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

In economics .. publishable papers come from finding quality data. If you can get your hands on some unique datasets, the paper comes easy. Many people in the past have literally taken one author's paper, and applied the same techniques to datasets in different countries. Look at the history of papers written on the effect of tuition on enrollments. There is probably a dozen papers with the title "Education Demand in (insert random country here)". Very few publish papers on pure theory. As for research .. depends on the journal. Ability to write "publishable" papers is driven by the individual, anyone .. even at the Undergraduate level can come with an idea and write a solid paper (many undergraduate thesis' go on to be taken by faculty to get published). On the other hand, getting published in certain journal's is entirely the school you end up at. The top journals only publish from authors at top universities. If you teach at random state college good luck getting published in the American Economic Review. As for what is considered top .. really, depends on the person applying. Do you feel you deserve to be at that university? You have to be proud of your education at the Ph.D. level. If you think you are underachieving, that will follow you throughout your education, and beyond. You'll end up teaching at a school that you feel is below you, and it'll just be a waste of time. Be proud of your education, and you'll be proud of where you end up after. Personally .. I'd take anything that is formally ranked if I go onto my Ph.D. Still dream every night of being at Penn or Boston U though.

Originally Posted by Flambeur

Click to expand...

Would you say the ability to put out top research is driven more by the individual or the department he/she is at?
The department plays a minimal role. I would say the advisor is a crucial factor. The advisor gives you the direction, you execute it. If the direction is not good enough, your effort will go to a trash can since nobody cares, even if your advisor and you think it's a breakthrough. Furthermore, many journals in econ are not blind reviewed, so people read your name and your advisor's name first before they read your papers, it changes many things. I had to change my advisor by the end of my third year, and that was one the best decision I've made.

Originally Posted by imschatz

Click to expand...

In economics .. publishable papers come from finding quality data. If you can get your hands on some unique datasets, the paper comes easy. Many people in the past have literally taken one author's paper, and applied the same techniques to datasets in different countries. Look at the history of papers written on the effect of tuition on enrollments. There is probably a dozen papers with the title "Education Demand in (insert random country here)". Very few publish papers on pure theory.
I work in theoretical econ, so I beg to differ.

Originally Posted by imschatz

Click to expand...

As for research .. depends on the journal. Ability to write "publishable" papers is driven by the individual, anyone .. even at the Undergraduate level can come with an idea and write a solid paper (many undergraduate thesis' go on to be taken by faculty to get published). On the other hand, getting published in certain journal's is entirely the school you end up at. The top journals only publish from authors at top universities. If you teach at random state college good luck getting published in the American Economic Review.
I would fix this and say "The top journals mainly publish from top authors" (all of them are from top departments anyway).

Originally Posted by onix

Click to expand...

I work in theoretical econ, so I beg to differ.

I would fix this and say "The top journals mainly publish from top authors" (all of them are from top departments anyway).

1) The point I was trying to make .. was the connection between idea and published paper. Very few (as a proportion of total economic researchers) publish paper's on pure theory. Most papers I've read (mind you, fairly limited sample), seem to follow a similar path. Come up with interesting topic, find (or in experimental econ, create) data relevant to your topic, analyze, publish. Very few journals publish economic ideas that are not supported by data. But I'm a newbie when it comes to academic economics .. so I fully admit I may be just talking out ******.

2) Ah .. ya .. over generalization, but ya.

Wow, from reading and participating in other threads about PhD's, there is a huge difference compared to the way we do it in australia, particularly regarding the university you attended.

Reputation of university - this isn't really an issue here, the majority of our universities have government funding and our bachelor degrees are heavily subsidised so it eliminates the need for numerous universities trying to attract students. Population is much smaller too so thats another major factor. My BEng cost $21k, instead of $85k at one of the very few private universities that exist here. We have a quite punitive taxation system though to help pay for a lot of the stuff thats subsidised in this country. We pay over 45% income tax if you earn over $180k a year but thats a story for another time.

I completed my PhD in mining engineering at a smaller university, but one that is internationally reknowned for mining education. I think that the institution isn't the question, but the quality of your research work and original contribution to the field you are researching. I have found that if I front up for an interview, I often get asked questions about papers I have written for prominent journals and usually get asked to do an impromtu presentation on my research, but no questions about the university I attended.

