The question, Where should I go to Graduate School? is a common one on
the armchair list. In May of 2000, before the list was archived, there
was an extensive discussion of this question under the subject heading
Graduate Studies. There were some very thoughtful responses that
deserve to be archived and remembered for use by others. I have
collected in this email what I thought were the best responses. My own
response was one of the earliest and begins next.
Alex
---------
The most important things to know about graduate school in economics
are a) you are better off getting an undergraduate degree in math than
in economics and b) holding all else equal, it is much easier getting a
job coming out of a top-ten graduate program than it is coming out of a
non top-ten program.
Thus, if you want to go to graduate school take at a minimum the
following courses: multivariate calculus, linear algebra, statistics,
and if it is offered econometrics and math econ. Other courses to think
about are real analysis and mathematical statistics. If you cannot get
very high grades in these courses sit in on them and do all the
homework.
There are a few departments, such as George Mason, where I attended,
where it is possible to get a degree without knowing as much math as at
other schools. But this is not such a comfort when you realize that to
participate in the economics conversation you must be able to at least
*read* math intensive journal articles (if you are very smart you do not
necessarily have to be able to write a lot of math but you must be able
to read it.) Thus you still have to learn math if you go to Mason but
there are fewer people there to teach it to you than elsewhere. (I got
most of my math econ training by taking courses at the University of
Virginia.) Mason is also becoming more math intensive than it has in
the past (a good thing in my view.)
Note that Mason once had an edge in public choice analysis but
public choice has now become mainstream and there are other departments
such as Harvard and Chicago where a lot of public choice type work is
being done. It would not be unusual to do such work in any major econ
department.
If your math is pretty good and your grades are good enough to
get into a top twenty five program then that is where you should go.
Failing
that Mason is a reasonable choice especially if you are interested in
teaching economics at the undergraduate level, going into policy work,
or working for government.
Alex Tabarrok
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------
Listen to Alex, he speaks wisely. My own two cents:
If you are able to go to either Mason or a Top-20 program, your choice
depends critically on time preference. You will have more fun at Mason
while in graduate school, but your life after graduate school will be
harder, especially if you want an academic job. Life is a tradeoff, sad
but true.
On the other hand, if the unpleasantness of a Top-20 program means you
would never finish anyway, coming to Mason is a free lunch of sorts.
Better to finish at a place you like than be a career student at a place
you hate.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------
I'm not an economist, but I've taken graduate courses in economics
at Berkeley and Chicago and many of my personal friends are economists
and graduate students in the field. Here is my advice:
1) If you want an academic career, the higher ranked the school the
better. Unorthodox schools like GMU may have interesting curricula, but
little social capital. Academic careers are very often prestige driven.
Jobs at top schools are often acquired through social networks
*in addition* to a publication record.
2) Higher ranked schools tend to be places with big research projects.
It is easier to get skills while working in research groups. This leads
to publications and the accumulation of skills - empirical analysis,
writing for publication, etc.
3) If you want a career outside of academia, the school rank matters
less. They won't care if you know what a fixed point theorem is. They
will
care that you have some basic skills which can be acquired at most
places.
4) The more math you learn, the better you will feel. I'd recommend
knowing some real analysis, linear algebra, multivariable calculus
and if you school teaches it, some measure theory. In statistics,
you should understand classical hypothesis testing, OLS and
some of its variants. It might help to learn assorted applied
math like linear programming or some basic differential equations.
In short, at the top programs you should have the background of
a strong math major at a solid undergraduate school.
5) Only go to a less prestigious school if a) you intensely care
about a topic that can only be found at that school and b) you
are persuaded that you are soooo good that people won't care what
the name on the resume is. Few people satisfy a and b, IMO.
-fabio guillermo rojas
------------
Yes, life is full of tradeoffs. One tradeoff involved in graduate study
is
whether to pursue your interests on your own time or as part of your
coursework. At most schools you can spend your free time reading and
studying libertarian philosophy while pursuing more formal analysis in
class. Granted this is not the case at GMU, in recent years if you
wanted
to devote yourself to the mathematical aspect of economics you did so
outside of your coursework. But things seem to be changing, the new
micro
sequence is very similar in mathematical rigor to that of other schools.
Although it may be a self serving argument given my decision to attend a
fringe school like Mason, rankings aren't everything. The rankings in
US
News and World report are heavily biased toward private schools, and
often
do not accurately reflect the productivity of the faculty. One factor
in
choosing a graduate school should be whether professors are doing
research
in areas that are interesting to you- it makes a huge difference when
you
begin dissertation work.
