Marginal Revolution: Trudie's advice to would-be economists

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« Markets in Everything -- alibi edition | Main | How to write a book on foreign aid »

Trudie's advice to would-be economists

One loyal MR reader, Lee Beck, writes:

You handled love advice so well (Dear Tyler/Prudie)--how about career counseling?

MR is my favorite blog, and this is weighing heavily on my career plans. Is this foolish?

My idea is that economics can bridge the gap between my love of math (like real-analysis) and my love of political philosophy (like that of your man Hayek). Sadly, this hasn't worked out so far. I thought my micro and macro courses last year were bores. This confused me so much that I took my obsession with Richard Posner to be a sign that I should go into law instead of economics. Is that crazy?

How can I know whether being an economics professor is for me? What if I worked through Debreu's Theory of Value next semester and liked it. Would that be proof? What's the hard stuff that I should love before entering the field?

The answer, of course, lies beneath the fold...

Trudie responds:

It is not foolish to want to become an economist, but it is foolish to be attracted by this blog. Yes we have serious posts about the option value of gold. But graduate study in economics will not sample "Markets in Everything" (remember the Whizzinator?), not consider whether teenage Thomas Jefferson would have a crush on Veronica Mars, nor will it ask "Why Don't People Have More Sex?". Liking this blog, on average, is a sign that you have broad interests and thus are ill-suited for graduate study in economics. There is also, dare I say it, a chance that you are simply a silly goose with time to kill. On the other hand, Greg Mankiw is now reading Jacqueline Passey, so anything is possible. Welcome, Bizarro Universe.

Two core groups of people are well-suited to be economists:

1. You math GRE score is over 800, you are totally focused, you love working long hours on your own, and you have good enough letters of recommendation to get into a Top Six or perhaps Top Ten graduate school. Note that white Americans from this category have been partially preempted by competition from foreigners.

2. You could be happy as an academic without much of a research career. Working at a teaching school is a rewarding life, albeit a poor one relative to your investment in human capital.

There is a third category, although you will fall into it (or not) ex post:

3. You do not fit either #1 or #2. Yet you have climbed out of the cracks rather than falling into them. You do something different, and still have managed to make your way doing research, albeit of a different kind. You will always feel like an outsider in the profession and perhaps you will be underrewarded. But you will have a great deal of fun and in the long run perhaps a great deal of influence.

Sadly, the chance of achieving #3 is fairly low. You need some luck and perhaps one or two special skills other than math.

Did I mention that if you have a clearly defined "Plan B" your chance of succeeding at #3 diminishes? It is important to be fully committed.

Greg Mankiw is a classic #1. Brad DeLong started off as a #1, although he has been evolving into a #3. Maybe he was a #3 in hiding all along. I've been a #3, although with a dose of #1 from having gone to Harvard. Alex is a classic #3.

Another thing: Don't expect any classes to be interesting. How should I put it? "Most professors suck." But a good professor can make almost any topic interesting. So your reaction to the courses is just a reaction to the instructors you have sampled. Treat that as noise, although I will ask why you are worse at picking teachers than at picking advice columnists.

Should you become a legal academic? You will have a greater chance to work with ideas and concepts. A greater chance to write books and also to read them. You are more likely to strut, wear three-piece suits, and speak in stentorian tones. If I were starting out today, perhaps I would take that route, although I would fail at the strut and the suits. The pay is higher and upward mobility is easier to accomplish. But overall the quality of intellectual debate is higher in the economics profession. In economics the return to rhetoric is lower and you can't get away with blather. Your articles are refereed by your peers, and not by graduate students (well, it depends what journal you submit to...). The academic world of law has weaker quality filters, which of course also makes it more open to new ideas.

Your choice, but note that many would-be legal academics end up lured by the private sector or government work.

And by the way, buy her roses, ask her to marry you, and live happily ever after. The rest probably won't matter so much for your happiness and life satisfaction.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 12, 2006 at 01:44 AM in Education | Permalink

Comments

Good God, you do not need to decide as an undergraduate whether you will be a professor! Make decisions like this "at the margin", which is to say: continue to study a subject as long as you enjoy doing so. (You don't have to love the lectures, but if you don't love the lectures, you had better love working through the textbook on your own.) If your continue to love learning about the subject as an undergrad, graduate student, postdoc, and associate, then you will likely end up as a professor. If at any point you cease to enjoy the subject, do something else. Don't worry too much about not landing on your feet: if you are good at math and manage
to get some undergraduate degree, you won't starve.

Posted by: David Wright at Jul 12, 2006 2:41:41 AM

TC's is speaking the truth. Academic economics is nuthin' like MR and/or Freakonomics make it out to be.

Run for the hills!

Posted by: Varangy at Jul 12, 2006 3:09:47 AM

You know the maximum posible score in the math section of the GRE is 800, right?

Posted by: anon at Jul 12, 2006 3:17:57 AM

He could be referring to the math subject test (which goes up to 990) but I think only math grad school applicants take that.

Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 12, 2006 3:24:16 AM

Is anybody else out there about to embark on an economics post-grad course and thinking .... 1. -er, no ....2. er, no ... 3. er, I wish, but not likely? Thank God for you David Wright

Posted by: Luis Enrique at Jul 12, 2006 3:25:11 AM

As David Wright points out, if you can do math AND write coherent expository English, you will be employable.

Posted by: Bill Gardner at Jul 12, 2006 8:33:57 AM

The question is, what's the best way to set up an exit strategy should you find that you're neither 1 2 or 3 after all? The quant skills should be pretty transferable to industry but will the lifestyle?

Posted by: quitacet at Jul 12, 2006 9:04:06 AM

What this guy is really saying is that econ undergrad teaching is weak for mathematically inclined people. I was a lot like him as an undergraduate -- I mostly studied math and political philosophy at a top 3 school. The undergrad econ courses were just too watered down to interest the same people who loved the top math and physics courses at my school. It was pretty clear that the econ department saw their role as training people for wall street rather than recruiting future economists. Several professors told me that if I wanted to go to econ grad school, I'd be better off majoring in math than in econ.

Posted by: DK at Jul 12, 2006 9:05:03 AM

The GRE General Math test does go up to 800, but it essentially measures your understanding of high school mathematics. If you can't score 800 on it, then perhaps graduate study of economics is not the best option.

Posted by: don Hosek at Jul 12, 2006 9:13:04 AM

Well that's disappointing news. I got an 800, have a MA in Ag. Econ., am working at a development research institute and hope to get respectable letters from respected researchers. That said, the PhD-track work I have done was tough (I majored in Athropology college - not enough math!) and I don't anticipate getting into a top ten program. Am I hearing that I'm unlikely to have a good research career? Or, are Trudie's standards for "good" just a little higher than mine, in which case I'd be happy with a mediorce/poor research career?

