Should I get an advanced degree in Econ if I want to learn how to develop?

[zshfryoh1]

So an MPA is good for either being an analyst or a practitioner? I've always heard that when it comes down to MPA vs. Econ.. that the Econ should be chosen because it is always more rigorous, and versatile.

 

The rigor of MPA programs varies from school to school but some are quite rigorous. The Harvard MPA/ID is more rigorous than many US MA in econ programs.

 

It may be true that for analyst jobs in development an econ PhD will usually be chosen over an MPA (I have no idea if this is true but it makes sense), but that does not mean that a well trained MPA from a rigorous program can't get an analyst job. However if you are interested in practical development and not an academic research career the opportunity costs of going for an econ PhD are too high. You are an anthropology major which means you likely have no math background. Taking the minimum necessary math classes just to be competitive for even lower tier econ PhD programs will likely take 1-2 years. Then an econ PhD will be 5-6 years beyond that and your training is directed towards academic research not practical development. An MPA is a 2 year program, and while some require 2 years of relevant work experience, many do not and the training (and prior work experience) is directed toward your interests.

 

As far as working private sector, a lot of MPA/MPP grads work in private sector or semi-public sector, mostly for NGO's, IGO's or think tanks and some do work for corporations or consulting firms. For example, Harvard MPA/ID class of 2016 had 64 graduating students (12 of them joint MBA) and approximately 3/4's went to work for NGO's, think tanks, IGO's or corporations. The MPP that year had 196 students (41 doing joint programs of various types) and had similar percentage who went to work for such jobs though employment was more slanted toward the private sector and less toward IGO's relative to the MPA/ID.

[fmill019]

Apologies... but I swear I made two posts in this thread that are now deleted. One in response to "tm_member" and the other in response to "applicant12" but they are both missing!

 

Shame really as both went into a bit more detail about my background... but to reply back to you zshfryoh, I've actually taken math all the way up to Linear Algebra and was getting ready to take Real Analysis until my funding ran out. I was previously a math major (as well as stats major and a bio major and a chem major) before I pursued sociology and then anthropology.

Until I can get some funding I plan on starting some free MIT Opencourseware in Real Analysis in the meantime. I also need to brush up on my R skills that I used two years ago but have forgotten since-- but I think I will scrap that and go for Python instead.

Sorry for the ramble but that's the extent of my background.

 

The rigor of MPA programs varies from school to school but some are quite rigorous. The Harvard MPA/ID is more rigorous than many US MA in econ programs.

 

Are you sure about this? From the looks of this forum Real Analysis, Probability Theory and Topology are standard undergrad topics that pretty much all prospective Econ MA students need to master before even applying to grad school. I just can't see an MPA being rigorous enough to even require those same hefty barriers to entry, let alone standard grad school courses that carry textbooks like Mas Colell, which give even qualified PhD students problems.

 

may be true that for analyst jobs in development an econ PhD will usually be chosen over an MPA (I have no idea if this is true but it makes sense),

 

And this is honestly what scares me. The fact there is something inherently more valuable to having an Econ PhD when it comes to being an analyst must count for something. I imagine it must be the expert training that Econ students have over fluffy MPA students.

 

if you are interested in practical development and not an academic research career the opportunity costs of going for an econ PhD are too high. You are an anthropology major which means you likely have no math background. Taking the minimum necessary math classes just to be competitive for even lower tier econ PhD programs will likely take 1-2 years. Then an econ PhD will be 5-6 years beyond that and your training is directed towards academic research not practical development. An MPA is a 2 year program, and while some require 2 years of relevant work experience, many do not and the training (and prior work experience) is directed toward your interests.

 

I guess I'm really having a hard time understanding the differences between "academic research" and "practical development". It's a shame that my reply to "tm_member" was deleted because in that post to him I had already expounded on my confusion but I guess I might as well repeat it here as well.

 

Part of the reason why I am confused about "Academic research" and "practical development" is that both want to understand how economies grow and seek to elucidate the steps a certain country or region of the world should take in order to best develop themselves (this is what I've read from Stiglitz, Acemoglu, etc). And both must use some method of investigation in order to analyze and come up with a strategy of how to do so before laying down any plans. In this sense-- I am not understanding how this form of analysis can be readily separated into the dichotomy of "academic" versus "practical". Unless this is totally not the way practical developers go about their routine.

 

But I really love your last line about being able to take whatever I want with the MPA as it will be directed at my interests. I would definitely swing towards the harder Econ courses. I've gotten enough fluff from my undergrad Anthropology degree.

[fmill019]

Can someone please tell me why my posts are disappearing?! This is the third post I've written that refuses to show up! What gives?

[tm_member]

Can someone please tell me why my posts are disappearing?! This is the third post I've written that refuses to show up! What gives?

 

Until you have some number of posts (not sure on the cut off) any post with a quote requires approval. I get to them when I can.

 

It sounds to me that your ideal job would (eventually) be something like being on or the head of a council of economic advisors in a developing country. That council would have teams of staff who do the day-to-day data work and you would like to start your career as one of those "staff" people. A couple of points...

 

1. Your idea of what that job actually would involve is not accurate. You're imagining late nights formulating policy - the "right" taxes, new investment credits, figuring out the "best" infrastructure projects, and so on. The reality is that you'll spend most of your time reviewing budgets and being asked (or forced) to write reports that show economic support for decisions that have already been made.

