I was at Chicago from 2009-2015. In my experience, the modal PhD course (after the first year) revolved around working through a reading list of papers the professor had chosen. Students were supposed to read the papers ahead of time. In class either the professor would present the paper or a student would. Chicago was a very intellectually stimulating environment for me. But grad school was very hard, intellectually and emotionally. I was married and had three children during grad school. But to be honest, I’m not sure if I would have finished if I had been single. The transition from consuming research to producing research is very challenging.
I would add that in the last ten years, it has become common for undergraduates to do a post-doc or internship or Master’s degree for a couple of years before applying to PhD programs. And now it is becoming increasingly common for new PhD’s to do a post-doc as well. Combined with the increased length of the PhD itself (from 4-5 years to 6-7 years), I think there’s a real concern about the opportunity cost of the training, both to the student and to society. I also worry about selection: that we’re selecting for students with low opportunity costs.
My experiences were mixed. By odd chance, my cohort at Columbia was loaded with intellectually curious students (and the department thought us unusual). So outside of class, we made our own lively seminars at restaurants almost every week. And, fortuitously, some of the younger professors were regular participants in these pop-up salons. Yes, the classes were primarily aimed at conveying technique, but some of our professors also engaged us in stimulating discussions. Ned Phelps, Jagdish Bhagwati, Heraklis Polemarchakis, Martin Osborne, Donald Dewey, and others had lively discussions in their classes. (I drew and mass produced a class t-shirt featuring a helicopter dropping money on an island, and I believe Rudi Dornbusch bought one while attending a seminar.) The dissertation process, however, was horrible, and the professors negligent—with students vanishing off without degrees because professors were just too self-preoccupied to read dissertations. 15 years later, hearing that there was a sympathetic new deal, I went back and raised holy hell about my treatment. He agreed, readmitted me without charge or penalty. I rapidly assembled the greatest dissertation committee in PhD history and wrote a new one and defended in a very short time. All this said, I steered countless students away from getting PhDs in economics because, while I enjoyed a great deal about my studies, it is a hideously inefficient and risky way to begin a career. It wastes the most productive, energetic years of a career. And there is always a high risk that a negligent or malevolent dissertation chairman or committee member will ultimately prevent you from completing your degree.
The story about Samuelson's take on the young Gauss is wonderful. Readers: don't miss it because it is in the footnote. It seems to this non-economist that Samuelson and MIT were trying to scientize economics, i.e., obtain a degree of certainty that the subject matter did not permit, a failing typical of the social sciences of the 1920s and 1930s.
Mine was policy. I had not been able to understand "where all the money went" from my parents descriptions of the Great Depression and how that coud be prevented in the future and then later on afterward Peace Corps how countries could become rich.
I'm pleased with the results (maybe too pleased).
The first turned out to be easy; just have the central bank follow Friedman and never let inflation go hugely negative. After grad school (1966-70) I discovered that inflating > 4-5% for very long was also pretty bad and should be avoided.
The second was conceptually easy for a small country: run a rule of law country with minimal distortions between internal and external relative prices, but really hard to persuade elites to do that.
Sometimes the best part of a story is buried in a footnote.
“… At this point, Gauss started crying, realizing that he would end up having to eat all of his peas. Samuelson told the story this way: “Gauss did not like peas. His parents gave him peas, and he started crying.” Samuelson thought he had told the entire story..”
Arnold, one thing you write about is the increasing tendency of economics to slip into the realm of sociology. I wonder, as someone from outside econ, if there are some programmatic and pedagogical differences in departments that produce these kinds of PhDs?
This reflects part of my reasoning for abandoning economics at the undergrad level. I loved econ and exceled in it at school (A-level in the UK). When I got into Oxford to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, in the first year I was thoroughly put off economics. It was partly the teaching style and partly the heavy emphasis on mathematical models -- as Austrian economics enthusiast at the time, I wasn't keen on math-dominated economics.
I found the post odd in that you want less math and more curiosity yet in the past you've been rather negative toward behavioral economics. I'd think that's the most obvious area for intellectual curiosity. Certainly Thaler and Levitt have had great careers addressing practical questions. And if you truly don't like that, there's also someone like Mulligan who has looked at very practical questions related to labor. I would be flabbergasted if these guys taught classes full of equations and theory and not lots of discussion but maybe even Chicago wasn't like that back when you were a student. IDK.