I'm a bit surprised Bryan that you don't have more positive things to
say to
prospective students. Yes it is easier to get a job if you come out of
a
top ten school, but how can Mason ever improve its standing if we
discourage
bright and ambitious students from coming here? Our faculty is
excellent
and productive, our new hires are grads of the University of Chicago,
Harvard, and Cal-Tech. These are all excellent schools! Mason offers
tremendous opportunities for students to participate in seminars,
colloquiums, and lectures. Our law and econ series had speakers like
Posner, Calabresi, Landes, and Buchanan. Next year we will likely have
Gary
Becker and other notables here to speak. These factors would surely
improve
our ranking if they were included, but, instead rankings are determined
primarily on reputation as defined by the graduate directors or
department
chairs who choose to respond to the survey (roughly 48%). Our
professors
are editors of respected journals, publish in respected journals, and
are
highly supportive of graduate student work. I expect our ranking to
improve
in years to come, especially if we attract high quality students. By
all
means, as an undergraduate take as much math as possible but not at the
expense of your economic coursework. If possible double major in math
and
econ rather than focusing on math alone; there simply is no substitute
for
economic intuition. I fear that the formalism of economics is the
outcome of
rent-seeking by economists rather than an attempt to do insightful and
quality economic analysis.
Meghan O'Brien
----------------
Alex's provided excellent advice. I always inform undergraduate
students
who interested to think in terms of the following:
(1) only go to get a PhD if you cannot imagine not doing it. Otherwise,
getting a PhD is an overinvestment in human capital.
(2) go to the best school you possibly can get into that will pay your
full
way. If you are not offered money, then you will be on the bottom of
the
heap at that school. PhD in economics is not like getting a law degree
or
medical training ... it doesn't pay to finance through loans. And the
point
about social capital that was made is internal as much as external ...
if
you are not funded by the department, then the external social capital
aspects will be less in your favor. Networks of professors is about
their
funded students, not just students at their school. Thinking of funding
as
a necessary, though not sufficient, conditions for getting off the
ground in
the networking game. This is why your thesis advisor is important as
well.
(3) only go to a non-top twenty school if you cannot stomach going to
one of
the top schools. If you don't go to a top 20 school it doesn't matter
where
you go ... there is little trade-off in going to #35 or #55, what
matters is
if you are going to #1-10 or 11-20, outside of those and jobs at PhD
granting institutions are not possible unless you fill a spot market.
(4) People always overestimate how good/talented they are, and
underestimate
how good/talented others are in making assessments on how they will
succeed
in intellectual affairs. This is a very competitive business and nobody
owes
anyone a living simply because you get a PhD. It is a game that is
about
"hard work". From 1990-1998 I worked at New York University, senior
professors there -- such as Boyan Javanovich -- work 7 days a week a
good 12
hours a day, junior professors were expected to work more. You are
giving
every oppportunity to excell at those programs --- low teaching loads,
lots
of money for research and equipment, tremendous support in general, and
the
bottom line is that you have to produce in a very competitive game. I
was
kicked out of NYU after 7 years, I was given every opportunity to
succeed
there, but I failed to jump the hurrdle ... so did all 5 out of the 6
others
junior faculty I worked with during my time there. Hell, I even a post
doctoral year at Hoover at Stanford. Great opportunities, took
advantage of
the opportunities as best as I could, yet I failed by the standards put
in
front of me. I think the analogy is similar to someone trying to play
baseball in the major leagues, it is really tough to make it.
Especially if
you only want to play for the Yankees or the Braves, there is a good
chance
you will not make the team, but you might be able to play for the
Diamondbacks or the Marlins, etc.
(5) Most PhD's will be lucky to find good teaching jobs. Of course, the
general rule again is the better the graduate school the better the
placement. But if you are interested in undergraduate teaching, then
attending a heterodox school is less "costly" in terms of job placement.
The general rule is really applicable for research jobs (and that is a
winner take all market). Graduates from GMU are teaching at 2nd tier
liberal arts colleges and have interviewed with 1st tier schools. Of
course
it helps to go to Harvard, but if you don't go there doesn't mean you
cannot
get a good academic job. YOu will most likely not get a job at Yale
unless
you go to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford or MIT, but you could get a job
at
Beloit, Trinity, St. Lawrence, Lafeyette, etc.
(6) Everything I have said is up for grabs depending on how good you
really
are. If you are an excellent researcher, and you can place your papers
in
top journals, then your mobility will increase. At NYU, Ken Wolpin was
there for awhile -- he received his PhD from CUNY, yet has taught
recently
in Minn and Penn -- well, he was a major player in restructuring
econometric
modelling. You cannot bet on this in advance of pursuing your career.