Posted by: SM at Jul 12, 2006 9:45:13 AM

"Liking this blog, on average, is a sign that you have broad interests and thus are ill-suited for graduate study in economics."

On average you may be correct, but I'm not so sure. I am a prospective econ grad student (currently working on BA/MA), and I read this blog as break from more rigorous material. I find it very interesting and enjoyable, but it has little to do with higher-level econ. BTW, where would you class those looking at business econ research?

Posted by: Alex at Jul 12, 2006 10:03:14 AM

Scoring above the maximum 800 would mean you finished the math section in half the allotted time, spent the rest of the time daydreaming about harder problems, and still scored an 800!

Posted by: None at Jul 12, 2006 10:12:19 AM

I wish to echo SM, but from a different point of view. How should those of us who would consider a graduate program in economics engage in the consideration of GMU's graduate program? It isn't in the top ten, but it has a lot of excellent faculty in some really fascinating areas. Are we destined for a life of (2) or (3) if we go to GMU?

Posted by: hamilton at Jul 12, 2006 10:18:23 AM

Hey people, that line about > 800 was a joke!

Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 12, 2006 10:19:32 AM

What if I worked through Debreu's Theory of Value next semester and liked it. Would that be proof?

That's not the book to read. Don't.

What's the hard stuff that I should love before entering the field?

Take a look at serious research in, say, three different areas in economics. E.g., read "Putting Auction Theory to Work" by Paul Milgrom, papers by Acemoglu (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/JohnBatesClarkMedal.htm), and classic papers on finance (Black-Scholes; books by Merton (Continuous-Time Finance) and Cochrane (Asset Pricing)). If you manage to get through the books and papers (and don't expect it to be easy) AND find at least one of the areas exciting (i.e., you'd be willing to spend 10 years of your life on it), you should go to grad school.

However, only go if you get accepted to a top 5-10 department; the probability of Tyler's (3) is negligible.

Posted by: no at Jul 12, 2006 11:38:05 AM

I am just starting a graduate program (in Canada, not at a top ten school) and I feel like I was born a number 3. I would not have it any other way either. Maybe Alex could post some advice for other number 3's out there.

Posted by: Josh at Jul 12, 2006 12:15:17 PM

Speaking from experience, #2 is not sufficient if #1 does not hold.

Posted by: Noah Yetter at Jul 12, 2006 12:31:00 PM

So what to do for us poor saps who love the econ way of thinking and are very analytical, and who also write very well, but are more likely to be in the 80 than the 800 range on the math GRE?

Posted by: Tim S. at Jul 12, 2006 12:38:38 PM

Tim S. --- go to law school.

Posted by: no at Jul 12, 2006 12:48:37 PM

Tyler seems to be a little pessimistic here. People getting Ph.D.'s even from programs ranked below the top 30 may often end up with rewarding and interesting jobs which might not involve teaching at an undergraduate institution. There are many positions in NGO's, government, and various industries which pay reasonably well and for which Econ Ph.D.'s are very competative. Overall, the unemployment rate for Econ Ph.D.'s is very low, and they find it easier to get jobs than those with many others with advanced degrees.

Additionally, Law school does not seem to be all its cracked up to be. You have to be really really good to get one of the top academic positions, and for many law students, any math skills you have may go to waste. And the law degree is very expensive considering that many of the people who get their degrees do not end up practicing law.

Posted by: Steven McMullen at Jul 12, 2006 3:16:33 PM

Posted by: Steven McMullen at Jul 12, 2006 3:17:50 PM

any fearless entrepreneurs out there? that was the normative implication i took from economic theory, anyway.
/presently earning his flashy credential

Posted by: alcibiades at Jul 12, 2006 10:59:07 PM

Are you this funny in real life? Its pretty good advice and extremely funny.

Posted by: mickslam at Jul 13, 2006 12:12:19 AM

I would disagree that your typical peer-reviewed journal turns out a better product than your typical student-edited law review. First, the peer review process is far more arbitrary than is generally let on. Second, there are a million law reviews, and competition among them is fierce. Each wants to publish the next blockbuster article that gets cited in some Supreme Court dissent. Think about the typical peer review process. You write your groundbreaking article and send it off to one of the three journals in your field. From here, the editors send it off to three anonymous reviewers. The editors pick these three because they (presumably) have some expertise in the area you are writing on. The first reviewer, of course, wrote the theory that your groundbreaking article is debunking. His comments are nasty and unhelpful and, of course, he votes to not publish your article since you are so clearly wrong. The second review has a huge research and teaching load this semester, but she agrees to review the paper since she wants to remain in the "reviewers' loop"--and she also wants to remain on the good side of the editors so they don't send her future article off to a bunch of morons. Her comments are short and unhelpful. You may get lucky with the third guy. Or maybe not. Whether you get published or not doesn't seem much related to the quality of your article (assuming it doesn't just stink, of course). With law reviews, of course, you will get published, even if you do stink. However, if your article is really good (or you are already famous), it will get published in a top law journal (Yale, Harvard, Chicago, etc.) But regardless of where it is published, it will end up on Lexis/Nexis, and if it is really good or particularly helpful, it will end up being cited and read widely. This, it seems to me, is far more market-oriented than the Mandarin-led peer review process.

Posted by: Epstein's Mother at Jul 13, 2006 12:33:31 AM

--Good God, you do not need to decide as an undergraduate whether you will be a professor!

Actually, you do unless you are a classic #1, and then you've defacto decided anyway, because the system pushes you in that direction unless you do something to fall off the path.

"love of learning your subject" doesn't teach anyone how to DO research--how to pick a research topic, how to write a paper, how to complete it by the necessary deadline. It doesn't teach you how to pick an advisor, or a mentor. It doesn't help when you hate your thesis, office mates, or folks in your dept.

only classic #1s find those things easy, and even then, it's not the grades--it's an intution about how academia works. the rest of those who might enjoy academia will need to keep finding out how to make that workable, and starting as an undergrad is the right time.

finally, if you're NOT going to like academia, figuring that out BEFORE you go to 3 post docs is helpful. the sooner you begin questioning it the better.

Posted by: anonymous at Jul 13, 2006 12:51:10 AM

Which category would someone like Robin Hanson fall into?

Posted by: tc at Jul 13, 2006 3:09:18 AM

These tests go to eleven.

Posted by: Russell Nelson at Jul 13, 2006 3:43:59 AM

Many comments have been swallowed by Typepad, my apologies, and the line about > 800 was a joke. And no, I am not this funny in real life.

Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 13, 2006 3:44:34 AM

I am a little stunned by this debate. I have always enjoyed math and used to be good at it, compared to my peers. I have not put myself to the test all that much recently, but I figure I am as good as the average undergrad (B in Calc I without trying much, have not done Calc II yet, but worked through "Mathematics for Economics and Finance" - Biggs on my own). But I would not expect that heavy-maths is the major component required for a good economist with good prospects.

