or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion) - Page 5

post #61 of 78

^^This is great.  Thanks!

post #62 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdykarim View Post

COURSE DESCRIPTION
MGMT 9400 is a doctoral seminar that reviews the research in the field of strategic management, particularly in the areas of organizational theory (OT) and behavioral strategy.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this seminar is to introduce doctoral-level students to this field. There are three goals in this course:
1) Introduce the students to the relevant research literature in strategic management, including exposure to traditional, classic, and current texts.
2) Help students learn to better understand, evaluate, and interpret the conceptual and methodological aspects of research in strategic management, especially in the areas of OT and behavioral strategy.
3) Further develop the student’s skills necessary to publish in and review for top-tier journals. reading list (Click to show)
Week 1: Understanding the Field’s Expectations*
1. Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490-495.
2. Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. 1995. What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
3. Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385-390.
4. Colquitt, J. A. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1281-1303.
5. Corley, K. & Gioia, D. 2011. Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12-32.
6. Schwab, A., Abrahamson, E., Starbuck, W. H., & Fidler, F. 2011. PERSPECTIVE—Researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4): 1105-1120.
7. Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. B. 2011. From blue sky research to problem solving: a philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 297-317.
Methods (These will not be discussed but are essential for strategy/OT research)*
1. Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 1086-1120.
2. Bascle, G. 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3): 285-327.
3. Berk, R. 1983. An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological review, 48(3): 386-398.
4. Halaby, C. 2004. Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 507-544.
5. Hamilton, B., & Nickerson, J. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1): 51-78.
6. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 1997. Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 626-657.
7. Murray, M. P. 2006. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4): 111-132.
8. Petersen, T. 1993. Recent advances in longitudinal methodology. Annual review of Sociology, 19(1): 425-454.
Week 2: Foundations in Organization Theory and BTOF
1. Selznick, P. 1948. Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13(1): 25-35.
2. March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations: Chapters 5-7. (Posted on eLC)
3. Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory: Chapters 1-4. (Posted on eLC)
4. Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm: Chapter 7. (Posted on eLC)
5. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33: 1404-1418.
6. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1992. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1): 172-183.
7. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 1369-1386.
Week 3: Institutional Theory
1. *Heugens, P. M. A. R. & Lander, M. W. 2009. Structure! Agency! (And other quarrels): A Meta-analysis of institutional theories of organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 61-85.
2. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology: 340-363.
3. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
4. Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate? The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 1024-1039.
5. Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 653-683.
6. Lounsbury, M. 2007 A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds, Academy of Management Journal, 50: 289-307.
7. Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1): 27-48.
Week 4: Resource Dependence + Paper Outline Due
1. Emerson, R.M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27: 31-41.
2. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. 1978. The external control of organizations: Chapters 1, 3, & 6. New York: Harper & Row. (Posted on eLC)
3. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145-179.
4. Boyd, B. 1990. Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11: 419-430.
5. Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24: 191-205.
6. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M.J. 2005. Power imbalance, mutual dependence and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 167-199.
Week 5: Networks and Social Capital
1. *Burt, R. S. 2005. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital: Chapter 1. (Posted on eLC)
2. Granovetter, M.S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
3. Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: s95-s121.
4. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61: 674-698.
5. Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.
6. Mizruchi, M. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 271-298.
7. Rao, H., Davis, G., & Ward, A. 2000. Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 268-292.
Week 6: Stakeholder Theory