I wouldn't worry about the restrictions that the university places on you regarding how much you can work outside university. This was written into my stipend contract, but I went and worked for a local mining consultant for $600 a day. Not a bad earner for a PhD student. I just simply kept quiet about it, although my supervisor knew about it and encouraged it. Common sense really.

The only reason why I have gone into private industry is money. Academia and research are not fully appreciated here. Why bust your ass to get a compulsory PhD and end up earning less than a tradesman?

Originally Posted by MasterOfReality

Click to expand...

The only reason why I have gone into private industry is money. Academia and research are not fully appreciated here. Why bust your ass to get a compulsory PhD and end up earning less than a tradesman?
It depends. Being a professor, you have benefits that are not generally enjoyed by other professions: - flexibility to decide what to work on (either on your classes, or your research projects) - flexibility on time management - vacation time (even if you work for the whole year, not just the academic year) you still have 1-3 weeks between semesters/quarters off, that's about 1-1.5 months/year paid depending on the institution, that's a lot of vacation time. - most importantly, job stability if you got tenured - other random benefits: your kids go to college with deep tuition discount (70-90%), often free with some (even minor) scholarships - and the pay is in fact not bad, econ professors in top-15 schools earn 6-figure salaries, even associate professors earn high 5-figure - many other source of additional incomes: research grants, outside consulting service, etc., Nevertheless, I don't work in academia anymore, though it was a very tough decision.

Originally Posted by onix

Click to expand...

It depends. Being a professor, you have benefits that are not generally enjoyed by other professions:
- flexibility to decide what to work on (either on your classes, or your research projects)
- flexibility on time management
- vacation time (even if you work for the whole year, not just the academic year) you still have 1-3 weeks between semesters/quarters off, that's about 1-1.5 months/year paid depending on the institution, that's a lot of vacation time.
- most importantly, job stability if you got tenured
- other random benefits: your kids go to college with deep tuition discount (70-90%), often free with some (even minor) scholarships
- and the pay is in fact not bad, econ professors in top-15 schools earn 6-figure salaries, even associate professors earn high 5-figure
- many other source of additional incomes: research grants, outside consulting service, etc.,


Nevertheless, I don't work in academia anymore, though it was a very tough decision.

Hmm, its quite different here. I worked in a government research organisation (similar to NIOSH) for 1.5 years.

In terms of flexibility between lecturing and research, as the universities are partly government funded, there is always that pressure to bring in external funding and perform consulting work on behalf of the university. So, you are expected to act like a consultant but not get paid for it.

Time management would be the only benefit. I was pretty much free to do what I wanted. I only lived 10 minutes away so that was a bonus as well. I was renovating at the time so it was most useful.

Vacation time - there is a legislated 4 weeks a year here, regardless of private or public industry. One mining company I worked for gave us 5 weeks. The consultancy I work for at the moment give me the option of 'purchasing' extra vacation time from my salary as a tax deduction.

Job stability - Agreed to a certain extent - it does depend on whether you are sucessful in bringing in external funding. If not, then you are out the door.

The pay - academia is highly unionised, so the salaries are pretty much standard across the country for the different levels. A professor can hope to earn max $150k, and thats after working his way up. The downside of a collective agreement is individual achievement is not recognised.

I was actually courted by the university to work for them as a lecturer, starting at $50ka year. To me the $50k difference in salary was too big to ignore in the private sector.

I will head back to academia/research when I have had enough of the private sector and want to relax before I retire. The one thing I miss the most about it is the cruisy and relaxed working atmosphere (when they aren't hounding you for external funding).

Originally Posted by onix

Click to expand...

It depends. Being a professor, you have benefits that are not generally enjoyed by other professions:
- flexibility to decide what to work on (either on your classes, or your research projects)
- flexibility on time management
- vacation time (even if you work for the whole year, not just the academic year) you still have 1-3 weeks between semesters/quarters off, that's about 1-1.5 months/year paid depending on the institution, that's a lot of vacation time.
- most importantly, job stability if you got tenured
- other random benefits: your kids go to college with deep tuition discount (70-90%), often free with some (even minor) scholarships
- and the pay is in fact not bad, econ professors in top-15 schools earn 6-figure salaries, even associate professors earn high 5-figure
- many other source of additional incomes: research grants, outside consulting service, etc.,

These are all the things that attracted me to academia initially. Unfortunately, these jobs seem to be about as rare as professional movie star jobs going forward

Originally Posted by MasterOfReality

Click to expand...