I would think love of economics and ability to work with theory, models and various methods, hard working and never bored with the subject are much more important. The difference between the no-maths biology and the some-maths biochemistry and the heavy-maths chemistry, physics and maths dept is somewhat maths -- but there are some with the maths that just can't figure out the biochemistry of biochemistry, and meanwhile quite a few in the biochemistry dept that make sure to learn *just* the least required maths to get them through. I would imagine that its the same in economics.

Additionally, one can do a #3 fairly easily I should think - working in the private sector, writing independently and then working back in to academics over time. Again, the most important factor here being the love and devotion to the subject. Am I crazy?

Of course, staying up all night working on independent projects - that could help OR hurt...

Posted by: liberty at Jul 13, 2006 4:20:27 AM

Anonymous: I stand by my original assertion. And I have annecdote to prove prove it. :-)

My field was physics, and I was a classic #1. I knew I wanted to be a physics professor in high school. I did very well in both undergraduate and graduate school. After my first postdoc, I decided I didn't like the low pay and "academic ratrace" environment, so I went and got a job in the IT industry. Do I regret that I went all the way to the postdoc level before quitting? Not at all; I learned a lot and enjoyed myself tremendously. Was it hard to get a job in a different field? Not too difficult; apparently a Ph.D. and research experience were impressive enough credentials to get an IT firm to hire me even at the bottom of the IT crash in 2001.

Posted by: David Wright at Jul 13, 2006 4:33:48 AM

I am one of those morons that thinks life won't be the same unless I get a Ph.D. in Economics. I scored alright on the quant section of the GRE; 780. I have a pretty high undergrad GPA. Moreover, I am crazy enough to subject myself to torture; I am taking rocket speed Calc 2 and Matrix Algebra. The fire hydrant has not blown my head off yet but it sure has ruined my summer.

Why am I doing this? I don't really know other than I really want it. I start a masters in Russian Studies in the fall at U of Toronto and hope that I can get into Econ grad school after that. If I finish before 32 I will be happy. All this flies in the face of logic because if you look at the average pay of a professional Political Scientist and an Economist I should be getting the former. Maybe if I get a poor matrix algebra grade that is where I will be headed.

Finally, do economists ever sleep? TC was posting at 3 am eastern time at least. If he is a measure I should be in good stead. I never sleep - calc and matrix test tomorrow!! Yahoo!

Posted by: RWP at Jul 13, 2006 4:46:50 AM

Isn't it biographically true that a lot of academic economists were once second and third tier mathematics and physics majors without the goods to be outperform their peers in high powered math and real science?

Just asking.

Posted by: prestopundit at Jul 13, 2006 4:59:41 AM

That there is an over-indulgence of mathematical complexity in economic theory by the profession was periodically and prominently throughout the last century. There are signs that this debate may be headed in a productive direction as publications are emerging that empirically assess the benefits and costs of complexity in economic theory. Such studies are being made possible by the decline in cost in doing them; when Don Gordon hypothesized that increased complexity in economic theory reduces the ability to operationalize it the cost of testing his propositions was prohibitive. Happily, because of the existence of electronic databases (like the Web of Science, JSTOR, etc.), the internet, and personal computers Gordon's hypothesis has been assessed empirically (with the evidence confirming it).

My point is that the debate during most of the last century about the "fruitfulness" of mathematical complexity in economic theory was largely fruitless because the costs of testing the arguments being made were prohibitive.

Posted by: jim at Jul 13, 2006 9:56:12 AM

If an undergraduate has strong math skills but broad interests in politics, philosophical questions, and the human sciences more generally (as well as, of course, specific interests in economics) then they could do worse than choosing a doctoral program in politics at economics-friendly departments such as MIT, Rochester, NYU, Stanford, or Caltech.

Posted by: loren at Jul 13, 2006 9:57:57 AM

"I would disagree": that absurdly redundant and pompous "would" must surely put anyone with good taste off studying law.

Posted by: dearieme at Jul 13, 2006 10:09:17 AM

I would stand by my sentence construction. I would also point out that legal academic writers (Posner, Sunstein, Coffee, etc.), unlike some famous economists, rarely need journalists to help them write their more accessible books.

Posted by: Epstein's Mother at Jul 13, 2006 11:23:34 AM

Get a PhD in accounting, there is a terrible shortage and you can always do honest work if you don't like academia.

Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Jul 13, 2006 12:42:50 PM

PhD in Accounting huh? I would rather sand my forehead.

Posted by: RWP at Jul 13, 2006 12:51:03 PM

I am in the same boat, RWP. Only I decided to do it my last year and a half of college, so its been much easier on me. I don't take the GRE until November, though.

And I would rather sandpaper my entire body than get a PhD in accounting to do "honest" work.

Posted by: Jake at Jul 13, 2006 1:56:59 PM

academic research in accounting is a lot more interesting than it sounds, and rustbelt is right that there´s a heavy shortage and correspondingly great job prospects. theoretical accounting seems to just be a heavy dose of contract theory (although as i understand it, the empirical side still shudders at the thought of any econometrics more sophisticated than GLS).

if its a choice between making peanuts teaching economics at a third rate liberal arts college, or bringing in six figures toying through principle agent models and teaching MBAs at a top 20 business school, its sort of a no brainer, isnt it?

(disclosure: i dont study accounting, although i am getting a doctorate at a business school so i see it firsthand. i instead seem to be heading towards political science, a discipline where you can simultaneously make peanuts and work at a top 20 research department. hurray.)

Posted by: alex at Jul 13, 2006 1:59:21 PM

Anyone concerned about the gradual transition from the trappings of the traditional University (tenure, esteem, flexible work schedule, good benefits and pension) to the for-profit model a la U of Phoenix with the part-time faculty sans benefits and job security?

I suppose that's a good reason to become highly demanded - you'll never want for work, and you can write your own ticket. Perhaps we'll see more economics students enter finance and accounting after all?

Posted by: ThadRyan at Jul 13, 2006 3:02:57 PM

"Liking this blog, on average, is a sign that you have broad interests and thus are ill-suited for graduate study in economics."

Truer words were never written.

Posted by: D at Jul 13, 2006 3:13:18 PM

"Liking this blog, on average, is a sign that you have broad interests and thus are ill-suited for graduate study in economics."

What does that say about the authors, then, I wonder?

Posted by: Timothy at Jul 13, 2006 3:53:48 PM

"What does that say about the authors, then, I wonder?"

It may say that they were ill-suited for graduate school (that is did not thoroughly enjoy cranking through complex formulae that were never to be used again); but being suited for graduate school and being an economist (as opposed to a wanabe mathematician) are to my mind entirely different matters.