1. *Pfarrer, M.D. 2010. What is the purpose of the firm? Shareholder and stakeholder theories. In J. O’Toole & D. Mayer (Eds.), Good Business: Exercising Effective and Ethical Leadership. New York: Routledge. (Posted on eLC)
2. Agle, B.R. et al. 2008. Dialogue: toward superior stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18: 153-190.
3. Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
4. Mitchell, R., Agle, B. & Wood. D. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853-886.
5. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20-47.
6. Godfrey, P. C., Merill, C.B., & Hansen, J.M. 2009. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 425-445.
7. King, B. G. 2008. A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(3): 395-421.
Week 7: Sociocognitive Foundations of Strategy I
1. *Walsh, James P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6: 3: 280-321.
2. *Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409-421.
3. Kelley, H. 1973. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2): 107-128.
4. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-291.
5. Skowronski, J., & Carlston, D. 1989. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1): 131-142.
6. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2): 311-322.
7. Porac, J., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. 1989. Competitive groups as cognitive communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management Studies, 26: 4: 397-416.
8. Gioia, D.A & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 433-448.
Week 8: Sociocognitive Foundations of Strategy II + Paper Introduction Due
1. *Rindova, V., Reger, R. K., Dalpiaz, E. The mind of the strategist and the eye of the beholder: The socio-cognitive perspective in strategy research. (Posted on eLC)
2. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 187-206.
3. Rao, H., Greve, H. & Davis, G. 2001. Fool’s gold: Social proof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage by Wall Street analysts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 502-526.
4. Hargadon, A. & Douglas, Y. 2001. When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-503.
5. Hoffman, A. J. & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention of external events. Organization Science, 12 (4): 414-434.
6. Abolafia, M.Y., & Kilduff, M. 1988. Enacting market crisis: The social construction of a speculative bubble. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 33: 177-193.
7. Mishina, Y., Block, E., & Mannor, M. 2012. The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal. (Posted on eLC)
Week 9: Discourse and Rhetoric
1. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(2): 136.
2. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7): 545-564.
3. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 35-67.
4. Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. The Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 653-669.
5. Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. 2009. Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A rhetorical model of institutionalization and institutionally embedded agency. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(1): 11-36.
6. Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. The Academy of Management Review, 29: 635-652.
(Spring Break)
These will not be discussed but are essential for strategy research
1. Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 171-180.
2. Dierickx, I. & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage, Management Science, 35: 1504-1511.
3. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 99-120.
4. Peteraf, M.A., 1993. "The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 179-191.
5. Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. 1988. Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 443-454.
6. Fombrun, C.J. & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation-building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258.
7. Clark, B. & Montgomery, D. 1998. Deterrence, reputation, and competitive cognition. Management Science, 44: 62-82.
8. Hambrick, D. & Mason, P., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 193-206.
9. Hambrick, D. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334-343.
Week 10: Reputation and Legitimacy
1. *Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. 2011. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1): 153-184.
2. *Bitektine, A. 2011. Towards a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36: 151-179.
3. Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 29-44.
4. Suchman, Mark 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571-610.
5. Rindova, V., Williamson, I., Petkova, A., & Sever, J. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1033–1049.
6. Deephouse, D., & Carter, S. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2): 329-360.
7. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. 2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 49–77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Posted on eLC)
8. Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398-1438.
Week 11: Status and Celebrity
1. *Merton, R.K. 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159: 56-63.
2. Podolny, J.M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 458-483.
3. Washington, M., & Zajac, E.J. 2005. Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 281-296.