(7) Forget all the advice everyone gives you and pursue your passion ...
the
law of comparative advantage works in academics as well as it works in
other
works of life. If you are a low opportunity cost producer of verbal
analysis, and a high opportunity cost producer of formal analysis,
better
specialize and exchange. Be rest assured that those who have a
comparative
advantage in doing formal analysis will get the jobs that reward that
activity.
Dr. Peter J. Boettke
Associate Professor of Economics, MSN 3G4
George Mason University
4400 University Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
(703) 993-1149
fax (703) 993-1133
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web site: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke
------------------------
> economic intuition. I fear that the formalism of economics is the outcome of
> rent-seeking by economists rather than an attempt to do insightful and
> quality economic analysis.
> Meghan O'Brien
I think that your idea is correct about formalism and economics.
But when giving advice to Ph.D. students, you should still continue
to use economic intuition!! There is an oversupply of Ph.D.'s.
Employers use low cost signals (school reputation and information
gathered from social networks) to sort through candidates.
Doesn't always happen - but it's the rule. The only other dependable
signal is publication in competitive journals.
It is true that heterodox departments like GMU provide quality
education, but this may or may not affect rankings. Academic
rankings change at a glacial pace - innovative places get little
recognition (like GMU econ) while other departments live
on their past glory (I won't name names). I think I was shocked into
this reality when I found an American Pol Sci Assn publication
in the remainder bin at a college bookstore from 1950 which contained
rankings - and they were almost identical to what they were
in 1997!!
It is important for potential academics to know the costs of their
actions completely:
- schools move very slowly in reputation,
- reputation matters a lot for research jobs
- reputation matters much less for teaching positions,
- top ranked schools tend to be the focus of research projects
and journal publication. This gets you "in."
- rank depends less for gov't and consulting jobs.
Potential academics should also know:
- internal support in the department is important
- if you hate the school, it can be hard to graduate (but it does
happen!)
There are *always* exceptions - but you got to be realistic.
A life of learning and teaching is wonderful thing, but the more
you know the better you can prepare for the realities of academic
life.
-fabio
---------------------
On GMU, I think Meghan O'Brien has stated the obvious benefits of the
program here. It is a very intellectually charged place. Andrei
Shleifer
gave a talk here this year and spent the time after detailing the
differences between GMU and Chicago in terms of the seminar experience,
comparing GMU favorably in terms of intellectual contribution to his
project.
GMU allows students to pursue economics in a broad post-classical
political
economy sense, this is unique. In many ways the program at GMU now is
closer
in breadth of economic education to UVA in the 1960s and the Thomas
Jefferson Center rather than the Center for Study of Public Choice at
VPI in
the 1970s.
Alex's remarks about public choice are close to recent comments made by
Gordon Tullock. Tullock pointed out that public choice is no longer
extraordinary science. There are several places now-a-days where you
can
study public choice, very few places you could study political economy
in
the post-classical tradition (which includes questions of ethics,
political
theory, legal philosophy and economics).
At GMU, the market process perspective is an important component to the
educational mission. In fact, this is consistent with the research
program
of James M. Buchanan --- who more than any other individual has
obviously
put his stamp on GMU. Throughout his career Buchanan has pursued
research
along at least four dimensions: (1) public finance/public choice; (2)
subjectivist/market process economics; (3) law and economics; (4)
constitutional political economy. These fields are are strength at GMU.
The combination of these fields is what makes GMU unique in the modern
landscape of academic programs. This also makes us a strong program for
New
Institutional Economics because of this combination.
We also have a particularly strong emphasis in the history of economic
thought -- perhaps the best program outside of Duke now-a-days with the
retirements of Warren Samuels at Michigan State and Sam Hollander at
Toronto.
In the areas I've mentioned we are clearly in the top tier of programs.
What this means is that GMU is a "thin market" department, but in that
market our students (and faculty) are among the top people. But think
twice
about what that means so you go to graduate school with your eyes open
---
when was the last time someone was hired at a top tier research school
to do
history of economic thought? The answer is probably prior to WWII!
In the list I provided above, public choice/public finance and law and
economics are somewhat mainstream fields of research. There are
alternatives to GMU for this program of study. Market process economics
and
constititonal political economy is pretty much unique now-a-days to GMU
(though NYU's program is still an option for Austrian economics). If
your
interests are more Buchanan/Hayek and interdisciplinary political
economy,
then GMU is really the only option for formal study in the US. Of
course,
you could attend a top tier program and then study this stuff on the
side,
but the key factor is that if this is your passion keep in mind that you
will not do your thesis on this topic or research along these lines if
you
hope for a fast track academic career. If you decide to pursue research
along these lines, then the top research jobs will be cut off from you
anyway so the advantages of going to a top tier PhD program (in terms of
academic placement) fades. Of course, top tier research programs are
great
experiences because of the minds you will have the opportunity to
interact
with -- which is important for your intellectual development.
