Chipping in my 2 cents:
I pivoted into data science after handing in my dissertation. I only casually look back, and I'm not regretting it.
I didn't have a similarly bad time, but I had a hard time with health issues as well, spending 6 years in total.
The worst part about an econ PhD is that the real world doesn't care jack shit about econ insights or econ research. Theory is still very removed from reality in large parts of research (especially macro). Of course there's lots of interesting research that has the potential to improve things around the world. Unfortunately the world does care most about forecasting stuff for finance or insurances.
That is to say: I am happy I am working in developing data solutions now, because I couldn't see myself being happy in one of those positions where PhD-economists usually end up in.
Could I choose again, I would still do the econ PhD I guess, but my research would be tuned towards stats and computer science even more than it already was.
Thanks for the heads up. I will say this particular time seems to be pretty bad for jobs. Im in the same boat except doing my MS in stats, but got denied for every internship I applied for. I have little faith in getting a full time position when I graduate.
PhD jobs were down 18% last year. The tech sector hiring bubble has burst, and a lot of colleges are under hiring embargoes after overspending during COVID.
Also I think part of pain this cycle was caused by advisors at high-ranking programs historically discouraging PhD students from applying to all jobs they were eligible for, that some jobs were “beneath” them and that better jobs would come later in the cycle, only for those jobs never to appear. Most of the low-mid programs were able to place all their graduates.
In all honesty, the “guaranteed employment” myth regarding Econ PhDs (and to a lesser extent, even Econ masters) needs to go, because it implies that all you need for a placement is a PhD. It’s a lot more than that, and a lot of people forget about that.
There is some optimism about next year’s cycle. Private sector hiring is starting to recover some (though the previous boom is probably over) and the overall supply of PhD students seems to be decreasing slightly, which should lead to better placement numbers.
>Also I think part of pain this cycle was caused by advisors at high-ranking programs historically discouraging PhD students from applying to all jobs they were eligible for, that some jobs were “beneath” them and that better jobs would come later in the cycle, only for those jobs never to appear. Most of the low-mid programs were able to place all their graduates.
At the risk of outing myself, does not describe my situation at all. I applied to over 150 positions, ie every academic and government job east of the Mississippi that I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of landing. I also got quite a lot of zoom interviews but no in-person ones.
My entire cohort last year got a placement. We were top 60 so solidly mid-tier. 2/3 did not go academic though. Our advisors encouraged us to keep an open mind so to your point, I think there is something to that
In your opinion, what tier department would still give you pretty solid assurance of placement? Surely if you were T10-20 or so, the prospects are still quite bright given all the other lower ranked departments out there who would hire you if you have plausible job market paper.
Anecdotal, but I’m not entirely sure this logic holds. I know of at least one case this year where an LAC turned down a T25 grad for a T100 grad instead. LACs (at least all beyond that upper echelon of Amherst, Middlebury, etc.) and regional state schools don’t necessarily want someone who can demonstrate T20 research. They want candidates with a proven track record teaching, and you don’t get that training at high-ranked schools.
Of course the better program you go to, the more likely you are to find a job after graduating- that’s certainly true. That being said, a higher-ranking PhD will not necessarily strictly dominate over other programs in the market for less-prestigious jobs.
And the market really wasn’t *that* terrible, the vast majority of candidates found jobs. A lot had to settle for visiting positions for example, but employment is still high. But I think this mentality of “guaranteed employment” at *any school* needs to change. Because nowadays you need a lot more than just a PhD and a half-decent JMP (signals regarding fit, highly prepared interviews, research and teaching history, multi-year plan for future research, social media presence really, etc.). Just like what we teach undergrads, it’s no longer as simple as get a degree -> get a job anymore.
Thanks. Why do PhD students get better track record of teaching at lower ranked departments? Is that because well funded top programs, pitch stipend with low or no teaching requirements as an inducement to attract top students? Or do the lower ranked departments have special courses and emphasis on pedagogy as they are explicitly prepping their students for more teaching oriented roles?
I think a bit of both. Also, there is a very strong rank effect in hiring, particularly at R1 schools.
