« Male reproductive rights? | Main | Caught my eye »
Could Steve Levitt get into a top Ph.d. program today?
Read the debate. Steve says U. Chicago would nix him for lack of undergraduate mathematics classes. He believes that Harvard or MIT "might still take a chance on me today."
I am a strong believer in having at least one top school -- Chicago once played this role -- which accepts virtually everybody and lets competition sort them out in brutal fashion. I am also a strong believer in having more graduate students at top schools know economic history than real analysis. I don't expect either of these wishes to come true anytime soon.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 16, 2006 at 12:11 PM in Education | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e55097a6e08834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Could Steve Levitt get into a top Ph.d. program today?:
Comments
Knowing that the top programs require more mathematics, he just would have taken more math classes as an undergrad.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 11:54:14 AM
Let's say you know you want to study economics as an undergraduate, but not sure what you want to do with it. It could be your junior year before you realize you want a PhD. Then you do some homework and you conclude you need differential equations and real analysis to get into a good program, but you've taken less rigorous math classes because that's what the program recommends for most students. As such, you aren't prepared for those classes, and you don't take them. You end up getting an MBA or and LD instead and economics misses out.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Mar 16, 2006 12:20:46 PM
It's a cruel world.
Posted by: Zac at Mar 16, 2006 12:29:56 PM
I hurried myself through a math minor after deciding my 3rd year of undergrad that I wanted to get an Econ PhD. I ended up taking 5 years total in undergrad but that was my trajectory anyway (12hr/semester so I had time to work). Thankfully I didn't need differential equations or any of that nonsense because I was headed for GMU. Of course that ended up not working out, but...
Seriously, the kind of "top program" that requires more knowledge of math than economics would not have been a good place for Mr. Levitt. I believe, not coincidentally, that those "top programs" aren't really practicing economics at all, more like applied statistics. Naturally I agree with Tyler that economic history, among other dimensions not captured by mathematics, is undervalued.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Mar 16, 2006 12:35:09 PM
Or let's say you discover you want to be an economics student during your sophomore year and don't really think about graduate school until toward the end of your senior year, and realize you've spent too much of your time and money on working at a magazine and drinking. This makes your undergrad GPA middling and your math aptitude beyond statistics mediocre. Let's also pretend, just for the sake of argument, that you did terribly at both Linear Algebra and REal Analysis. And that you're more interested in economic history than in theory. What should one do then?
My solution is go to a local UTexas branch that offers some M.Sc. programs that seem interesting part time so I can keep my day job, figure it out from there.
Posted by: Timothy at Mar 16, 2006 12:36:04 PM
Schools like Harvard or MIT take more of a portfolio approach when putting together their PhD programs, i.e., they take into account that some of their students will be doing empirical labor economics and hence don't need lots of real analysis while others will be doing theoretical econometrics and need tons.
OneEyedMan - what you describe is a real problem for many people (and one what almost kept me out of econ grad school). There are some ways around it (e.g., enroll into a rigorous MA program in economics) but fundamentally there is no way to make the problem go away - If you decide to late to enter a profession that requires certain skills then you won't be able to do it, whether it's physics, medicine or economics.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Mar 16, 2006 12:37:45 PM
One should also add that (at least in my impression) the placement record of the Harvard and MIT econ PhD programs over the last fifteen years or so has been better than the placement record of Chicago.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Mar 16, 2006 12:40:37 PM
"If you decide to late to enter a profession that requires certain skills then you won't be able to do it, whether it's physics, medicine or economics."
I wonder if that's really true any longer. How do you define "late"? Keep in mind that the lot of us have a good chance of making it to 100. Why can't I finish an MBA or MA, work for a while and then go back in for a PhD at a later date? Or are we all washed-up by 32?
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Mar 16, 2006 1:12:49 PM
But his GRE (quant) score was around 800. Not bad.
I've always had a strong interest in econ, but unfortunetly I'm not smart enough to go to grad school. My solution: get a B.A. in econ, internet connection w/PC, visit MR every day, and be an economist vicariously.
Posted by: blah at Mar 16, 2006 1:18:59 PM
Undergrad analysis is a much better way to signal intelligence than undergrad econ history. So even if the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function will be totally useless to econ grad students, grad schools should favor students with math backgrounds because they've emerged from a rigorous sorting process.
