Back in the 1970s in Chicago, I had an acquaintance, a single dentist. He was from Taiwan. He had also earned a PhD in anthropology. He was a specialist in both pediatric dentistry and anthropological dentistry. I know, weird. I asked him once what it was that drove him to seek more and more education. He responded that he first went to college to meet a beautiful young woman, marry her and be happy for the rest of his life. When that didn’t pan out, he said he went to graduate school to meet an intelligent woman, marry her and be happy for the rest of his life. When that didn’t pan out, he said he went to dental school, to meet a rich woman, marry her and be happy the rest of his life. He was in his mid-forties when I had this conversation with him. He was still single and he still hoped to marry a woman—any woman no matter how good looking, smart, or well-heeled.
I went for a PhD program in computer science, dropped out after a couple years, and got a masters as a consolation prize. The consolation masters is fantastic! Nobody in industry ever cared, ever, that I had a masters degree. However, I didn't realize that as a student, and getting the masters was psychologically very reassuring as it encouraged me that dropped out wouldn't mean "wasting the two years".
Does this advice only apply to prospective economics students? I'm a student at a state university for an engineering degree (hopefully avoiding a lot of the signalling which plagues other disciplines), and I'm currently planning on getting master's degree. My school offers a 4+1 program which will allow me to get my master's in only one extra year, so I think the master's has a good cost benefit, but I don't believe that the same applies for the PhD.
Things may be different now, but 40 years ago I got an MS in engineering. My classes were a mixed group, with both Master's and PhD students. The consensus among my fellow students was that in Engineering, a PhD put you in a position to be a professor. If your focus was to actually work as an engineer, rather than teach or do research at a university, then the PhD didn't provide a lot of benefits over the Master's. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but I suspect that generally it is still true.
It really depends on which engineering degree and how good your school is. In computer science/engineering (or EE if you are going for a software job) the masters is not worth that much, except you can essentially "upgrade" your school. If you get, for example, an undergrad degree at Ohio State, and a masters degree at Stanford, that will be a better-looking resume than adding in a masters from Ohio State. The 4+1 is often not worth anything more than the plain 4. I think it makes sense to simultaneously apply for jobs and keep the 4+1 as an option, if that's possible, and if you get a job that would be a good outcome after a 4+1 program you can just go straight there.
I'm pushing 40 with three kids and I really want to pursue a graduate degree in this field, or at least get into the realm of ideas in a more formal way. I own a personal financial planning practice that provides me with sufficient money and time such that I have no need to make a living from this. In undergrad I double majored in philosophy and political science, I have a law degree, and a legal masters in taxation. In my early 30s I discovered Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams etc. and really haven't looked back. At this point I'm spending so much time reading and listening but want more of a formal collaborative outlet for my ideas. I'm very much in line with GMU economics worldview.
If there were a way for me to become involved in a graduate program remotely that took me 10 - 15 hours per week I would do in a heartbeat. I can't commit to the full Ph.D. track but can certainly contribute something. Just trying to figure out how.
At this point I might spend the rest of my life arguing with Raj Chetty in the shower.
As someone with a GMU M.A. Economics degree, I disagree. A masters has served me well for the last 15 years (outside of academia). I received a solid grounding in the economic way of thinking and continue to learn from blogs and other sources.
Brian wrote: If the response is, “I want to succeed in business,” then I confidently tell them, “A Ph.D. will be a waste of time for you.”*
I'm not sure that's totally true. Having worked for a very large, very famous investment bank, all of the economists in the market analysis group had Ph.Ds. Likewise, having worked for a large money management firm, many of the top portfolio managers had a Ph.D. in economics. I'd be willing to bet that many of those people, if not most, wouldn't have had their jobs without those degrees.
I would agree that if you want to work in finance, a PhD in econ is a pretty good way to go. Or a PhD in math or physics.