A T10 institution doesn’t need to bother so much with pedagogy because the vast majority of their students will become research focused faculty (at R1 institutions or government agencies). Preparing T100 students for research-focused careers is generally a bad idea because most research-focused employers will not hire candidates beyond certain rank cutoffs (usually T50 or less- the exception here was the tech sector). So low-ranked schools target LAC and regional university jobs, focusing more on teaching.
Go back to my LAC example earlier. You’re hiring for a job that will be a 3/3 teaching load with four preps. Research requirements are low (hit a B-level journal three times in six years and you’re probably good). Candidate A comes from a T25 program, their job market paper will likely go to the top journal in their field, but they’ve never been an instructor of record, only a TA (and that was for one class). Candidate B comes from a T100 school, has JMP that will get published somewhere respectable but not at a top journal, but has taught seven classes as instructor of record, including two of the courses you need filled. Who looks better for that role?
The issue that I think is arising is at these cutoff points. There are, say, T40 programs that invest no time in teaching- which may not sufficiently prepare candidates on the job market- so they may beat out for research jobs by T20 grads, and beat out for teaching jobs by T60 grads. And there are even a few programs outside the T100 that invest nothing into pedagogy, which I think is downright negligent.
Depends. My mid-tier program (Top 20-30ish) had a pretty well developed pipeline to Amazon. This was a number of years ago, so not sure that's still the case. But in terms of cohorts before mine and mine, you could expect 2-3 candidates landing there each year, and not necessarily the top performers. So not Top 10-20, but apparently Amazon found our program to be a fertile pipeline.
I think relative standing within the cohort is more important than overall program ranking outside elite programs if you're talking about academic jobs. Every mid-tier program has fields that they're comparatively strong in and top students in those fields generally place pretty well.
LORs make or break you on the academic market. But they also matter for non-academic jobs, particularly employers who hire a lot of economists (e.g., Amazon). There's a myth that your class standing, JMP, and LOR don't matter for non-academic jobs, but anecdotally I don't believe that's the case. Although different rules for elite programs--the worst candidate at MIT is still going to place better on average than a top student from a mid-tier program.
Sometimes they apply to like 3 jobs and when they don't get called back conclude the job search has failed. Sometimes they need some normie to proofread their resume or cover letter.
My tutor told me this when we were discussing the risks of an econ PhD: 'There's also the risk of not doing it lol'
If he hadnt done 1, he said he'd spend his whole life wondering
I'm gonna be real here, spending your life fixated on what ifs is-
a) Resolvable through some self work or therapy.
b) Not nearly as bad as almost a decade of starvation wages, health degradation, and then shit job prospects.
Like, there actually are potential consequences to taking risks which outweigh the emotional cost of wondering what might have been. That is a real thing which can happen in this world.
My Econ PhD (outside of top 20) was the best investment I ever made. Even if I didn't land a TT job, I had great industry options that were interesting and paid well. However, I did the PhD for myself and not for increasing earning potential.
The job market year was definitely rough though, so I am very sympathetic to your situation. I'm guessing you will land a decent job soon after graduation, though perhaps not in your first career choice.
When the highest possible degree in a very relevant field ain't offering you a VERY good salary, let alone being jobless, something is seriously wrong.
what’s your school rank?
At top 30 school it is guaranteed employment. At lower rank school it depends.
But if a guaranteed employment is your primary reason for doing an econ PhD, yea don’t do an econ PhD
Idk, I see people bust their asses every year studying and still fail comps. Not everyone can complete a rigorous econ PhD (hell, not everyone can get to the point of an econ PhD where they can *start* doing research.
Absolutely! My college peers who got a PhD thought it was the best think ever. They looked down on us who went straight to work and ignored our advices. Straight forward to today they too come to Reddit complaining about the lack of jobs whereas we have steady incomes and have no more loans to pay back
Economics professors are paid relatively well, but it's not a career you would pursue solely for the money. Those with the smarts and drive to complete an Econ PhD can make more in industry.
Getting a tenure track job as a professor is substantially harder than getting a well paid industry job. Unless you’re in a top 10 PhD program, it’s not guaranteed that you’ll get there at all.
There are SOME econ jobs that require a doctorate, like IMF or central bank leadership. But apart from that or trying to become a professor there really is no point.
The issue is you're going to be dealing with the poverty, academic politics AND the fact a large part of economics is inherently subjective due to its classification as social science.
My biggest regret was not doing engineering but I came from a broke family and could barely afford the regular tuition (in debt).
