn't stupid. We could sit here all day and try to figure out how to measure this stuff, but it just isn't worth it.

 

Letter writers are the ones who have the most input on the Y side. So we're all better off spending our time showing our advisors that our potential ideas are worth a damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is lazy, but it isn't stupid. We could sit here all day and try to figure out how to measure this stuff, but it just isn't worth it.

 

Letter writers are the ones who have the most input on the Y side. So we're all better off spending our time showing our advisors that our potential ideas are worth a damn.

 

Its obvious there are more variables than what are discussed on here. Why not let people think about them if they want?

Edited by publicaffairsny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its obvious there are more variables than what are discussed on here. Why not let people think about them if they want?

Clearly, there are lots of variables. However, what you're after are variables that are common enough amongst committees to be worth discussing. If a reader at School X gives preference to physics majors with intercollegiate athletic background, there's a pretty good chance most readers at other schools don't feel the same way.

 

The trouble is you don't know who your readers will be, and readers have varied preferences on the margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, there are lots of variables. However, what you're after are variables that are common enough amongst committees to be worth discussing. If a reader at School X gives preference to physics majors with intercollegiate athletic background, there's a pretty good chance most readers at other schools don't feel the same way.

 

The trouble is you don't know who your readers will be, and readers have varied preferences on the margin.

 

Maybe there is one that is uniform among readers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...