In probably every other business field, however, a PhD does nothing. Although that is just my experience from 15 years of industry work with a PhD I got a bit over half way through. There may be other business fields where the PhD is especially valuable (maybe marketing?) but there are precious few PhD economists running around any industry that doesn't spend a lot of time with the Federal Reserve.
I guess it's worth pointing out that I think 90% of the value of the Ph.D. for portfolio managers to the money management firm was marketing to potential clients, i.e signaling.
Agreed. I can't recall who it was on EconTalk who described their job in finance as basically being in the back room so the managers could walk clients past the door while saying "And here's all our PhDs coming up with clever things" before moving on. Seems about right to me; in my experience people are sometimes interested in the fact you have the degree but less interested in what you say based on it.
I have absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that a lot of worthy scientific production has been the result of someone trained in one paradigm moving into another field that uses a different paradigm.
If there is validity to this, it seems like there might be value to be had, in running a textile factory, from having been trained in economics. (Unless everyone managing textile factories is already immersed in academic economics...?)
I guess I'm willing entertain the idea - I did a physics BS before a geophysics phd, and its very hard to picture doing well in the geophysics phd without years of physics and math as background. I bet its different in different fields. Also a lack of imagination is hardly proof.
In between my two masters degrees I dropped out of a Ph.D. program. My ultimate goal was to avoid doing paid work whenever possible and write and translate poetry, which I did for a while until multiple chronic illnesses monopolized my time and attention.
I did my Ph.D. because I intended to work in industrial research labs (I had worked in one for 5+ years as a BS Physcist) and I needed my Ph.D. to be taken seriously, otherwise I simply lost arguments. By the time I graduated (early / mid 80's) the industrial research lab model was dying. I did it for a few years and then moved into the startup space for a decade or so before returning to industry, development, not R&D. As I aged out of industry (severe age discrimination) I moved into consulting and am still busy at that.
You can't predict your career. Technologies change, industries change, and you and your interests change. Keep learning.
I have no formal training in my field. None. I work in it, publish in refereed journals occasionally, and by this point have a hard earned reputation among my peers and clients.
I thought a "terminal master's degree" is one in which the field does not have a higher degree, such as fine arts, where the furthest possible degree you can get is an MFA and doctorates are not offered. Is this not the case?
Am I the only one who has always found the idea of "career goals" to be an example of the Planning Fallacy. Life is too chaotic for you to be able to predict what career you'll end up in. It's better just to go to college in some field you enjoy studying and get enough degrees to signal to future employers that you are smart and hard-working. Who knows what jobs will be available once you graduate? Hopefully something worthwhile will turn up sooner or later after you graduate. Just make sure you've done enough signaling that you'll look good.
My views might be colored by the fact that I graduated college in 2008.
Great advice. For my part after interviewing a few different schools I only applied to GMU, partially because the other schools were depressing and partially because I had already been working for about 10 years and was married, so even if I didn't get money right away it wasn't a big deal; I could live off savings. (I didn't get funding for the first two years, but afterwards didn't have a problem.) To me, learning with professors I respected and admired was the goal, and if I didn't like it or didn't get in, well back to industry I would go.
As it turned out I really didn't like working in academia; hooray for starting in 2018 as the crazy was accelerating rapidly. I may go back to teaching*, but otherwise the PhD is really just useful for the fancy resume line and occasionally pointing out "It is Doctor Hammer, by the way" when you need an easy status move in a meeting. Still, I am very glad I went to GMU, it was a great experience and I still keep in touch with folks.
*I am kind of an odd case where I love teaching and don't care about research so much. Most big schools see that as a negative, but "Teaching Track" positions are somewhat more common over time it seems.
I feel bad for the student from China. There's probably more to the story. Thoughts?
1. Maybe communist China doesn't promote lucid expression of one's individuality.
2. Or maybe, self-deception is involved?
3. Or maybe it's drilled into many kids in China that running a textile factory is of the highest status.
4. Or maybe the GMU Econ PhD is the start of a pathway that he or she isn't able to share because it wouldn't be safe to share. He's being monitored possibly.