Posted by: jim at Jul 13, 2006 4:45:12 PM

>if its a choice between making peanuts teaching economics at a third rate liberal arts college, or bringing in six figures toying through principle agent models and teaching MBAs at a top 20 business school, its sort of a no brainer, isnt it?

How about making peanuts working at a decent (but not top tier) school where you can do interesting research and teach; plus doing some industry/policy private sector work for additional $$ such as summer consulting?

I have to think that their is an ulterior motive to some here who paint a bleak picture for future economists. I'm not getting scared away, however.

Posted by: liberty at Jul 13, 2006 5:31:11 PM

The picture is anything but bleak in an expected sense because there is a fairly good chance we are at a tipping point in the debate about the fruitfulness of complexity in economic theory.

Posted by: jim at Jul 13, 2006 9:20:46 PM

Complexity is important, but complex systems complexity, not static state mathematics.

Posted by: liberty at Jul 13, 2006 11:21:05 PM

Occam's razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Occams razor)
Jump to: navigation, search
William of Ockham
Enlarge
William of Ockham

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,

which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Posted by: jim at Jul 14, 2006 9:20:46 AM

«That there is an over-indulgence of mathematical complexity in economic theory by the profession was periodically and prominently throughout the last century. There are signs that this debate may be headed in a productive direction as publications are emerging that empirically assess the benefits and costs of complexity in economic theory.»

But the maths obsession will resurge and the ''waste of time'' on empiricism will stop..

The wider purpose of economics is to prove that factor prices depend solely on productivity, ideally in the most impressive looking (and obfuscated) way.

If economics proves that, then it is good, if it does not, it is bad.Where good/bad relate to chances of getting a consulting or expert witness contract, or getting an endowed chair, at a top-10 institution.

Unfortunately empiricism is already producing quite a bit of ''bad'' economics, like studies that show that raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment but reduces profits, if it has much of an effect. This won't last, because it is anti-American.

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 11:04:45 AM

«What if I worked through Debreu's Theory of Value next semester and liked it.»

In that case you are destined for a life of great material prosperity, as you will be able to get consulting and expert witness contracts and to be highly regarded by republican administrations.

Debreu's Theory of Value is by far the most beautiful incarnation of the purpose of economics, which is to prove that always and necessarily factor prices are determined by productivity and nothing else, and income distribution is a purely mathematical fact.

A word of advice: never read Steve Keen's book.

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 11:13:30 AM

«How about making peanuts working at a decent (but not top tier) school where you can do interesting research and teach;»

Because easily getting money to do research in economics does not relate to being in a top-6 institution?

«plus doing some industry/policy private sector work for additional $$ such as summer consulting?»

Because industry/policy work easily goes to people whose authoritativeness is not backed by a top-6 school background? Because the main reason why that industry and policy work is commissioned is rarely if ever advocacy?

BTW, in a similar discussion on DeLong's blog, a commenter said quite reasonably:

http://DeLong.typePad.com/sdj/2006/03/x_of_life_is_ha.html#comment-14892059
«Not everyone from the Ivy League schools who wants to teach can teach at that level, so most of them step down to, let's say, Minnesota. Only a few from Minnesota will reach the Ivy league level, and most of them won't be able to teach at the Minnesota level, either, so they step down to the Portland State level. Portland State PhD's drive bus.»

http://DeLong.typePad.com/sdj/2006/03/x_of_life_is_ha.html#comment-14906683
«It really depends on the subject matter. You can do well with a PhD in economics (or for that matter, law) from many places, since you can get jobs in banks, consulting and the like. If you want a job using your political science PhD there are only about 12 places worth writing your dissertation. And for sociology, if you aren't in the number 1 program, forget it.»

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 11:27:03 AM

Blissex,

You wrote: "Unfortunately empiricism is already producing quite a bit of ''bad'' economics, like studies that show that raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment but reduces profits, if it has much of an effect. This won't last, because it is anti-American."

There is a saving grace of "bad" empiricism that is not shared by complex theorizing that cannot be tested: bad empiricism can be show to be bad by "good" empiricsm. In the case of the C&K minimum wage study's claim that increasing the minimum wage did not reduce employment, a counter study was published that use payroll data as opposed to the sloppy survey data used by C&K.

If there is NO appeal to data, what is the basis for claiming the superiority of one theory over another, and what is the point? You say 10 angels can dance on the head of a pin and I claim that the number that can is 1000. What is the point of such an argument?

Posted by: jim at Jul 14, 2006 12:54:00 PM

Jim,

Occams razor tends to be understood that a simpler explanation is better - tends more often to be true. This could as easily mean that supply and demand is a better explanation than a global conspiracy to keep production low in countries with high population rates, for example. As long as a theory can explain empirical evidence and takes into account short and long term effects, since we live in a world with time, then yes, it should be kept simple. The world is very complex because of time and because of consequences within the world - too simple a model simply won't work. A single assumption is not better than multiple assumptions if the single assumption is wrong and destroys the ability of the model to predict correct outcomes - for example assuming a static state - no growth, no time, etc.

Its not only true in economics - think of the old ecological models that assumed a static state. Removal of predators from parks and the shock that occured when the prey species became overpopulated and ate too much, forcing other species into starvation, etc.

"Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

This I completely agree with - the problem is that models that don't allow the complexity of time and consequences, that assume away endogenous effects, that assume as their single assumption a static state do not have the same predictive power. That is why complexity is necessary, in the meaning of complex systems theory.

Blissex:

Its true that many Ivy leaguers end up teacher at lower rung institutions, but the reverse can also happen. As you also point out- a PhD from many places will allow you to do consulting. You seemed to deflect that possibility earlier by asking where the policy and other private institutes would prefer a PhD from. Their are many tiers of private institution as well. In the private sector (as in academia as well) you climb the rungs. You may start out, with your PhD from a third tier institute, at a lower level of policy institute or consulting firm, but you make a name for yourself over the years with your work and independent research, and you climb the ladder.

Posted by: liberty at Jul 14, 2006 2:31:54 PM

liberty, my point was that working in a business school (even in accounting!) does not necessarily preclude doing interesting research, and offers better money and way better odds. i happen to enjoy toying through principle agent models.

and as for the teaching... teaching MBA´s is no cakewalk - its probably a nightmare - but at least they challenge you to defend the relevance of your narrow research agenda.

working in a business school entails some loss of prestige, but the odds for your "average smart" econ grad student going the traditional route are, ahem, not good. most depts graduate around 20-25 students a year, i think. the math is obvious. if you managed to swing a tenure track job at minnesota after graduating, i´d say thank the dear lord.

----------
>if its a choice between making peanuts teaching economics at a third rate liberal arts college, or bringing in six figures toying through principle agent models and teaching MBAs at a top 20 business school, its sort of a no brainer, isnt it?