4. Wade, J., Porac, J., Pollock, T., & Graffin, S. 2006. The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4): 643-660.
5. Rindova, V., Pollock, T., & Hayward, M. 2006. Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 50-71.
6. Pfarrer, M.D., Pollock, T.G., & Rindova, V.P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1131-1152.
7. Phillips, D., & Zuckerman, E. 2001. Middle status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2): 379-429.
8. Jensen, M., & Roy, A. 2008. Staging exchange partner choices: when do status and reputation matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 495-516.
Week 12: The Double-Edged Sword
1. *Adler, P., & Adler, P. 1989. The gloried self: The aggrandizement and the constriction of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4): 299-310.
2. *Ashforth, B., & Gibbs, B. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2): 177-194.
3. Devers, C., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. 2009. A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1): 154-171.
4. Brooks, M., Highhouse, S., Russell, S., & Mohr, D. 2003. Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 904-913.
5. Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. 2006. The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1): 101-117.
6. Barnett, M., & King, A. 2008. Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6): 1150-1170.
7. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. 2010. Why" good" firms do bad things: The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and prominence on the incidence of corporate illegality. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(4): 701-722.
8. Kang, E. 2008. Director interlocks and spillover effects of reputational penalties from financial reporting fraud. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 537-555.
Week 13: The Role of the Media + Paper Due
1. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2): 176-187.
2. *Wartick, S. 1992. The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society, 31(1): 33-49.
3. Pollock, T., Rindova, V., & Maggitti, P. 2008. Market watch: Information and availability cascades among the media and investors in the US IPO market. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 335-358.
4. Deephouse, D. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091-1112.
5. Desai, V. M. 2011. Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to defend the field’s legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54.
6. Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. 2006. Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 114(2): 280-316.
7. Kennedy, M. 2008. Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2): 270-295.
Week 14: Perception Management + Peer Review Due
1. *Elsbach, K. D. 2003. Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 125: 296-332. (Posted on eLC)
2. *Coombs, W. 2007. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3): 163-176.
3. Elsbach, K.D. 1994. Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 57-88.
4. Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M.D., Reger, R.K., & Shapiro, D.L. 2012. Managing the message: The effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage subsequent to wrongdoing. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming. (Posted on eLC)
5. Pfarrer, M.D., DeCelles, K.A., Smith, K.G., & Taylor, M.S. 2008. After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33: 730-749.
6. Westphal, J. D., & Deephouse, D. L. 2011. Avoiding bad press: Interpersonal influence in relations between CEOs and journalists and the consequences for press reporting about firms and their leadership. Organization Science, 22: 1061-1086.
7. Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. 2009. Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. The Academy of Management Review, 34(1): 146-168.
8. Graffin, S., Carpenter, M., & Boivie, S.. 2011. What's all that (strategic) noise? Anticipatory impression management in CEO successions. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 748-770.
Week 15: Other Cool(?) Stuff*
1. Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. 1999. Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 708-740.
2. Fiol, M., & O'Connor, E. J. 2003. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review, 28: 54-70.
3. Kuhn, T. 2008. A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29: 1197-1224.
4. Koschmann, M.A., Kuhn, T.R., & Pfarrer, M.D. 2012. A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, forthcoming. (Posted on eLC)
5. Deephouse, D. 1999. To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2): 147-166.
6. Zhu, D. H., & Westphal, J. D. 2011. Misperceiving the beliefs of others: How pluralistic ignorance contributes to the persistence of positive security analyst reactions to the adoption of stock repurchase plans. Organization Science, 22(4): 869-886.
7. Pfarrer, M.D., Smith, K.G., Bartol, K.M., Khanin, D.M., & Zhang, X. 2008. Coming forward: The effects of social and regulatory forces on the voluntary restatement of earnings subsequent to wrongdoing. Organization Science, 19: 386-403.
8. Bundy, J.N., & Shropshire, C.S. Strategic cognition and issue salience: Explaining firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Working Paper. (Posted on eLC)
Week 16: Exam
edit: my professor studied under Rindova, so the legitimacy/reputation/status/celebrity stuff may be overrepresented in this syllabus.