5. Is he going to tell Bryan, "I seek to learn public choice economics in order to bring more freedom and better incentives to China?" Telling people that he wants to run textile factory is probably more in line with his psychological and cultural constraints.
6. Many young people conflate economics and business. They're related but an economics PhD is pretty different than a MBA. In China such discernment is probably further muddied by communist norms.
> I feel bad for the student from China. There's probably more to the story
I doubt that there was. Almost certainly, the reason that student's career goal was running a textile factory was that his family already had the factory available.
A friend of mine once dated a girl from a rich family in Indonesia. She said that her goal in life was to avoid working for the family business, because it was all politics.
Yes, the factory already existed for sure, but is it really the case that his career goal is to run a textile factory? He was probably somewhat proud of his family’s wealth. Does he even have to work? Saying that you’re going to run the family business might be a way of saying. “I’m set for life. I don’t have to work. I can be an intellectual.”
Dad would be proud if he took over the family business. He’s probably still trying to figure out what he wants to do for his career. And so he’s exploring various options. His family is wealthy enough to pay for a PhD in whatever field he wants, but he’s trying to balance a number of competing goals. Some have to do with status. Some have to do with his dreams, marriage, independence from his family, intellectual pursuits, bringing more freedom to his country. Some have to do with practical realities - he already knows the textile business. Running the business would, in the short term, allow him a nice car, maybe a luxury apartment. So he’s tossing around ideas. Sorting things out. He’s seeking advice from Bryan, an economics professor, with a completely different set of goals and constraints. Bryan lives in America. Bryan is free (to the extent that Americans are). Bryan doesn’t understand this guy’s situation. So does Bryan’s advice really work that well in this situation? We don’t really understand this guy’s situation well enough to conclude that his thinking is irrational or backwards. There’s not enough information. I feel bad for the guy because he’s living in a communist country. To leave China permanently might mean not seeing one’s family again or not seeing them as much as he would like.
From Bryan’s perspective...I’m not sure Bryan wants to eat lunch with this guy on a weekly basis. So Bryan is saying. It’s not a great fit. We don’t really want you.
I know I'm in the right place to ask an off the wall question... Why does GMU (or anywhere) require a BA/BS in order to enter the PhD program. In my personal experience, my BS did almost nothing to prepare me for my PhD program. I would suggest many (most) people bright enough to achieve a PhD in economics at GMU would be in the same situation. The cost (direct and opportunity) of those 4 undergrad years is not trivial.
Moreover, if (like me) you realize an academic career is no longer your goal, you might leave with your Masters at age 21 instead of age 24.
If you're going to spend your life in academia then your 4 undergrad years are not a waste, you can just do academic things with them. If you are *not* going to spend your life in academia then don't get a PhD.
Agreed on all points. While you can probably get all the course work to prepare you for a PhD in high school, chances are you don't really know what you want to do until you have been in college and seen if you like academia. If you don't want to be a college professor or academic adjacent researcher there is little reason to have a PhD.
Some will (remember, the type of student who would be interested in bypassing undergrad in pursuit of a PhD is not your typical student). But for others, I would submit that spending 4 years and $200-$300K to acquire that grounding is unlikely to be the most efficient way to do it.
In my personal story, my 1st semester of my PhD program I took 2 undergrad honors courses in the math department because I had not taken proof-based math classes as an undergrad.
I think Bryan's work on signaling is informative here. Part of getting through a PhD is successfully completing coursework and doing well on exams. Part of it is writing research papers. While you can learn the skills needed to do this outside of college, performing well in an undergraduate program will send a better signal about your ability to do these things than not attending college does. Given the incomplete information those in charge of graduate admissions have on you, your track record in an undergraduate program is one signal worth looking at.