I have to think that their is an ulterior motive to some here who paint a bleak picture for future economists. I'm not getting scared away, however.
-----------------

Posted by: alex at Jul 14, 2006 3:07:32 PM

If you are interested in economics, but not especially sure about an academic career, the National Association for Business Economics has a Career Center online at
http://www.nabe.com/careers.htm

Posted by: Bruce Kratofil at Jul 14, 2006 4:38:05 PM

>most depts graduate around 20-25 students a year, i think. the math is obvious.

If you assume that all grduates want a career in academia. You can make twice as much in private sector, wouldn't the math change if you assume 1/2 or 3/4 of graduates would prefer a private sector position?

Posted by: liberty at Jul 14, 2006 5:24:38 PM

you have a point. i suppose i have already been infused with the bias that anyone who is already 100% positive they don´t want an academic career ought not to be getting a phd in the first place.

i really have no idea what proportion of econ grad students want an academic career, although i would hazard a guess that its a lot higher at the beginning of year 1 than at the end of year 5 (or even at the end of year 1).

Posted by: alex at Jul 14, 2006 6:14:21 PM

Liberty,

Whether we worry a great deal about endogeneity issues or not depends on their magnitudes (which will vary, sometimes being trivial and other times not) as well as the time frame that we are focusing on.

Also, the supply and demand analysis that is standard in Econ 101 takes time into account in a very straightforward way: namely the elasticity of supply and demand are greater in the long-run, than in the short-run. In the face of an increase in price of gasoline, for example(due to say a leftward shift in supply), we expect the long-run decrease in quantity demanded to be greater as consumers find new ways to economize over time. So I would agree with you that adding such complexity about time into account can be important and useful. For the purpose of helping students understand general patterns occurring this and a host of other markets this simple model has great utility. If we were trying to predict exactly where the price would be 6 months after the supply shock, obviously this model would be inadequate. So again, the usage to which we intend to put a theory will impact its details.

Is this what you were getting at?

Posted by: jim at Jul 14, 2006 6:18:16 PM

«Its true that many Ivy leaguers end up teacher at lower rung institutions, but the reverse can also happen. As you also point out- a PhD from many places will allow you to do consulting. You seemed to deflect that possibility earlier by asking where the policy and other private institutes would prefer a PhD from. Their are many tiers of private institution as well.»

Sure, and in the end what matters is odds, because the odds determine the expected value of an academic career in economics: peanuts for the vast majority who end up in tier N, mansions for a small minority in tier 1, a small minority to be sure with a token presence of non-ivy league graduates.

Now the big question one should ask to anybody who wants to do PhD research in a non top-6 university is: ''do you feel lucky punk''?

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 6:29:32 PM

«You say 10 angels can dance on the head of a pin and I claim that the number that can is 1000.»

This type of argument does not get it. The comparison is between using data and using math, not between ''I say'' and ''you say''.

Remember that the purpose of economics is to prove that that the income distribution depends solely on factor productivity...

Now, the data may or may not agree with that; facts are an often inconvenient obstruction to the demonstration of the necessary truth.

There can be confusion, as with the minimum wage debate: different data and different interpretations of data can swing one way or another, and there is no clear sense of which way is the more reliable bet. Even worse, people can look at data themselves, and figure out things that disagree with the purpose of economics.

But math, ah math has none of these drawbacks: using math, and math alone, it is possible to prove without contrary argument that income distribution depends solely on factor productivity, and the math is abstruse enough that very few people can dare to check that result for themselves, and the few who do usually know better than to question the method.

And as to ''I say' and ''you say'' arguments, when the issue is of the number of angels on a pin, what matters is the credibility and credentials of those who reach the right conclusion, and how impressive their techniques are, and here advanced pure maths and ivy league degrees trump everything else.

«What is the point of such an argument?»

The point of the argument is: do consulting contracts and expert witness fees and endowed chairs come from those who benefit if the conclusion is 10 or 100 angels? If you don't see this point, your anti-Americanism will guarantee you a poor career in economics.

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 6:44:35 PM

alex,

My husband is working on his PhD because without it he has increasing difficulty getting a) private sector b) gov lab and c) military jobs doing the cutting edge research oriented work he is interested in; his field is computer science / biology but it works similarly to economics. PhDs are getting more and more important in all fields especially at the cutting edge. I am not positive that I want to teach or do my research at a university but I am 100% sure that I want a PhD.

jim,

How can you know how important the endogeneity effects are if you assume them all away? For example, many investigations of the poverty effects of welfare systems looked at the difference that the welfare system (be it EITC-like or basic income support) had on post-transfer poverty. They compared pre-transfer poverty with post-transfer poverty and then reported the poverty reduction. They also analyzed areas with transfers to areas without transfers and reported on differences in relative and absolute poverty. The problem was that their method did not take into account any endogenous effects that welfare programs might have on pre-transfer poverty. They had already assumed that there wouldn't be any significant effects. Turns out, there were.

As to the basic model of supply and demand, I don't think that its flawed. It isn't a complete testable model of a particular sitaution, its a descriptive model which is then used as a component of particular models and it is perfect exactly as it is. That elasticity changes over time is only relevant to particular uses of the model, where elasticity must be defined.

Supply and demand is an economic law that is true regardless of elasticity, though elasticity defines the specific effect it will have; other models ignore time in such a way as to ignore endogenous or unexpected effects, such as the way that a market rigidity will affect future decisions by firms, hiring and firing, wages and price and then the way that job loss or changes in wages or price will affect demand, etc. The lack of time in that kind of model means that the assumption changed the result from, for example, a net increase in poverty to a net reduction, erroneously.

Posted by: liberty at Jul 14, 2006 6:48:20 PM

«You may start out, with your PhD from a third tier institute, at a lower level of policy institute or consulting firm, but you make a name for yourself over the years with your work and independent research, and you climb the ladder.»

As to this there is a case where this might conceivably work: Wall Street. Wall Street cares only if you make them money, and don't care about public reputation. If your economics help them make money, go ahead. You don't even need to believe that income distribution is determined solely by factor productivity, as long as your models are relevant and work (which is rather extremely unlikely if you believe that) and if you never say otherwise in public.

If you want a career with public exposure, credibility depends on credentials.

Would you rather have your arguments before a court or a policy committee supported by someone with Princeton, MIT and Harvard in their pedigree or someone with Chico, Washington and Oregon state universities?

Apposite quote from Blaise Pascal:

«It is a great advantage to be a man of quality, since that allows a man of eighteen or twenty to be on his way to success whereas another man could have to wait until he is fifty, which is a clear gain of thirty years.»

Sure, a few people can «make a name for yourself over the years», but that is very significant disadvantage.

At least Wall Street does not care much about fame or notoriety, they care very much about making money.