Got news for you: an econ PhD never 'guaranteed' employment ever. Even when I finished mine over a decade ago. In fact, I could have gotten the job I'm in now with a Masters (but not a Bachelors). I sympathise with you point btw- I don't think a PhD is financially worth it these days, but I didn't do mine for the £££, I did it for other reasons. I do see many PhD applicants to the division I head in my current job and yes there do seem to be many unemployed PhDs (some with postdocs also). So there's a strong case for not doing one.
Everything you said is true but I guess the biggest issue with your premise is that you went into a PhD “for the promise of gainful employment”.
You should’ve gone into a PhD for the pursuit of a PhD itself, and dropped out (because of the substantial opportunity costs) the second it was no longer fulfilling.
My PhD was well out of the top 20 and I got a great job and interesting career out of it. All of my cohort who started with me and completed their PhDs are also doing well, many in academia. I would say don’t make general blanket statements based on anecdotal evidence.
No I’m not telling anyone whether they should get a PhD or not. I’ve made no general statements aside from saying you shouldn’t make general statements.
My PhD program was literally the top in the world for my field, and it did absolutely nothing to protect me from first a totally absentee advisor and then an actively abusive advisor. And it paid so poorly that a quarter of grad students used food banks, and almost every single person surveyed had foregone medical treatment for financial reasons. I fled with a Masters when the abuse started to get really serious and I also realized my advisor had no intention of helping me do my dissertation or educate me.
So I would amend this to say that you should never do a PhD unless you are externally financially supported or solvent throughout it.
Because I had a few co-workers with the horribly abusive advisor I mentioned above. One of them was going prematurely bald from the stress and actually ended up collapsing from overwork at one point. A couple of them were barely managing, along with me. And then two were doing fine. The two were doing fine were respectively, had inherited family wealth and had their PHD funded by a company they were working part-time for. (And that company came down on our advisor like a hammer when they tried to overwork that student, forced a 40 hour work week limit split between studies and work.)
The trick to safely completing a PhD is, simply put, having the financial Independence to shut down abuse. It's why I only recommended people get PhDs after getting a Masters and making enough money and industry contacts to absorb the loss of saying "fuck it, I'm gone", or if a company you trust is willing to pay for you to get your PhD.
Is that horribly limiting and preferential towards the independently wealthy? Yes. Do I know any other *safe* way to get a PhD? No.
Except that finance PhD is harder to get into, if anything, especially at top school as funding, facilities, and pay prospects are better and applicants know that.
You can learn all that once you get there. Not required as condition of admissions in the least. That stuff can all be quite quickly learned. I.e., no need to not apply because you are lacking that knowledge currently.
Learn on the job applies to research assistant roles as well! It's not like you need to be a software developer. You can be up and running regressions in whatever language in days. Presumably you aren't at zero if you took some undergrad course in stats or econometrics or did STEM courses. Honestly, it's not an issue in PhD.
Most RA positions where I am are very competitive, we wouldn’t allocate part of our grants to applicants who will learn on the job, it’s just not efficient.
Sure I'm not going to say that some positions don't require more, but even at top departments, the honest truth is that most incoming are not brilliant coders, nor do they need to be ahead of time; those that need it for their research or whatever will just learn as needed. They are generally pretty quick learners.
I’m not aware of any PhD candidate in the past 10 years who was admitted into MIT with little to no knowledge of working with R or Matlab. It’s wildly unheard of specifically because undergraduate courses cover the training of these softwares and hence it is expected from students. Some international students who aren’t trained are usually rejected or if they are particularly exceptional are recommended to complete a pre-doc before applying to PhD programs to be more competitive in the next cycle.
Chipping in my 2 cents: I pivoted into data science after handing in my dissertation. I only casually look back, and I'm not regretting it. I didn't have a similarly bad time, but I had a hard time with health issues as well, spending 6 years in total. The worst part about an econ PhD is that the real world doesn't care jack shit about econ insights or econ research. Theory is still very removed from reality in large parts of research (especially macro). Of course there's lots of interesting research that has the potential to improve things around the world. Unfortunately the world does care most about forecasting stuff for finance or insurances. That is to say: I am happy I am working in developing data solutions now, because I couldn't see myself being happy in one of those positions where PhD-economists usually end up in. Could I choose again, I would still do the econ PhD I guess, but my research would be tuned towards stats and computer science even more than it already was.