Back in the 1970s in Chicago, I had an acquaintance, a single dentist. He was from Taiwan. He had also earned a PhD in anthropology. He was a specialist in both pediatric dentistry and anthropological dentistry. I know, weird. I asked him once what it was that drove him to seek more and more education. He responded that he first went to college to meet a beautiful young woman, marry her and be happy for the rest of his life. When that didn’t pan out, he said he went to graduate school to meet an intelligent woman, marry her and be happy for the rest of his life. When that didn’t pan out, he said he went to dental school, to meet a rich woman, marry her and be happy the rest of his life. He was in his mid-forties when I had this conversation with him. He was still single and he still hoped to marry a woman—any woman no matter how good looking, smart, or well-heeled.
An anomalous case.
I went for a PhD program in computer science, dropped out after a couple years, and got a masters as a consolation prize. The consolation masters is fantastic! Nobody in industry ever cared, ever, that I had a masters degree. However, I didn't realize that as a student, and getting the masters was psychologically very reassuring as it encouraged me that dropped out wouldn't mean "wasting the two years".
Masters degree is the working degree in geology - if you want a job in industey a phd means they have to pay you more for no reason!
Does this advice only apply to prospective economics students? I'm a student at a state university for an engineering degree (hopefully avoiding a lot of the signalling which plagues other disciplines), and I'm currently planning on getting master's degree. My school offers a 4+1 program which will allow me to get my master's in only one extra year, so I think the master's has a good cost benefit, but I don't believe that the same applies for the PhD.
Things may be different now, but 40 years ago I got an MS in engineering. My classes were a mixed group, with both Master's and PhD students. The consensus among my fellow students was that in Engineering, a PhD put you in a position to be a professor. If your focus was to actually work as an engineer, rather than teach or do research at a university, then the PhD didn't provide a lot of benefits over the Master's. I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but I suspect that generally it is still true.
It really depends on which engineering degree and how good your school is. In computer science/engineering (or EE if you are going for a software job) the masters is not worth that much, except you can essentially "upgrade" your school. If you get, for example, an undergrad degree at Ohio State, and a masters degree at Stanford, that will be a better-looking resume than adding in a masters from Ohio State. The 4+1 is often not worth anything more than the plain 4. I think it makes sense to simultaneously apply for jobs and keep the 4+1 as an option, if that's possible, and if you get a job that would be a good outcome after a 4+1 program you can just go straight there.
I'm pushing 40 with three kids and I really want to pursue a graduate degree in this field, or at least get into the realm of ideas in a more formal way. I own a personal financial planning practice that provides me with sufficient money and time such that I have no need to make a living from this. In undergrad I double majored in philosophy and political science, I have a law degree, and a legal masters in taxation. In my early 30s I discovered Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams etc. and really haven't looked back. At this point I'm spending so much time reading and listening but want more of a formal collaborative outlet for my ideas. I'm very much in line with GMU economics worldview.
If there were a way for me to become involved in a graduate program remotely that took me 10 - 15 hours per week I would do in a heartbeat. I can't commit to the full Ph.D. track but can certainly contribute something. Just trying to figure out how.
At this point I might spend the rest of my life arguing with Raj Chetty in the shower.
As someone with a GMU M.A. Economics degree, I disagree. A masters has served me well for the last 15 years (outside of academia). I received a solid grounding in the economic way of thinking and continue to learn from blogs and other sources.
Brian wrote: If the response is, “I want to succeed in business,” then I confidently tell them, “A Ph.D. will be a waste of time for you.”*
I'm not sure that's totally true. Having worked for a very large, very famous investment bank, all of the economists in the market analysis group had Ph.Ds. Likewise, having worked for a large money management firm, many of the top portfolio managers had a Ph.D. in economics. I'd be willing to bet that many of those people, if not most, wouldn't have had their jobs without those degrees.
I would agree that if you want to work in finance, a PhD in econ is a pretty good way to go. Or a PhD in math or physics.
In probably every other business field, however, a PhD does nothing. Although that is just my experience from 15 years of industry work with a PhD I got a bit over half way through. There may be other business fields where the PhD is especially valuable (maybe marketing?) but there are precious few PhD economists running around any industry that doesn't spend a lot of time with the Federal Reserve.