Too bad that Wall Street HR departments disagree with the rest of Wall Street, and just about only hire graduates from the Ivy League :-).

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 14, 2006 7:03:16 PM

I quote myself from Bainbridge:

Has anyone read Warren Gibson's article in the April EconJournalWatch?

As an engineer and an openly amateur economist, I agree with his point, which is that engineers use heavy mathematics to solve problems, while economists frequently use mathematics to obscure them (paraphrasing and taking poetic license liberally). Gibson concludes, "What if real answers to urgent problems could be delivered in plain English? Do economists have the courage to shun the romance of mathematics and produce such answers? Let us hope so."

Posted by: Eric H at Jul 14, 2006 11:00:33 PM

Blissex, you wrote:

"If you don't see this point, your anti-Americanism will guarantee you a poor career in economics."

I see nothing "anti-American" in science and certainly I am having a fine career (thank you very much) keeping my focus upon operational matters as opposed to complex, untestable tautologies.

Liberty:

All models are incomplete by definition; they are valuable because they abstract from a host of concerns that are largely irrelevant to the factors under consideration given the purpose at hand and the situational context. A more complete theory will sensibly be applied regarding the landing of a manned space shuttle than the landing of an unmanned ultra-light or a kite.

Posted by: jim at Jul 14, 2006 11:17:08 PM

jim said: "All models are incomplete by definition; they are valuable because they abstract from a host of concerns that are largely irrelevant to the factors under consideration"

Sure, but time and consequences are rarely irrelevant in economics. Sadly, many economists have ignored this. As Peter Bauer said about many economic models of the 20th century:

"...the abstraction and aggregation render them irrelvant... they become travesties which divert attention from the essentials and obscure the issues."

He was speaking mostly of deveopment economists, but it is true equally of most welfare economists (for both meanings) as well as the socialists economists of before-1990 and many macroeconomists today studying all of the above.

Posted by: liberty at Jul 15, 2006 12:39:10 AM

Trudie says:

Welcome, Bizarro Universe.

Shouldn't that be Welcome, Bizarro University?

Posted by: triticale at Jul 15, 2006 9:49:24 AM

liberty:

You wrote: " "...the abstraction and aggregation render them irrelvant... they become travesties which divert attention from the essentials and obscure the issues."

I agree completely with this because the aggregation requires a level of complexity in the analyses that foils their applicability to anything. I think you are making my point here, perhaps unintentionally?

Posted by: jim at Jul 15, 2006 10:47:21 AM

A colleagues often refer to highly aggregated Macro models as comparative fantasies.

Posted by: jim at Jul 15, 2006 10:49:48 AM

jim: "I agree completely with this because the aggregation requires a level of complexity in the analyses that foils their applicability to anything. I think you are making my point here, perhaps unintentionally?"

As I said, I do not believe in the "complexity" of mathematical economics in its typical 20th century form -- I have said repeatedly that what I do believe in is "complexity science" complexity; which does not aggegate at all and only requires micro-level assumptions (such as response to prices). And I do not see how the old aggregation and abstraction techniques require your definition of complexity either - what is simpler than to assume a static state and aggegate the whole economy into a Solow model and say that all that's required is more savings? Simple and useless. (if it worked, wouldn't the Soviet Union be happy today?)

Posted by: liberty at Jul 15, 2006 12:28:51 PM

liberty,

We may not be using the terms the same way. By complexity, I mean complexity the way Donald Gordon used it in his JPE paper "Operationalism in Economic Theory". His hypothesis is that the more complex is a theory (the more functions are strung together composing the logical chain comprising a theory) the more likely it is that the ceteris paribus assumption that implicitly holds for each link of the chain will be untrue due to the passage of time, for example.

Posted by: jim at Jul 15, 2006 2:49:19 PM

jim,

We are probably in agreement, if we could agree on terms :)

Posted by: liberty at Jul 15, 2006 4:44:22 PM

«Supply and demand is an economic law that is true regardless of elasticity»

Ohhh my I nearly missed this. What a splendid example of 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing''. Reading an intro to economics and thinking that the ''law of supply and demand'' is a ''law''. Hehehehehehehe.

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 15, 2006 5:55:26 PM

The law of demand is probably the most empirically robost theoretical proposition in the social sciences. Seen any exceptions.................................? Didn't think so.

Posted by: jim at Jul 15, 2006 7:54:05 PM

I'm a #1. I love my career. I went as a student to a top 5 econ program (Cowen and DeLong are right. If you can't get into a top 10 or 15 program, you probably shouldn't bother if you want to get into academia.)

DeLong is also right that since the top 15 programs probably graduate 200 to 300 Ph.D's a year, but only hire, say, 30, even a good student steps down. Even more, they tenure even fewer. So getting a tenured position in a top 15 university is quite difficult.

My advice. Don't go into economics unless you really love the subject. If you take courses and find the ability to explain things you've always wondered about exciting --- why does printing money cause inflation?, why are all the gas stations on the same corner? and so on --- then go. You may not end up being a very good producer of economics papers, in which case you'll go into something else and have had good training and do fine, but if you are, it's a very intellectually rewarding life, again, if you're into the subject.

Posted by: chris at Jul 16, 2006 12:07:54 AM

Chris,

You wrote: "Cowen and DeLong are right. If you can't get into a top 10 or 15 program, you probably shouldn't bother if you want to get into academia."

What about #16, 17, 18, . . . 50? Do you really believe that the top "10 or 15" have a monopoly
over the professorial training market such that its "probably" not worth going anywhere else?

By the way, I graduated from Purdue University in 1983, and have since had a very enjoyable career teaching and publishing. So if your theory were correct, since Purdue was not a top 15
program in 1978 (when I began graduate studies), I should "probably" not have bothered (unless I am some sort of exception to the rule).

People end up in other-than-top-15 programs for all kinds of reasons. Are the top 15, better
than the others. Sure, that is why they are top 15. Do you really think that an other-than-top-15 degree make it probable that a newly minted Ph.D. in economics will have an unsuccessful academic career?

I don't.

Posted by: jim at Jul 16, 2006 2:45:46 PM

I agree that Tyler is being a bit negative on the prospects associated with not going to a top program. That said, if you want to end up teaching at a top 30 or 40 department, going outside the top 10 for your Ph.D. essentially sets that probability to zero. It is not exactly zero - a recent exception is John List, with a Ph.D. from Wyoming, who went from a job at UCF to a job in the ag econ department at Maryland to a job at Chicago in less than 15 years. But those cases are rare. At the same time, unlikely many other disciplines, most any economics department in the top 100 has smart folks actively doing research. I know people who work at second tier Canadian schools as well as research positive liberal arts colleges in the US and they all seem to have a pretty good time. Salaries are non-linear in department rankings but anywhere in the top 100 you will do well by academic standards due to the outside options you have. And there are lots of those too: I have many friends in the consulting world (both policy consulting and business consulting) and they seem to have lots of fun too, as well as doing well financially.