 

2. Because the role does not involve the kind of "optimal policy-making" you imagine, there is no ideal preparation: you need some mix of political, statistical, managerial, and psychological abilities. There might be some economics in there occasionally, but anyone who takes economics seriously appreciates that very little of human life or economic activity can be planned or designed.

 

Some books that might be helpful to your understanding of development: The Idealist by Nina Munk and The Tyranny of Experts by William Easterly.

Edited April 30, 2018 by tm_member

[zshfryoh1]

Are you sure about this? From the looks of this forum Real Analysis, Probability Theory and Topology are standard undergrad topics that pretty much all prospective Econ MA students need to master before even applying to grad school. I just can't see an MPA being rigorous enough to even require those same hefty barriers to entry, let alone standard grad school courses that carry textbooks like Mas Colell, which give even qualified PhD students problems.

 

I think you are confusing MA in Econ and PhD in Econ. Most US MA Econ programs (Europe is different) are basically cash cow MA's in applied economic analysis or applied econometrics and use Varian or Jehle and Reny or a similar text (not MWG) as the standard Micro text. As such most US MA programs only require 1-2 semesters of Calc and perhaps 1-2 semesters stats/econometrics as a pre-req. Any necessary math beyond that is taught in the program. A few prefer students enter with Multivariable Calc or Lin Alg but almost none require it. The coursework in microeconomics and econometrics at the better, more rigorous MPA or MPP programs will be similar to that.

 

Even for PhD programs, while RA is necessary for most good programs it is possible (though it is getting increasingly harder) to get into a decent top 75 program without it and Prob Theory is useful but not absolutely necessary. Topology is not necessary unless perhaps you are interested theory and applying to a top program, though taking it and doing well will help on an application. If you take a look at profiles here of people who got into top 20 Econ PhD programs you will see that all will have RA, most will have either a Prob Theory class or a serious Econometrics class but less than half will have Topology.

[chateauheart]

I think you are confusing MA in Econ and PhD in Econ. Most US MA Econ programs (Europe is different) are basically cash cow MA's in applied economic analysis or applied econometrics and use Varian or Jehle and Reny or a similar text (not MWG) as the standard Micro text. As such most US MA programs only require 1-2 semesters of Calc and perhaps 1-2 semesters stats/econometrics as a pre-req. Any necessary math beyond that is taught in the program. A few prefer students enter with Multivariable Calc or Lin Alg but almost none require it. The coursework in microeconomics and econometrics at the better, more rigorous MPA or MPP programs will be similar to that.

 

Even for PhD programs, while RA is necessary for most good programs it is possible (though it is getting increasingly harder) to get into a decent top 75 program without it and Prob Theory is useful but not absolutely necessary. Topology is not necessary unless perhaps you are interested theory and applying to a top program, though taking it and doing well will help on an application. If you take a look at profiles here of people who got into top 20 Econ PhD programs you will see that all will have RA, most will have either a Prob Theory class or a serious Econometrics class but less than half will have Topology.

 

You're not wrong about the differences between MA in Econ and PhD in Econ. But I actually agree with fmill019's belief that even the best MPA programs are less rigorous than typical MA in econ. I think you're significantly overestimating the rigor of any MPA program. MPA programs tend to have only 1/4-1/2 of their coursework in quantitative areas, and even for those courses, the content is comparable to undergrad intro stats and economic field electives. That's true for Harvard as well. Apart from law and medicine, professional school programs are almost entirely cash cows, and MPA is one of the more notorious examples. It may be the optimal choice for a very small number of combinations of backgrounds + careers. But mostly a place like HKS is a degree mill for people who didn't get a useful degree as an undergrad. And they place well not because their program adds value, but because having a Harvard degree is just convenient for NGOs and development work. The average foreigner doesn't recognize names like UChicago or Caltech.

[zshfryoh1]

You're not wrong about the differences between MA in Econ and PhD in Econ. But I actually agree with fmill019's belief that even the best MPA programs are less rigorous than typical MA in econ. I think you're significantly overestimating the rigor of any MPA program. MPA programs tend to have only 1/4-1/2 of their coursework in quantitative areas, and even for those courses, the content is comparable to undergrad intro stats and economic field electives. That's true for Harvard as well. Apart from law and medicine, professional school programs are almost entirely cash cows, and MPA is one of the more notorious examples. It may be the optimal choice for a very small number of combinations of backgrounds + careers. But mostly a place like HKS is a degree mill for people who didn't get a useful degree as an undergrad. And they place well not because their program adds value, but because having a Harvard degree is just convenient for NGOs and development work. The average foreigner doesn't recognize names like UChicago or Caltech.

 

The MPA/ID at Harvard (not the regular MPA) is an exception to the general rule about MPA programs. Their micro sequence uses MWG and their macro sequence uses Romer so it is more rigorous than most US MA Econ programs. Their metrics sequence is more application oriented and uses lecture notes supplemented by Baby Wooldridge and Stock and Watson, but a lot of MA Econ programs use similar material for their metrics sequences.

 

There a number of other MPA/MPP programs that are more analysis oriented whose core courses are similar to typical MA Econ program, and while the electives in an MA econ program will be more quantitative/rigorous, for someone interested in the practical side of development like fmill019 is, the networking/job placement opportunities of the MPA/MPP are much better than those for MA Econ.

 

Either way, as far as fmill019's original question, I think you would also agree that the PhD is not the best option for someone interested in practical development.