Good luck in your choice,
Pete
Dr. Peter J. Boettke
------------------------
Let me add my voice to the apparently unanimous chorus of
faculty advising students to got to a top school. You may
note that most of the faculty at the lower schools you like
also went to a top school. If you like those faculty you
must admit that a top school education does not destroy
what you like about such people.
One of the great tragedies of the human condition is that
the young aren't very interested in advice from the old.
This topic is a classic example. I am fascinated to
better understand exactly why this happens. Perhaps some
students who have heard the faculty chorus here and still
disagree with them will explain their reasoning to us.
Robin Hanson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------
I've been in the business of giving advice to undergraduates
contemplating graduate work for 20 years. Past advisees include several
respected academics including our list host. I've also sat on graduate
admissions committees many times (at Berkeley where I worked for 15 of
those 20 years) and I have had many conversations about these matters
with people who do graduate admissions at all the top schools as well as
others. I have a pretty good idea of what they want both from potential
graduate students and from new assistant professors.
I am not a libertarian, though my views on economics are sufficiently
outside the mainstream that I have a perspective that might be useful to
a libertarian.
I generally agree with the weight of advice that has been given. The
most important of which has been to know why you want to go to graduate
school and to inform your choice about graduate school accordingly. If
you want a professional career outside academia, an economics Ph.D. is
almost certainly not the right way to go. Also don't waste four years of
your life
getting an economics degree if the only reason you are thinking about
getting a degree is because you like _studying_ economics. Now is the
time to think seriously about how you want to spend the rest of your
life. The paths your life can take are now seriously diverging.
Changing paths will be possible in the future, but it will mean back
tracking or making your own way through the underbrush. A little careful
thought now will save time, trouble and effort in the future.
If you aren't sure what you want to do, don't go to graduate school now.
Take a job that will allow you to get a feel for what a career in a
particular area might be like. For example, if you think you might like
to be a Ph.D. economists but aren't sure, start looking into
internships. Places like Cato, Heritage (or Brookings where I work)
usually have
internship/research-assistant positions that will let you get a much
better feel for what careers of those sort are like. So does the
Federal Reserve, and many government agencies.
You might also try to make your own way. A number of years ago when I
was visiting at the NBER a young woman showed up at my door with her
resume in hand and asked if I needed a research assistant. She was fresh
out of college and thinking about a research career. I hired her for a
year and later wrote her a letter of recommendation for MIT where she
was accepted. She is now a tenured professor at a very good liberal arts
college and is a respected expert on the economics of immigration. Other
interns/research assistants I have hired (like
my current one) have decided that economics is not for them. Spending a
year being moderately unhappy while learning a lot and earning a fair
amount of money is a lot better way of finding out that you don't want
to do something than flunking out of graduate school, or worse, spending
four years in graduate school and six years as an assistant professor
being
miserable. Way to many people try to bang their square pegs into round
holes. Its not good for the peg or the hole.
That said, if you're pretty sure that you want to devote your life to
teaching economics, or to doing original thinking and writing about
social policy, than by all means go get a Ph.D. in economics. No other
preparation will serve you as well. Forget doing sociology or
political science. The training in economics is much much better. Do
consider law -- particularly if you find that you don't like math. I've
seen people who would not have made very good economists become first
rate legal scholars with important things to say. (Even if you like
math you may find the legal mind set or the problems of the law more
interesting than the standard fare of economics. The same doesn't hold
for other social science
disciplines. If you are interested in political science get a degree in
economics and then do political science. You'll be better at it than
someone trained in political science. Better still, get a joint degree,
but make sure you take all the rigorous methods training that economics
offers. That is where the value added is.)
On the very off chance that you know that you want to work in a
consulting firm as a research analyst, or that you want to work as a
forecaster for a major corporation, or some other very narrow career
that requires a Ph.D., again, go for it.
As many people have said, if you want to teach or work in business it
doesn't matter as much where your degree is from -- though even then the
more prestigious the degree the more options you will have. Also,
graduate school has a funny way of changing people's minds about
what they want to do. Whatever you come in thinking you want to do,
there is a good chance
you will come out the other end thinking you want to do research.
So assuming you've thought it through, and you've decided that you want
an academic research
career in economics then:
1) Study lots of math. The courses that have been mentioned several
times are the right ones.