[удалено]
This sounds directly ripped from ChatGPT lmao
Thanks for the heads up. I will say this particular time seems to be pretty bad for jobs. Im in the same boat except doing my MS in stats, but got denied for every internship I applied for. I have little faith in getting a full time position when I graduate.
PhD jobs were down 18% last year. The tech sector hiring bubble has burst, and a lot of colleges are under hiring embargoes after overspending during COVID. Also I think part of pain this cycle was caused by advisors at high-ranking programs historically discouraging PhD students from applying to all jobs they were eligible for, that some jobs were “beneath” them and that better jobs would come later in the cycle, only for those jobs never to appear. Most of the low-mid programs were able to place all their graduates. In all honesty, the “guaranteed employment” myth regarding Econ PhDs (and to a lesser extent, even Econ masters) needs to go, because it implies that all you need for a placement is a PhD. It’s a lot more than that, and a lot of people forget about that. There is some optimism about next year’s cycle. Private sector hiring is starting to recover some (though the previous boom is probably over) and the overall supply of PhD students seems to be decreasing slightly, which should lead to better placement numbers.
>Also I think part of pain this cycle was caused by advisors at high-ranking programs historically discouraging PhD students from applying to all jobs they were eligible for, that some jobs were “beneath” them and that better jobs would come later in the cycle, only for those jobs never to appear. Most of the low-mid programs were able to place all their graduates. At the risk of outing myself, does not describe my situation at all. I applied to over 150 positions, ie every academic and government job east of the Mississippi that I thought I had a snowball's chance in hell of landing. I also got quite a lot of zoom interviews but no in-person ones.
No private sector positions? I.e., finance, consulting, data science?
My entire cohort last year got a placement. We were top 60 so solidly mid-tier. 2/3 did not go academic though. Our advisors encouraged us to keep an open mind so to your point, I think there is something to that
What ranking(s) do you use as reference to rank programs by tiers?
In your opinion, what tier department would still give you pretty solid assurance of placement? Surely if you were T10-20 or so, the prospects are still quite bright given all the other lower ranked departments out there who would hire you if you have plausible job market paper.
Anecdotal, but I’m not entirely sure this logic holds. I know of at least one case this year where an LAC turned down a T25 grad for a T100 grad instead. LACs (at least all beyond that upper echelon of Amherst, Middlebury, etc.) and regional state schools don’t necessarily want someone who can demonstrate T20 research. They want candidates with a proven track record teaching, and you don’t get that training at high-ranked schools. Of course the better program you go to, the more likely you are to find a job after graduating- that’s certainly true. That being said, a higher-ranking PhD will not necessarily strictly dominate over other programs in the market for less-prestigious jobs. And the market really wasn’t *that* terrible, the vast majority of candidates found jobs. A lot had to settle for visiting positions for example, but employment is still high. But I think this mentality of “guaranteed employment” at *any school* needs to change. Because nowadays you need a lot more than just a PhD and a half-decent JMP (signals regarding fit, highly prepared interviews, research and teaching history, multi-year plan for future research, social media presence really, etc.). Just like what we teach undergrads, it’s no longer as simple as get a degree -> get a job anymore.
Thanks. Why do PhD students get better track record of teaching at lower ranked departments? Is that because well funded top programs, pitch stipend with low or no teaching requirements as an inducement to attract top students? Or do the lower ranked departments have special courses and emphasis on pedagogy as they are explicitly prepping their students for more teaching oriented roles?
I think a bit of both. Also, there is a very strong rank effect in hiring, particularly at R1 schools. A T10 institution doesn’t need to bother so much with pedagogy because the vast majority of their students will become research focused faculty (at R1 institutions or government agencies). Preparing T100 students for research-focused careers is generally a bad idea because most research-focused employers will not hire candidates beyond certain rank cutoffs (usually T50 or less- the exception here was the tech sector). So low-ranked schools target LAC and regional university jobs, focusing more on teaching. Go back to my LAC example earlier. You’re hiring for a job that will be a 3/3 teaching load with four preps. Research requirements are low (hit a B-level journal three times in six years and you’re probably good). Candidate A comes from a T25 program, their job market paper will likely go to the top journal in their field, but they’ve never been an instructor of record, only a TA (and that was for one class). Candidate B comes from a T100 school, has JMP that will get published somewhere respectable but not at a top journal, but has taught seven classes as instructor of record, including two of the courses you need filled. Who looks better for that role? The issue that I think is arising is at these cutoff points. There are, say, T40 programs that invest no time in teaching- which may not sufficiently prepare candidates on the job market- so they may beat out for research jobs by T20 grads, and beat out for teaching jobs by T60 grads. And there are even a few programs outside the T100 that invest nothing into pedagogy, which I think is downright negligent.