Also, the real world of academic economics is not the mathematical horror show that it is sometimes made out to be in, say, Economic Journal Watch, or even on this blog. If you do high theory, you need to know a boatload of math. If you do mainly applied work you do not. The math in the first year of Ph.D. programs both helps students sort into the appropriate subfield and also helps keeps the kooks out of the field. I have tons of fun and think, talk and write about lots of fun and interesting stuff all day. I can't imagine a funner job and I think it is at least debatable that my lifetime utility will equal or exceed that of my friends (some now retired) who took jobs at Microsoft in the mid-80s (when we all graduated from Washington).

Jeff

Posted by: Jeffrey Smith at Jul 16, 2006 9:53:18 PM

I thing Jeff's comments are well put and fairly accurate, although I would take issue with the implicit assumption that he makes that the trends over the past 20 years (upon which he bases his conclusion that "if you want to end up teaching at a top 30 or 40 department, going outside the top 10 for your Ph.D. essentially sets that probability to zero")are going to continue. One reason that the hiring has gotten more elitist is that the top economics journals has quashed the ability of scholars to critique the work done by those at the top. That is, the top became a self-admiration society over the past 20 year to a greater extent. But I see hopeful indications that this strangle hold over critical scholarship at the top is breaking down. In particular, as Jeff mentioned, we now have Econ Journal Watch filling the critical commentary void (i.e., holding those who publish in the top journals accountable for what they write). Hence, I believe that probability of upward mobility in academia will slowly rise back toward the more reasonable levels that were observed in the era prior to around 1980 (when the top journals really started insulting their articles from criticism from scholars working at lower ranking institutions). This is the counter-trend (to current clubishness) that I am hopeful about.

Posted by: jim at Jul 17, 2006 10:31:02 AM

Remember the lesson of Thomas Malthus about the riskiness of blindly thinking that current trends will continue unaltered in nature.

Posted by: jim at Jul 17, 2006 10:57:16 AM

Sorry about the spelling and grammar errors in the above comments I posted; I was about to go to teach a class and got in a hurry.

Posted by: jim at Jul 17, 2006 12:49:10 PM

«The law of demand is probably the most empirically robust theoretical proposition in the social sciences.»

Well, considering the vast number of empirical counterexamples, and the thorough demolition of it by economic theory (anglo-italian theory admittedly, thus a bit un-American) especially when applied to factor markets.

That's just a simple minded statement taken out of one those facile Econ 101 compendia where the author simplifies complex matters (like what happens on aggregation) unduly. As somebody was saying, ''a little knowledge is a dangerous thing''...

Posted by: Blissex at Jul 17, 2006 5:28:53 PM

As I said, seen any exceptions to the law of demand? Didn't think so.

Assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, there are no undisputed exceptions.

And don't tell me that Irish potatoes are an undisputed example; NOT.

The fact that the AER and JPE have in the past 13 or so years been entertaining
upward sloping demand models (that are untestable) of course means little (other
than the editors have gotten really loosey goosey).

What is really dangerous are ascientific assertion about the law of demand (that is
assertions without solid empirical support).

Then there is this theory by Oz Shy about network externalities leading to upward
sloping demand; talk about a model whose assumptions defy empirical testing.
Not only that the history of the behavior of firms with regard to such things as fax machines
is in direct violation of the Shy model's assumption that each firm can buy one and only one
unit (e.g. one fax machine). In the real world lots of firms bought large numbers of units for communicating between branches of a common firm. That is the network externality was captured
in large part by individual independent firms; and LATER the communication between firms blossomed. In short network externalities do not make the case for upward sloping demand.

With one thing I agree, a little knowledge can be quite dangerous.

Posted by: jim at Jul 17, 2006 8:35:11 PM

Jeff makes good points but Tyler is correct in 99.9999% of cases concerning the top 20 schools. I met John List the other day and now realize why he made it and how lucky Chicago is to have gotten him, but I hope Jeff's example doesn't give students the false impression that this will happen to them. It won't.

but Tyler where does List fit in your classification?

Posted by: tc7 at Jul 18, 2006 8:25:56 AM

tc7,

You appear to be generalizing from a sample of one, John List. I could state the name of several who have "made it" in top programs who, while they are probably good mathematicians, are in my view NOT very good economists. But I will not name names, because this is just an opinion I have about several individuals: even if my opinion has merit, it would be a poor indication of the general to use such a small sample.

But what we do know is that criticism of top economists has been for years stiffled by the top journals, and again, as I said above, this era happily appears to be seeing its demise. Again, as I said above, I think there is a good chance that slowly, slowly, the probability of scholars working their way up on their merits will rise. Of course it will take some time to reverse the clubish trend at the top that has been going on for the past twenty or so years. So you are probably correct in the near term that students should expect it to be difficult to work their way up, regardless of their merit as scholars. But, again, I am more optimistic that in the long-run merit will carry the kind of weight it did thirty years ago relative to "where you got your degree".

Posted by: jim at Jul 18, 2006 9:10:47 AM

Since someone already mentioned getting a Ph.D. in Accounting, let me suggest getting one in Finance. There's a heavy economics component (I took several a 3 course micro sequence , along with game theory and a lot of econometrics in my program).

In addition, there's a much better chance of getting a job, and starting salaries at even 2nter schools are well in to the 6 figures. And there's a lot of career mobility.

In fact, at my alma mater, we would poach an econ student every year or so for the Finance Ph.D. program. It was easy, since we took so many econ classes with them (and we seemed to be having a lot more fun).

Posted by: The Unknown Professor at Jul 18, 2006 10:55:35 AM

The Unknown Professor has a good suggestion. The salary gap accruing to finance is consistent with the notion that emphasizing operationism is valuable (he notes that more econometrics is required of finance students).

Existence proofs of general equilibrium models may impress the publishers of some top econ journals, but where are the operational implications? Ditto for models that generate multiple equilibria: what is the operational power of a model that predicts 20 different solutions?

This salary gap surely sends a signal to students, but it appears that it is also sending a signal to top econ journals because they are increasing publishing empirical pieces. This is another reason for optimism with regard to "the Econ" [tribe].

Posted by: jim at Jul 18, 2006 11:52:35 AM

If we take Lee Beck seriously what he will need to do is live a double life -- play the math / "empiricism" game at a top 6 econ grad school, and self-teach himself Hayekian social science / political economy / philosophy of science and society. In many deep ways the math and "empiricism" of top 6 "econ." is not compatible with Hayek's account of the problem and explanation for social order / economic coordination. Lee's professors will not tolerate dissent on this matter, so it is best the Lee go "Straussian" on all this -- it will be necessary for his survival to hide his Hayekian understanding of social science.