But don't just study math (I would not go so far as to be a math major
-- math minor is better). You are going to learn economics from the
ground up in graduate school so a lot of economics as an undergraduate
will probably be wasted. The best use of your undergraduate time (other
than math and economics) is to broaden your perspectives. Take
Psychology, History, Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science, etc. You
sure won't have time for this in
graduate school (nor when you are an Assistant Professor).
2) Go to the highest ranked school you can, though remember that the
rankings change and feel free to use this wiggle room to find a school
that is a comfortable fit. Don't go to the school currently ranked N+1
if N or N-1 is much more appealing to you. Do visit the schools that
accept you to get a feel for them. If you have a choice to make, use
your visits to help
you make that choice. Do not, as one person suggested, rule out schools
that don't give you fellowships. Lots of schools, particularly large
state schools, don't give many fellowships and expect that students will
support themselves by teaching. This is the norm at these
schools. Only the very very top students have full fellowship support.
This is also true at
many of the good private schools. When fellowship support is the norm it
is usually outside
money (NSF) and not inside money. Sometimes schools don't let first year
students teach. Be
sure you understand your chances for being able to support yourself with
!
teaching and research positions once you arrive at a school, but don't
rule out a school if
you have to finance a year's tuition, or if you aren't sure how you are
going to pay for all
four years.
3) There are three main ingredients to a successful academic career. You
should keep them in
mind in preparing for graduate work, doing graduate work, and
thereafter. All are important
and none should be underestimated:
I) You should have a very firm foundation in economic methodology
in general (including
econometrics) and in a particular area within economics. This is part of
the reason why you
should go to the best school you can. You can find good professors
anywhere, but the
professors at the very best schools will tend to be better connected and
more likely to be
helpful to you in building an expertise. You will be able to find very
smart very good
students at any school, but they (much more than good professors) are
highly concentrated at
the best schools. Since at least half of what you learn you learn from
your fellow students
(more at the better schools) this is very important. It is important to
know mainstream
economics even if you have no intention of working in the main stream.
Whether your heresy is
leftist, rightist, or not classifiable, if you want to influence the
discussion in the
profession there is no substitute for learning to speak its language and
address its conc!
erns.
ii) Speaking of heresy, the second major requirement for a
successful career is a unique
perspective. If you don't have one you're work will not be original and
you will be very
unlikely to make the sorts of important contributions that get you
tenure at a research
oriented school. Nurture your discomforts. If something doesn't seem
right to you it may not
be wrong, but there may be more there than others have recognized, and
that is the basis for
an original contribution. If you are a libertarian (or a socialist, or a
Naderite,...) there
are a lot of things in mainstream economics that will chafe. Good! Use
it. If you think long
enough and hard enough about something that doesn't seem right you will
either: decide you
are wrong, develop the perfect argument to explain why you are right, or
you'll come to a new
understanding of the issue that is probably not only new to you but will
be new and
interesting to others as well. Any way you have something to show for
your effo!
rt.
iii) Be sure to nurture your professional relations. This is
important for many reasons
-- some good some bad. On the honorable side, there is only one thing
more valuable than a
friend who will carefully read your papers and give you thoughtful
criticism of them -- an
enemy who will read your papers and give them thoughtful and careful
criticism. Don't assume
that people who disagree with you are venal or stupid. Chances are they
are neither. Talking
with them may not be a pleasant experience -- you may find it
frustrating (and occasionally
humiliating since none of us is right all the time) -- but it is well
worth the effort. Also,
people are people. As much as we might like to think that we are judged
only on the basis of
our ideas and our professional contributions, never underestimate the
importance of personal
relations in determining how people will judge you or how it might
influence your career. Of
course everyone would rather have a friendly colleague than an o!
bnoxious one all else held equal, but it goes beyond that and it matters
a lot.
None of these three ingredients is essential. There are very good
theorists who could never
write an empirical paper. There are crackerjack applied people who
couldn't write a model to
save their lives. There are even some successful economists who have no
technical tools
what-so-ever. Don't suppose that you will be able to get away with it.
Yes, there are people
who have done amazingly well who have never had a really original idea
in their lives. You
don't want to be one of them. And of course everyone can cite examples
of absolutely horrid
people who have managed, none the less, to become distinguished
academics. That doesn't mean
that you won't have an easier time in life if you treat your colleagues
not just with respect
but care.
Good luck.
-- Bill Dickens
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 797-6113
FAX: (202) 797-6181
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------
--
Dr. Alexander Tabarrok
Vice President and Director of Research
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA, 94621-1428
Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