Hmm, its quite different here. I worked in a government research organisation (similar to NIOSH) for 1.5 years.

In terms of flexibility between lecturing and research, as the universities are partly government funded, there is always that pressure to bring in external funding and perform consulting work on behalf of the university. So, you are expected to act like a consultant but not get paid for it.

Time management would be the only benefit. I was pretty much free to do what I wanted. I only lived 10 minutes away so that was a bonus as well. I was renovating at the time so it was most useful.

Vacation time - there is a legislated 4 weeks a year here, regardless of private or public industry. One mining company I worked for gave us 5 weeks. The consultancy I work for at the moment give me the option of 'purchasing' extra vacation time from my salary as a tax deduction.

Job stability - Agreed to a certain extent - it does depend on whether you are sucessful in bringing in external funding. If not, then you are out the door.

The pay - academia is highly unionised, so the salaries are pretty much standard across the country for the different levels. A professor can hope to earn max $150k, and thats after working his way up. The downside of a collective agreement is individual achievement is not recognised.

I was actually courted by the university to work for them as a lecturer, starting at $50ka year. To me the $50k difference in salary was too big to ignore in the private sector.

I will head back to academia/research when I have had enough of the private sector and want to relax before I retire. The one thing I miss the most about it is the cruisy and relaxed working atmosphere (when they aren't hounding you for external funding).
Canadian academia is the same. Big problem with it comes to many degree's. A religious studies professor and a economics professor earn the same pay .. when an econ phd could earn double or tripple outside academia. Sure makes attracting and keeping quality professors difficult.

Regarding pay, an economics Ph.D. can also apply for business school jobs, many of which start (at the assistant prof level) at 100K+. And I know many more advanced b-school profs who earn 200-300K+ salary (not counting consulting engagements and other income sources).

Because of the pay available at b-schools, social science departments (e.g., economics, psychology, sociology) sometimes have a tough time retaining the best young researchers today.

Yeah salary isn't exactly a problem here. Competition to get in is just amazing, but if you're in and make it through the program at one of the good school, you're ok.

Here is an interesting question - top school has several departments dedicated to different areas of study in the same broad field (business, comp sci, etc), some are excellent with great placement of graduates, and a couple are a step below in their placement of graduates. School is overall a top tier school in everything, well known for reseach in every field, etc.

Is this usually something that's hard to work against if you want to have the best opportunities when you graduate, or something that can be overcome with individual success? (if you're in one of the departements with a not so brilliant placement record)

Originally Posted by Flambeur

Click to expand...

Here is an interesting question - top school has several departments dedicated to different areas of study in the same broad field (business, comp sci, etc), some are excellent with great placement of graduates, and a couple are a step below in their placement of graduates. School is overall a top tier school in everything, well known for reseach in every field, etc.

Is this usually something that's hard to work against if you want to have the best opportunities when you graduate, or something that can be overcome with individual success? (if you're in one of the departements with a not so brilliant placement record)
It can be overcome but I think it's important to try to find out why the placements haven't been so great. This is where talking to current advanced students is essential. It also means your choice of dissertation advisor will be even more crucial.

Originally Posted by JayJay

Click to expand...

It can be overcome but I think it's important to try to find out why the placements haven't been so great. This is where talking to current advanced students is essential. It also means your choice of dissertation advisor will be even more crucial.

Ehhh this is going to be a fun application process.. I'm considering applying to 10 schools right now, should i do more? less?

Originally Posted by JayJay

Click to expand...

It can be overcome but I think it's important to try to find out why the placements haven't been so great. This is where talking to current advanced students is essential. It also means your choice of dissertation advisor will be even more crucial.
Yeah, talk to people in the programs. It's hard to know what a placement record means: programs reputed to be "the best" attract the best students each year, who go on to achieve top placements, which perpetuates the program's rep, etc. Which isn't to say that program reputation and well-connected faculty don't matter -- they do -- but you should definitely talk to students who've been through the program recently to get the inside scoop on how they think they would have done elsewhere. As far as how many programs to apply to, talk to a couple of profs in your field who are involved with Ph.D. admissions. They should be able to let you know how competitive your app will be and how many schools you'll need to apply to to ensure success.

Originally Posted by Asch

Click to expand...

As far as how many programs to apply to, talk to a couple of profs in your field who are involved with Ph.D. admissions. They should be able to let you know how competitive your app will be and how many schools you'll need to apply to to ensure success.
Good advice, I agree with this.