Modern econ. is a formal game, not science, and it's best as a strategy to "econ." achievement to approach it as such.

Posted by: PrestoPundit at Jul 18, 2006 1:13:08 PM

PrestoPundit,

It is possible that you might be more optimistic if you read the book:

"Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes?: A Tale of Two Schools of Free Market Economics"
by Mark Skousen

I haven't read it yet, but its on my short list; since hearing Skousen speak several months ago, I've been wanting to have a look at it but have not yet gotten to it.

Posted by: jim at Jul 18, 2006 2:33:53 PM

Really helpful stuff guys. Finance might be a possibility, too. Or how about that JD/MA idea? Sounds reasonable.

Also, I'm not a Hayek nut--I mentioned him only because he's an economist whose stuff on liberty I liked. I'm into the economic spirit.

And I also like the economic reasoning of Posner on law, sex, or religion. Tyler and Alex do something similar.

I like all the spin-offs of economics, the spirit, the reasoning, but the real core of it has been kind of blah for me so far. Real foreign exchange rate? bleh. Endogenous growth theory? meh.

And as someone mentioned, the worst part is that this stuff is taught in the style appropriate for business students. Not the wanna-be-economists in the room. I would love to see the math behind the seen. Maybe that would spice up all this otherwise boring talk about bonds and interest rates.

Posted by: Lee Beck at Jul 20, 2006 1:09:41 PM

lesbisch liefde ^^^ homo mpg ^^^ capigliature gratis ^^^ fighette strip sulle scale ^^^ timide infirmiere prostituer ^^^ penaud dix sept ^^^ latina vingt six ^^^ filles limite ^^^ amichevole bionde anale fotti ^^^ sympathetic agente di polizia spogliarello ^^^ jattebra elev grupperna ^^^ forlagen lesbisk samlag ^^^ rabbity agente di polizia doppio penetrazione ^^^ fuoriclasse fighette schizzate di figa ^^^ chaude vision amateure ^^^ aardig serveerster creampie ^^^ perverssi imaisu hardcure ^^^ imu nakukuva siitin ^^^ uhyggelig mpeg ^^^ elev porno ^^^ varmest elskelig mor ^^^ beskjeden banan ^^^ dilos koritsi avnanismos ^^^ evarestos magoula piomenos ^^^ fitness trente six ^^^ frais maman porno ^^^ pio kafto apofasistikos pateras ^^^ kryo apofasistikos pateras ^^^

Posted by: levan at Sep 11, 2006 3:16:16 AM

Hello all really cool blog
alprazolam fioricet hydrocodone vicodin tramadol xanax valium ultram soma carisoprodol ambien ativan lorazepam propecia adipex didrex cialis levitra paxil meridia viagra wellbutrin clonazepam xenical prozac butalbital phentermine
buy ativan buy adipex buy didrex buy levitra buy cialis buy phentermine buy soma buy tramadol buy diazepam buy carisoprodol buy meridia buy paxil buy valium buy xanax buy ultram buy fioricet tooth whitening online pharmacy alprazolam car insurance payday loan web directory business directory carisoprodol hydrocodone buy vicodin

Posted by: linda at Oct 9, 2006 5:01:08 AM

Pozycjonowanie stron

Pozycjonowanie www

Pozycjonowanie reklama

Pozycjonowanie oferta

Pozycjonowanie stron internetowych

Pozycjonowanie reklama stron

Pozycjonowanie strony

Posted by: katalog at Nov 1, 2006 5:27:49 PM

I haven't been up to anything. Such is life. I've more or less been doing nothing.
I feel like a fog. Today was a complete loss. Not that it matters.
Visit my site sweden real estate

Posted by: Druid at Nov 15, 2006 2:03:58 AM

Are you aware of the truth that your favorite weight loss medication, Phentermine is capable of efficiently working against the feelings that increase your craving for food? Negative feelings and sentiments such as stress, anger, and depression can no longer increase your hunger and make you obese if you are in the sanctuary of phentermine. You start to overeat when you fall prey to these emotions and at such a crucial juncture cheap phentermine comes to your rescue. buy phentermine online as soon as you fall prey to obesity as Phentermine, the diet pill suppresses hunger by acting on the central nervous system of the brain. The ideal way to get hold of Phentermine is phentermine online and once the diet pill reaches you, you are not far from metamorphosing your weight loss dreams into reality.

Posted by: phentermine at Nov 16, 2006 3:49:22 AM

Trudie,

I got my Master's in economics back in 1984 from San Francisco State. After that, I went into the world of banking and I have made a fairly distinguished career in this field. I am still a full-time Private Banker. In 2000, I took a part-time job as an economics instructor for the University of Phoenix. They have kept me very busy and I teach both graduate and undergraduate classes. I love this job!!! Students and UOP itself rate me very high and students sometimes keep me until 11:00 p.m. even though classes end at 10:00 p.m. Recently, I was promoted to the Chair of the Northern California Economics Department. As I head into my 50s, I would love to teach more and move into this career full-time. However, here are my concerns:

1) If I enroll to get a Ph.D, will anyone realistically hire a 52 or 53 year old person who just got a Ph.D?
2) Are there good opportunities for me teaching economics on-line without a Ph.D?
3) Where can I obtain a Ph.D in economics quickly and at the lowest cost?
4) Are you aware of any non-academic (corporate training) jobs where economics is the main focus and a Ph.D is not necessary?
5) Do you have any other tips for an 'old dog' like me?

Sincerely,
Ed Torres
eduardo.torres@att.net

Posted by: Eduardo Torres at Nov 20, 2006 12:57:42 AM

Why should you live a sexless life, and addressed as impotent when you can change the condition for you? Do you know that levitra can change the things for you, because it is the most potent pill for erectile dysfunction? And the main thing is that you do not have to spend a lot of money on it as when you place the order for Levitra you can avail the best deals and get cheap levitra which are available through internet. So, when you buy levitra, make sure that you buy levitra online and save money on it. It is the best way to get back your sexual strength by spending less.

Posted by: levitra at Nov 28, 2006 4:30:56 AM

cash advance Great blog! I've had a good time reading it. Keep up the good work. It just happens that i love posts just like this one you've just added!debt consolidation

Posted by: debt consolidation at Mar 11, 2007 5:49:07 PM

Penis Enlargement info and products reviews, visit:

www.penisheal.com
www.revopenis.com
www.penis-enlargement-bulletin.com
www.for-enlargement-penis.com
www.flash-host.com.br

Marginal Revolution

Small steps toward a much better world.

Google Search

Shop Amazon

Recent Posts

Our Web Pages

Email Us

Our Guests

Archives

Blogs We Like

Resources

Interesting People and Sites

Trudie's advice to would-be economists

Comments