I guess it's worth pointing out that I think 90% of the value of the Ph.D. for portfolio managers to the money management firm was marketing to potential clients, i.e signaling.
Agreed. I can't recall who it was on EconTalk who described their job in finance as basically being in the back room so the managers could walk clients past the door while saying "And here's all our PhDs coming up with clever things" before moving on. Seems about right to me; in my experience people are sometimes interested in the fact you have the degree but less interested in what you say based on it.
I have absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that a lot of worthy scientific production has been the result of someone trained in one paradigm moving into another field that uses a different paradigm.
If there is validity to this, it seems like there might be value to be had, in running a textile factory, from having been trained in economics. (Unless everyone managing textile factories is already immersed in academic economics...?)
I guess I'm willing entertain the idea - I did a physics BS before a geophysics phd, and its very hard to picture doing well in the geophysics phd without years of physics and math as background. I bet its different in different fields. Also a lack of imagination is hardly proof.
In between my two masters degrees I dropped out of a Ph.D. program. My ultimate goal was to avoid doing paid work whenever possible and write and translate poetry, which I did for a while until multiple chronic illnesses monopolized my time and attention.
I did my Ph.D. because I intended to work in industrial research labs (I had worked in one for 5+ years as a BS Physcist) and I needed my Ph.D. to be taken seriously, otherwise I simply lost arguments. By the time I graduated (early / mid 80's) the industrial research lab model was dying. I did it for a few years and then moved into the startup space for a decade or so before returning to industry, development, not R&D. As I aged out of industry (severe age discrimination) I moved into consulting and am still busy at that.
You can't predict your career. Technologies change, industries change, and you and your interests change. Keep learning.
I have no formal training in my field. None. I work in it, publish in refereed journals occasionally, and by this point have a hard earned reputation among my peers and clients.
I thought a "terminal master's degree" is one in which the field does not have a higher degree, such as fine arts, where the furthest possible degree you can get is an MFA and doctorates are not offered. Is this not the case?
Am I the only one who has always found the idea of "career goals" to be an example of the Planning Fallacy. Life is too chaotic for you to be able to predict what career you'll end up in. It's better just to go to college in some field you enjoy studying and get enough degrees to signal to future employers that you are smart and hard-working. Who knows what jobs will be available once you graduate? Hopefully something worthwhile will turn up sooner or later after you graduate. Just make sure you've done enough signaling that you'll look good.
My views might be colored by the fact that I graduated college in 2008.
Great advice. For my part after interviewing a few different schools I only applied to GMU, partially because the other schools were depressing and partially because I had already been working for about 10 years and was married, so even if I didn't get money right away it wasn't a big deal; I could live off savings. (I didn't get funding for the first two years, but afterwards didn't have a problem.) To me, learning with professors I respected and admired was the goal, and if I didn't like it or didn't get in, well back to industry I would go.
As it turned out I really didn't like working in academia; hooray for starting in 2018 as the crazy was accelerating rapidly. I may go back to teaching*, but otherwise the PhD is really just useful for the fancy resume line and occasionally pointing out "It is Doctor Hammer, by the way" when you need an easy status move in a meeting. Still, I am very glad I went to GMU, it was a great experience and I still keep in touch with folks.
*I am kind of an odd case where I love teaching and don't care about research so much. Most big schools see that as a negative, but "Teaching Track" positions are somewhat more common over time it seems.
I feel bad for the student from China. There's probably more to the story. Thoughts?
1. Maybe communist China doesn't promote lucid expression of one's individuality.
2. Or maybe, self-deception is involved?
3. Or maybe it's drilled into many kids in China that running a textile factory is of the highest status.
4. Or maybe the GMU Econ PhD is the start of a pathway that he or she isn't able to share because it wouldn't be safe to share. He's being monitored possibly.