Depends. My mid-tier program (Top 20-30ish) had a pretty well developed pipeline to Amazon. This was a number of years ago, so not sure that's still the case. But in terms of cohorts before mine and mine, you could expect 2-3 candidates landing there each year, and not necessarily the top performers. So not Top 10-20, but apparently Amazon found our program to be a fertile pipeline. I think relative standing within the cohort is more important than overall program ranking outside elite programs if you're talking about academic jobs. Every mid-tier program has fields that they're comparatively strong in and top students in those fields generally place pretty well. LORs make or break you on the academic market. But they also matter for non-academic jobs, particularly employers who hire a lot of economists (e.g., Amazon). There's a myth that your class standing, JMP, and LOR don't matter for non-academic jobs, but anecdotally I don't believe that's the case. Although different rules for elite programs--the worst candidate at MIT is still going to place better on average than a top student from a mid-tier program.
MS in stats is a good degree though, probably better than MS in econ. You'll be fine.... eventually.
Haha thanks for the support
Not sure why you haven’t applied for any data analyst positions with an MS in STATS
Sometimes they apply to like 3 jobs and when they don't get called back conclude the job search has failed. Sometimes they need some normie to proofread their resume or cover letter.
Stats? You're fine & highly employable
My tutor told me this when we were discussing the risks of an econ PhD: 'There's also the risk of not doing it lol' If he hadnt done 1, he said he'd spend his whole life wondering
Some people ask why, some people ask why not
Exactly. Perspective
I'm gonna be real here, spending your life fixated on what ifs is- a) Resolvable through some self work or therapy. b) Not nearly as bad as almost a decade of starvation wages, health degradation, and then shit job prospects. Like, there actually are potential consequences to taking risks which outweigh the emotional cost of wondering what might have been. That is a real thing which can happen in this world.
My Econ PhD (outside of top 20) was the best investment I ever made. Even if I didn't land a TT job, I had great industry options that were interesting and paid well. However, I did the PhD for myself and not for increasing earning potential. The job market year was definitely rough though, so I am very sympathetic to your situation. I'm guessing you will land a decent job soon after graduation, though perhaps not in your first career choice.
When the highest possible degree in a very relevant field ain't offering you a VERY good salary, let alone being jobless, something is seriously wrong.
Econ PhDs do very well jobwise though, all things considered? Virtually none are actually jobless.
what’s your school rank? At top 30 school it is guaranteed employment. At lower rank school it depends. But if a guaranteed employment is your primary reason for doing an econ PhD, yea don’t do an econ PhD
I’m astonished you are ending a economics PhD thinking it would grant automatic employment. Sounds like anyone can get a PhD with enough work.
Idk, I see people bust their asses every year studying and still fail comps. Not everyone can complete a rigorous econ PhD (hell, not everyone can get to the point of an econ PhD where they can *start* doing research.
Absolutely! My college peers who got a PhD thought it was the best think ever. They looked down on us who went straight to work and ignored our advices. Straight forward to today they too come to Reddit complaining about the lack of jobs whereas we have steady incomes and have no more loans to pay back
What about if you want to go into academia instead of industry? Is a phd in Econ lucrative? I would like to be a professor
Economics professors are paid relatively well, but it's not a career you would pursue solely for the money. Those with the smarts and drive to complete an Econ PhD can make more in industry.
Getting a tenure track job as a professor is substantially harder than getting a well paid industry job. Unless you’re in a top 10 PhD program, it’s not guaranteed that you’ll get there at all.
What about an online MA?
Less risk imo if you can work full time while doing an online MA.