Posted by: Dave at Mar 16, 2006 1:25:21 PM
I would be curious to know which programs professional economists feel are
under-valued at the moment. If we exclude the top ten, which programs seem
to be on the rise or attempting innovative approaches to the econ PhD?
How do 'applied' econ programs compare with traditional econ PhDs?
Posted by: Cb at Mar 16, 2006 1:26:44 PM
"But his GRE (quant) score was around 800."
I doubt this would help you much at top programs. (It certainly shouldn't!)
Posted by: gundryggia at Mar 16, 2006 1:38:18 PM
Why dont they make a math test or many tests just in a saturday morning?
There are many people that is more intelligent, talented, and capable than certified ones.
Posted by: WMCW at Mar 16, 2006 2:05:27 PM
I am in the unenviable position of trying to figure out how I can get into a good PhD program next year. I was rejected this year for what I think was weak statistics skills and average (3.1) GPA. I'd also be interested to know what are some upcoming programs since my GPA precludes me from attending the top 3. And are there any jobs that will help for getting into graduate school?
Posted by: vtconomist at Mar 16, 2006 2:07:53 PM
Sorry I correct myself.
Those people that show to be better than qualified ones do not need to go to University
Posted by: WMCW at Mar 16, 2006 2:09:28 PM
Bernard,
"Why can't I finish an MBA or MA, work for a while and then go back in for a PhD at a later date? Or are we all washed-up by 32?"
This is a really good question, and the answer is obviously individual-specific. When I started my PhD (at 24) there were several people in my class who were already above 30. Not a single one of them made it to graduation. The reasons differed, but in the end I think that the willingness to mindlessly slave away for 70 hours a week without pay and live on Rahmen noodles in a shared apartment just isn't there anymore once you are above a certain age.
There are two kinds of people in top Econ PhD programs - the geniuses who effortlessly produce two or three A-level publications by their third year, and everyone else. For everyone else the PhD experience involves a seemingly infinite amount of really hard work, a lot of fear, despair, setbacks, and tons of self-doubt. And this includes the vast majority of Harvard, MIT or Chicago grads who end up with great jobs at top-10 departments. I went through all of that, it was on net a great and extremely rewarding experience, and there is absolutely no way I would ever do it again.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Mar 16, 2006 2:12:22 PM
Quant GRE scores are looked at very seriously by
econ grad programs. After all, quality of undergrad
math courses varies greatly.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Mar 16, 2006 2:24:33 PM
The four main variables for admissions are Quant GRE, GPA, grades in high level math and advanced econ classes and letters from reliable writers. Any record with defects on any of those margins must make it up by being substantially better than the admitted average on the other margins. Or publishing a paper in a top 10 or so journal.
It is often easier to get admitted with a 3.5 from a challenging engineering/physics program than a 3.9 from an econ program with inusufficient math and/or econometrics. It's very skewed, but that's the way the top programs work.
Don't even bring up an MBA or your great work experience. This will signal cluelessness about academia and will increase the probability of rejection. Even if you don't want to be an academic researcher, fake it.
In fact, I would argue that the top programs don't even care how well their median Phd grads do in life. The whole process is geared to producing a few stars who will reflect well on the department. All else is gravy or irrelevant.
Posted by: jn at Mar 16, 2006 2:33:22 PM
I dissent.
If Econ wants to stay in the liberal arts, then a fuzzy undergrad trajectory is fine. But the leading lights of the field clearly want to make economics more like engineering: a valued tool for solving real-world problems. This "colder" direction makes sense given the way Engineers curretly outnumber humanities types in corporate managements and other venues were economic power is exercised.
Speaking as an Engineer Ph.D., one of the prices for making a curriculum more Engineering-like is a massive loss curriculum flexibility and the abolishment of "late entry" in particular. That is, if a student isn't fully onboard with their major (say, Mech. Eng) by their sophomore year, they aren't going to get the B.Sc. in the typical 4-5 year time frame. Moreover, a student who wants to get into a top-notch engineering grad program would be wise to seek lab work and research-rigorous electives during final two years. Notice the resemblance to what Tyler is griping about.
Perhaps the real solution is to split Econ into two distinct disciplines, the way the engineering disciplines organizationally split from the natural sciences at the close of the 19th century (eg Chemical Eng split off from Chemsitry, Electrical Eng split off from Physics, etc).