5. Is he going to tell Bryan, "I seek to learn public choice economics in order to bring more freedom and better incentives to China?" Telling people that he wants to run textile factory is probably more in line with his psychological and cultural constraints.
6. Many young people conflate economics and business. They're related but an economics PhD is pretty different than a MBA. In China such discernment is probably further muddied by communist norms.
> I feel bad for the student from China. There's probably more to the story
I doubt that there was. Almost certainly, the reason that student's career goal was running a textile factory was that his family already had the factory available.
A friend of mine once dated a girl from a rich family in Indonesia. She said that her goal in life was to avoid working for the family business, because it was all politics.
Yes, the factory already existed for sure, but is it really the case that his career goal is to run a textile factory? He was probably somewhat proud of his family’s wealth. Does he even have to work? Saying that you’re going to run the family business might be a way of saying. “I’m set for life. I don’t have to work. I can be an intellectual.”
Dad would be proud if he took over the family business. He’s probably still trying to figure out what he wants to do for his career. And so he’s exploring various options. His family is wealthy enough to pay for a PhD in whatever field he wants, but he’s trying to balance a number of competing goals. Some have to do with status. Some have to do with his dreams, marriage, independence from his family, intellectual pursuits, bringing more freedom to his country. Some have to do with practical realities - he already knows the textile business. Running the business would, in the short term, allow him a nice car, maybe a luxury apartment. So he’s tossing around ideas. Sorting things out. He’s seeking advice from Bryan, an economics professor, with a completely different set of goals and constraints. Bryan lives in America. Bryan is free (to the extent that Americans are). Bryan doesn’t understand this guy’s situation. So does Bryan’s advice really work that well in this situation? We don’t really understand this guy’s situation well enough to conclude that his thinking is irrational or backwards. There’s not enough information. I feel bad for the guy because he’s living in a communist country. To leave China permanently might mean not seeing one’s family again or not seeing them as much as he would like.
From Bryan’s perspective...I’m not sure Bryan wants to eat lunch with this guy on a weekly basis. So Bryan is saying. It’s not a great fit. We don’t really want you.
That's gold, Jerry. Gold!
https://youtu.be/j0qm0KUPeD8?feature=shared
Wish I had this advice 32 years ago.
I know I'm in the right place to ask an off the wall question... Why does GMU (or anywhere) require a BA/BS in order to enter the PhD program. In my personal experience, my BS did almost nothing to prepare me for my PhD program. I would suggest many (most) people bright enough to achieve a PhD in economics at GMU would be in the same situation. The cost (direct and opportunity) of those 4 undergrad years is not trivial.
Moreover, if (like me) you realize an academic career is no longer your goal, you might leave with your Masters at age 21 instead of age 24.
If you're going to spend your life in academia then your 4 undergrad years are not a waste, you can just do academic things with them. If you are *not* going to spend your life in academia then don't get a PhD.
Agreed on all points. While you can probably get all the course work to prepare you for a PhD in high school, chances are you don't really know what you want to do until you have been in college and seen if you like academia. If you don't want to be a college professor or academic adjacent researcher there is little reason to have a PhD.
This seems crazy - do you have a detailed understanding of calculus and linear algebra coming out of high school?
Some will (remember, the type of student who would be interested in bypassing undergrad in pursuit of a PhD is not your typical student). But for others, I would submit that spending 4 years and $200-$300K to acquire that grounding is unlikely to be the most efficient way to do it.
In my personal story, my 1st semester of my PhD program I took 2 undergrad honors courses in the math department because I had not taken proof-based math classes as an undergrad.
I think Bryan's work on signaling is informative here. Part of getting through a PhD is successfully completing coursework and doing well on exams. Part of it is writing research papers. While you can learn the skills needed to do this outside of college, performing well in an undergraduate program will send a better signal about your ability to do these things than not attending college does. Given the incomplete information those in charge of graduate admissions have on you, your track record in an undergraduate program is one signal worth looking at.
Agree, however 4 years and $200-300K is a pretty expensive way to create that signal.