To me, that was a great idea. Your mileage may vary.
Yesterday, Arnold Kling posted on his Substack about the pitfalls of going to graduate school in economics. Considering the content, it is aptly titled “Beware of Econ Graduate Schools.”
Arnold lists three possible motivations for pursuing a Ph.D. in economics.
Intellectual curiosity. You love exploring ideas and want to gain a deeper understanding of how the economy works and find answers to puzzles and problems in the field of economics.
lifestyle. You want to write an economics paper, you want autonomy, and you want professional interaction only with other economics professors.
other. For example, you may want to pursue a career in economics and policymaking. (bold in original)
If someone had presented me with these three motivations when I was considering finishing school and convinced me that they were the only possible motivations, I would have decided not to pursue a Ph.D. Sho.
Let’s consider them one by one.
Intellectual curiosity. Of the three, this one is the closest to me, but not that close. I liked the idea of exploring ideas and gaining a deeper understanding of how the economy works. But I never thought I had the ability to find answers to puzzles and problems. That understanding was enough for me, and UCLA did a great job of making it happen. In fact, it was at UCLA that I began to think more deeply about puzzles and problems than I ever had before, while working with Armen Alchian, Sam Peltzman, Ben Klein, Harold Demsetz, Jack Hirshleifer, and George Hilton. I studied under him and was a TA under Chuck Baird. I expected it to be done when I applied. I learned things from Alchian and Klein in particular that have never baffled me before. For example, why are various corporate activities that seem mysterious to those educated only in perfect competition widely understood and consistent with competition? That was all a bonus. And Hirschleifer, Demsetz, Peltzman, and Hilton made me think about things I had never thought about before. Finally, I learned about macro thinking by TAing Chuck Baird’s undergraduate introductory macroeconomics course. All of this learning was even better than I expected.
lifestyle. At first, I didn’t want to create an economic newspaper. It was my first job at the University of Rochester Graduate School of Business (now the Simon School) from 1975 to 1979 that made me want to do that. This idea grew as I read academic literature, found holes, and read general academic books. I read the economics literature and came to different conclusions than what I had read, even the great Milton Friedman. I wanted autonomy, and always wanted it. However, I never wanted my professional interactions to be only with other economics professors. I had good professional interactions with students, especially graduate students. At the age of 28, he testified twice before Congressional committees and once before the House Ways and Means Committee about an article he wrote after discovering an error in Milton Friedman’s Newsweek column (and the late Lindley Clark). When I did, I interacted with non-experts. I wrote a column about my testimony in full for the Wall Street Journal and once for the Senate Armed Services Committee. I also started working in media with local TV and radio shows in Rochester. I joined the company as a professional economist, but of course I had no interaction with professional economists.
other. I didn’t want a career in policy-making, but I wanted a career in policy-making, so I worked first at the Department of Labor for six months and then at the Council of Economic Advisers for two years. did. When he told Milton Friedman, who called himself “Dutch Uncle,” that he had a chance to join the Reagan administration, he told him to take it and give it a try for two years. I went there for two and a half years. That means I followed his advice in spirit.
What’s left?
Arnold left out three major things that I can think of: (1) education, (2) the world of think tanks, and (3) consulting. I did all three and had fun, but the part I enjoyed the most was teaching.
I was 21 years old when I started finishing school. I didn’t know enough or do enough long-term thinking to know what I wanted from it or where it would lead. But it was a great step. I’ll admit that one of my motivations for getting a PhD, which may not apply to most readers, is that it gives me a much better chance of getting a green card.
In my opinion, there are two main strategies when it comes to what kind of graduate school to attend. The first is to go to the highest ranked school you can get into, realize that you won’t learn much about economics and that you won’t be interested in what you learn, hang in there for four years, and then get a job. Find the school that suits you. Former co-blogger Brian Caplan did this at Princeton University and then landed a great job at George Mason University. The second is to go to a school like George Mason University. You can learn a lot about economics there, but you won’t get very good opportunities in the job market. But there can also be good opportunities. Every year, I go to the annual meeting of the Private Enterprise Education Association and meet at least 10 young, interesting economists I’ve never heard of or only know a little about. At least five of them recall that fact. I received my PhD from GMU.
The bottom line is that when deciding whether to pursue a PhD in economics, think as much as possible about who you are, what your interests and abilities are, and what kind of job you want to get. All this is difficult to understand when you are young. However, we should not limit ourselves to just a few possible motives, as Arnold Kling did.
Note: Pictured above is Armen Alchian, who taught me more about economics than any other economist. But many of my professors at UCLA taught me pretty much the same thing.