I was a little confused about what they meant by "behavioral strategy" first but it all makes sense now. Interesting syllabus, definitely seems to very much be a "strategic organizational behavior" class, micro-oriented, with some market/sociology-oriented stuff thrown in. I think smile.gif
post #63 of 78
Part of the problem is that I'm not in the field, but I happen to be taking a class in it, so I don't really know about where the bounds of the discipline lie (especially relative to the biases that might or might not exist at my program). I might end up doing a minor concentration in Management when I start my program but, right now, I probably only know enough to be dangerous.

That said, in my experience it seems like economists are a lot more interested in questions of competitive strategy (performance) while the field of management asks questions about why organizations end up the way that they are (isomorphism, resource competition, etc.). I hope I didn't lead you guys too far off the mark; we'll have to catch up again after y'all start your programs.
Edited by nerdykarim - 3/29/12 at 4:17pm
post #64 of 78
Thread Starter 
Anyway, I guess I can post an update now. Can't believe it's been over 1.5 years since I've made this thread. Also can't believe how stupid I was and how little I knew about the academia, but we all have to start somewhere.

It has been a long road, but I'm happy to report that I will be starting in a PhD program sometime this fall. I have worked hard for the last year to make myself into a great candidate, and it has paid off very well for me - I've received multiple offers, including several from programs with fantastic reputation.

I'm nearing the end of the decision-making process and will be choosing which school I will be going to pretty soon. I feel fortunate because I would be happy attending any one of the programs I've been admitted to, so there are plenty of reasons to be excited. At this point I'm finished with the corporate thing - I have done everything from running my own businesses to working in large and small companies, and at this point I need an intellectual challenge that only academia and research can provide. I'm walking away at a high point of my career, and I'm absolutely sure that it's the right choice. It will be interesting to go back to living like a poor grad student (well, kind of) but I can manage, and I doubt that I will have much time to waste on frivolous things anyway.
post #65 of 78
Good for you.
post #66 of 78

I agree. +1

 

post #67 of 78
Going back to school was the best thing I ever did.

Enjoy it. And congrats!
post #68 of 78
Thread Starter 
Thank you, gentlemen. I know it will be somewhat challenging being a poor (although well-funded) doctoral student after building a decent career in the corporate world, but I know it's the right step for me, especially in the long term.

I was actually amazed at home many of the faculty members took a similar path, many took 5-20 year detours through their first careers before ending up in academia.
post #69 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203 View Post

Going back to school was the best thing I ever did.
Enjoy it. And congrats!

Some of my friends would claim that two masters degrees are enough, but who are they to tell me?!?! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flambeur View Post

Some of my friends would claim that two masters degrees are enough, but who are they to tell me?!?! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
Flambeur, Congrats! Sounds like you're ready for a great learning and life experience. Without a doubt, my grad school years were among the best of my life. I learned a lot, and had fun, too. No regrets whatsoever. Enjoy, and all the best to you.

As for your friends? Don't listen to them.
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flambeur View Post


Some of my friends would claim that two masters degrees are enough, but who are they to tell me?!?! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif


Congrats!  I know what you mean....I have 2 masters and when I mention going back for a PhD my wife and friends groan.  After 15 years of working in the financial services industry, I'm bored to death.  I know that's not enough reason to go back to grad school, but it's at least enough to start seriously exploring the option.

 

Good luck

 

post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flambeur View Post

Anyway, I guess I can post an update now. Can't believe it's been over 1.5 years since I've made this thread. Also can't believe how stupid I was and how little I knew about the academia, but we all have to start somewhere.
It has been a long road, but I'm happy to report that I will be starting in a PhD program sometime this fall.

Congrats! Look back on the dumb stuff and laugh. I will refrain from telling you the dumb shit I thought and did in my application process. It's embarrassing. smile.gif

In this case, the end is all that matters. Enjoy.

b
post #73 of 78
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calnell View Post



Congrats!  I know what you mean....I have 2 masters and when I mention going back for a PhD my wife and friends groan.  After 15 years of working in the financial services industry, I'm bored to death.  I know that's not enough reason to go back to grad school, but it's at least enough to start seriously exploring the option.

Good luck

Thanks! It just really makes sense for me on so many levels - I just think academic research fits my personality/skills much better than most other occupations, I like the freedom/independence, and overall it's sort of a lifestyle decision... I can definitely see myself doing that even when I'm 70 and being happy. We'll see, maybe I'm just naive.
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flambeur View Post

Thanks! It just really makes sense for me on so many levels - I just think academic research fits my personality/skills much better than most other occupations, I like the freedom/independence, and overall it's sort of a lifestyle decision... I can definitely see myself doing that even when I'm 70 and being happy. We'll see, maybe I'm just naive.

Way to go, bro! I often shit on people for making stupid decisions on here but this is honestly a case where I think you're on the right track. If you want something for the right reasons and know how to get there, it's good to go for it. Congrats!
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Barrington View Post

Way to go, bro! I often shit on people for making stupid decisions on here but this is honestly a case where I think you're on the right track. If you want something for the right reasons and know how to get there, it's good to go for it. Congrats!
I agree, besides it's a great profession with enormous opportunities.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Seriously considering going back for a PhD... (Update: and now it's in motion)