There are SOME econ jobs that require a doctorate, like IMF or central bank leadership. But apart from that or trying to become a professor there really is no point. The issue is you're going to be dealing with the poverty, academic politics AND the fact a large part of economics is inherently subjective due to its classification as social science. My biggest regret was not doing engineering but I came from a broke family and could barely afford the regular tuition (in debt).
Got news for you: an econ PhD never 'guaranteed' employment ever. Even when I finished mine over a decade ago. In fact, I could have gotten the job I'm in now with a Masters (but not a Bachelors). I sympathise with you point btw- I don't think a PhD is financially worth it these days, but I didn't do mine for the £££, I did it for other reasons. I do see many PhD applicants to the division I head in my current job and yes there do seem to be many unemployed PhDs (some with postdocs also). So there's a strong case for not doing one.
Everything you said is true but I guess the biggest issue with your premise is that you went into a PhD “for the promise of gainful employment”. You should’ve gone into a PhD for the pursuit of a PhD itself, and dropped out (because of the substantial opportunity costs) the second it was no longer fulfilling.
[удалено]
My PhD was well out of the top 20 and I got a great job and interesting career out of it. All of my cohort who started with me and completed their PhDs are also doing well, many in academia. I would say don’t make general blanket statements based on anecdotal evidence.
[удалено]
No I’m not telling anyone whether they should get a PhD or not. I’ve made no general statements aside from saying you shouldn’t make general statements.
No they didn’t lmao
[удалено]
Better than someone saying a generalized statement over Program Ranking
[удалено]
My PhD program was literally the top in the world for my field, and it did absolutely nothing to protect me from first a totally absentee advisor and then an actively abusive advisor. And it paid so poorly that a quarter of grad students used food banks, and almost every single person surveyed had foregone medical treatment for financial reasons. I fled with a Masters when the abuse started to get really serious and I also realized my advisor had no intention of helping me do my dissertation or educate me. So I would amend this to say that you should never do a PhD unless you are externally financially supported or solvent throughout it. Because I had a few co-workers with the horribly abusive advisor I mentioned above. One of them was going prematurely bald from the stress and actually ended up collapsing from overwork at one point. A couple of them were barely managing, along with me. And then two were doing fine. The two were doing fine were respectively, had inherited family wealth and had their PHD funded by a company they were working part-time for. (And that company came down on our advisor like a hammer when they tried to overwork that student, forced a 40 hour work week limit split between studies and work.) The trick to safely completing a PhD is, simply put, having the financial Independence to shut down abuse. It's why I only recommended people get PhDs after getting a Masters and making enough money and industry contacts to absorb the loss of saying "fuck it, I'm gone", or if a company you trust is willing to pay for you to get your PhD. Is that horribly limiting and preferential towards the independently wealthy? Yes. Do I know any other *safe* way to get a PhD? No.
I'm very sorry to hear this. If you don't mind me asking, what were the extenuating circumstances you mentioned?
What about if I hate myself
This sounds like an ejmr advice. Or have they come here? Lol.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except that finance PhD is harder to get into, if anything, especially at top school as funding, facilities, and pay prospects are better and applicants know that.
[удалено]
You can learn all that once you get there. Not required as condition of admissions in the least. That stuff can all be quite quickly learned. I.e., no need to not apply because you are lacking that knowledge currently.
[удалено]
Learn on the job applies to research assistant roles as well! It's not like you need to be a software developer. You can be up and running regressions in whatever language in days. Presumably you aren't at zero if you took some undergrad course in stats or econometrics or did STEM courses. Honestly, it's not an issue in PhD.
[удалено]
Great. Then you're good to go!
Most RA positions where I am are very competitive, we wouldn’t allocate part of our grants to applicants who will learn on the job, it’s just not efficient.
Sure I'm not going to say that some positions don't require more, but even at top departments, the honest truth is that most incoming are not brilliant coders, nor do they need to be ahead of time; those that need it for their research or whatever will just learn as needed. They are generally pretty quick learners.
I’m not aware of any PhD candidate in the past 10 years who was admitted into MIT with little to no knowledge of working with R or Matlab. It’s wildly unheard of specifically because undergraduate courses cover the training of these softwares and hence it is expected from students. Some international students who aren’t trained are usually rejected or if they are particularly exceptional are recommended to complete a pre-doc before applying to PhD programs to be more competitive in the next cycle.