I was at Chicago from 2009-2015. In my experience, the modal PhD course (after the first year) revolved around working through a reading list of papers the professor had chosen. Students were supposed to read the papers ahead of time. In class either the professor would present the paper or a student would. Chicago was a very intellectually stimulating environment for me. But grad school was very hard, intellectually and emotionally. I was married and had three children during grad school. But to be honest, I’m not sure if I would have finished if I had been single. The transition from consuming research to producing research is very challenging.
I would add that in the last ten years, it has become common for undergraduates to do a post-doc or internship or Master’s degree for a couple of years before applying to PhD programs. And now it is becoming increasingly common for new PhD’s to do a post-doc as well. Combined with the increased length of the PhD itself (from 4-5 years to 6-7 years), I think there’s a real concern about the opportunity cost of the training, both to the student and to society. I also worry about selection: that we’re selecting for students with low opportunity costs.
My experiences were mixed. By odd chance, my cohort at Columbia was loaded with intellectually curious students (and the department thought us unusual). So outside of class, we made our own lively seminars at restaurants almost every week. And, fortuitously, some of the younger professors were regular participants in these pop-up salons. Yes, the classes were primarily aimed at conveying technique, but some of our professors also engaged us in stimulating discussions. Ned Phelps, Jagdish Bhagwati, Heraklis Polemarchakis, Martin Osborne, Donald Dewey, and others had lively discussions in their classes. (I drew and mass produced a class t-shirt featuring a helicopter dropping money on an island, and I believe Rudi Dornbusch bought one while attending a seminar.) The dissertation process, however, was horrible, and the professors negligent—with students vanishing off without degrees because professors were just too self-preoccupied to read dissertations. 15 years later, hearing that there was a sympathetic new deal, I went back and raised holy hell about my treatment. He agreed, readmitted me without charge or penalty. I rapidly assembled the greatest dissertation committee in PhD history and wrote a new one and defended in a very short time. All this said, I steered countless students away from getting PhDs in economics because, while I enjoyed a great deal about my studies, it is a hideously inefficient and risky way to begin a career. It wastes the most productive, energetic years of a career. And there is always a high risk that a negligent or malevolent dissertation chairman or committee member will ultimately prevent you from completing your degree.
The story about Samuelson's take on the young Gauss is wonderful. Readers: don't miss it because it is in the footnote. It seems to this non-economist that Samuelson and MIT were trying to scientize economics, i.e., obtain a degree of certainty that the subject matter did not permit, a failing typical of the social sciences of the 1920s and 1930s.
Mine was policy. I had not been able to understand "where all the money went" from my parents descriptions of the Great Depression and how that coud be prevented in the future and then later on afterward Peace Corps how countries could become rich.
I'm pleased with the results (maybe too pleased).
The first turned out to be easy; just have the central bank follow Friedman and never let inflation go hugely negative. After grad school (1966-70) I discovered that inflating > 4-5% for very long was also pretty bad and should be avoided.
The second was conceptually easy for a small country: run a rule of law country with minimal distortions between internal and external relative prices, but really hard to persuade elites to do that.
Funny title! Thanks for the laugh.
There are some terrible teachers (and institutions!) who have excellent ideas and curriculum. Suffer through it.
Sometimes the best part of a story is buried in a footnote.
“… At this point, Gauss started crying, realizing that he would end up having to eat all of his peas. Samuelson told the story this way: “Gauss did not like peas. His parents gave him peas, and he started crying.” Samuelson thought he had told the entire story..”
Arnold, one thing you write about is the increasing tendency of economics to slip into the realm of sociology. I wonder, as someone from outside econ, if there are some programmatic and pedagogical differences in departments that produce these kinds of PhDs?
Your reminiscence of econ grad school matches mine. Sad, isn't it?
The description in Dornbusch’s class is hilarious and familiar.
This reflects part of my reasoning for abandoning economics at the undergrad level. I loved econ and exceled in it at school (A-level in the UK). When I got into Oxford to study Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, in the first year I was thoroughly put off economics. It was partly the teaching style and partly the heavy emphasis on mathematical models -- as Austrian economics enthusiast at the time, I wasn't keen on math-dominated economics.
I found the post odd in that you want less math and more curiosity yet in the past you've been rather negative toward behavioral economics. I'd think that's the most obvious area for intellectual curiosity. Certainly Thaler and Levitt have had great careers addressing practical questions. And if you truly don't like that, there's also someone like Mulligan who has looked at very practical questions related to labor. I would be flabbergasted if these guys taught classes full of equations and theory and not lots of discussion but maybe even Chicago wasn't like that back when you were a student. IDK.
All of the above for me and I’m pretty happy