This could provide the best of both worlds. The humanities-econs would be historically literate and well-versed in a wide array of knowledge who would carry on the great tradition of intelectual pursuit exemplified by Adam Smith, Marx, Keynes, the Austrians, and many others, while the econ-gineers would be real-world problem solvers applying ideas like those found in "Freakanomics" or "The Undercover Economist."
Posted by: tylerh at Mar 16, 2006 2:34:19 PM
I entered an applied econ doctoral program at 36 after several years working as an engineer. I had engineering math, and not analysis, so I would have had real trouble in a "straight-up" econ program. In fact I did have real trouble in courses I took from the regular econ department (micro theory, game theory, auction theory - classes full of Russians who had studied analysis since the third grade.)
I entered an applied program because it was a bit of a continuation of my engineering background, not a clean slate new start, and I'm glad I did. Not as competitive as regular econ, and with a much more empirical bent, which is fine by me because I'm a lot more interested in looking at what is happening in the world, as oppposed to running out proofs on n-dimesional topological spaces.
It was a hell of a challenge, but I'm glad I did it - I'm a lot more satisfied with my second career now than I was doing EP&C consulting work on pipelines before I went back to school. And the process, while something I never ever want to do again, was immensely disciplining and rewarding. There are plenty of people in the biz who are sick and tired of the pure math kick that econ is on now - let's hope it ends soon.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 16, 2006 2:34:45 PM
By the way, I got a perfect score on the math section of the GRE, but since it basically tested high schol math, IMO it was (or should have been) basically meaningless. My opinion was that a guy with two degrees in chemical engineering should be able to score at least 58/60 in his sleep, and anything less would be an embarrasment. The GRE measures little more than one's ability to take tests, and I'm just lucky to be a guy who does well on tests. That ability has gotten me into lot of places I probably didn't deserve to be.
Nonetheless, my GRE scores knocked the socks off the admissions guys where I applied, and was able to get me a nice fellowship to go along with the TA stipend.
Posted by: bartman at Mar 16, 2006 2:42:45 PM
I think there are a lot of people, even some in the top 5 departments, who are sick of the idolization of math in econ. Unfortunately we still don't know how to break out of the equilibrium. Ironically econ would be improved by becoming MORE like engineering. Levitt is much more applied than the stars of the 80s and early 90s. The theorists don't worship science, they worship pure MATH a la Bourbaki. Lots of people are fed up with this, but the ability to play with models is still seen as a prime signal of future brilliance.
And even Econometrica has put out lots of papers that are mostly interesting theorems about possibly cool techniques that might work if you ever got around to finding the ideal data set for it.
Posted by: jn at Mar 16, 2006 2:43:35 PM
JN says discussing work experience signals cluelessness about academia to admissions committees. I believe that many academics believe that, but I wonder if they should. Maybe that attitude betrays a cluelessness about the private sector?
I worked a bunch of different jobs before applying to grad school. I can find something relevant to a doctoral program in all of them, including the big intellectual challenges that admissions committees seem to value. Am I wrong to think that committees are unreasonably snobby on this point?
I also wonder about labor economists (and others) who have never been interviewed or interviewed someone for a private-sector job.
Posted by: qc at Mar 16, 2006 3:13:53 PM
bartman, thank you for the feedback on applied programs. What have been your impressions of the job market in academia for applied PhDs?
Posted by: Cb at Mar 16, 2006 3:21:54 PM
Tylerh,
I have been in econ for quite some time now, and this is literally the first time that I heard that econ was part of the liberal arts. Silly me, thinking I was a social scientist all these years :-).
I am a little surprised about all the complaints about the "idolization of math in econ" on this thread. That's a complaint that would have had much more bite in the late 1980s than now - most of the exciting action in economics since then has been in empirical work in applied microeconomics (obviously helped by the advent of personal computing). The most important theory developments over the same period have been in incomplete contract theory (Hart-Moore and onwards) which is quite low-tech and doesn’t require a Russian mathematician to understand.
I don’t mean to imply that going through an econ PhD doesn't require a fair amount of math - one needs it simply to understand the existing theory models. But thre majority of the people who have done well on the academic job market for rookies in the last ten years were empiricists.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Mar 16, 2006 3:53:59 PM
