For mathematical rigor at the level of an econ or stats PhD you will have to take classes in those departments. Only the boutiques mentioned earlier (Caltech, Harris, Rochester) offer more than one or two such classes in-house.
Top polisci or decent econ?
-
Just curious: is that the only course that King teaches? Because Mebane teaches a lower-level course now too, but is more known for teaching the upper-level econometrics class in the dept.
Cherilyn:
It's worth noting that if you're at a CHYMPS polisci program, you can get just as good (if not a broader, better) theory-rigorous methodological training than at a "solid" econ school. Trust me, taking methods courses with Walter Mebane or Gary King is quite rigorous. Also, you should consider whether or not your CHYMPS school allows/encourages you to take courses outside of the department. Places like Harvard are known to "silo" more than a place like Michigan, which actually requires students to take a few courses outside of the department.
I'm a former Gary TF and even I think it's ridiculous to consider Gary's 2001 course to be rigorous. It's a broad introduction and survey of various methods and was designed to be catered toward a general audience and to give building blocks for future methods courses. It's a great course, but it is definitely not rigorous and not intended to be. -
Re the odds to land on tenure track position in econ.
CHYMPS won't guarantee you a good position (see the recent placements of their candidates).
There are profs in R1 econ department earned their PhDs from UPenn/Cornell. The training in Penn State/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Illinois (I know they are not Ivy leagues. I simply give an idea about the rank) sufficiently equips you to publish in top econ journals.You will almost certainly not place in academia in the econ program. And while it's easy to get a reg monkey job out of top econ jobs, the interesting positions are competitive. Outside options are still way better for econ, but not amazing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "excellent", but I would only go if it's in the top 10. Outside options decline much more rapidly in poli sci. Advisor matters a lot too. Do your research and figure out who you would want to be your advisor, then check their placement rate (not the programs). Good advisors at top programs place >70% of their students.
Keep in mind the substance varies A LOT across these two disciplines so make sure if you go for poli sci that you're substantively interested in some of the research topics. If you find you don't like the material it's going to be hard to motivate enough to write a good diss. -
I'm sure you can Merrick. We'll take your word for it.
Still waiting for that example of a political scientist hired by an econ department. If the poli sci defenders are accurate that both disciplines are viewed as equals, then there must be someone somewhere in the past ten years who made it from poli sci to econ, right?
BTW, If the degree of boring-ness is the issue, let's all just agree that both polisci and econ are astonishingly boring, except at the margins. -
Aurele, you seem to be getting off topic. I don't think anyone is telling this grad school applicant he should go to a top poli sci program with the expectation that maybe he'll get a job in an econ dept.
But regarding your digression, who even cares whether econ and poli sci are "equals?" In what sense? PS departments are effectively multidisciplinary, organized around a subject rather than an approach. So they occasionally hire economists, statisticians, even philosophers and psychologists. They don't try to train people to be any of those things, in fact they expect them to have a grasp of major thinking and research on politics from a variety of approaches, which will only hold you back in econ if it comes at the expense of more technical training.
-
From someone who miraculously switched from Econ Phd to Poli Sci Faculty:
"No brainer. Do Econ. If you fail in your program, you can always end up at a top poli sci program with with an econ phd. Look at CB at Columbia. Many others too. Doesn't work the other way around. Remember, economists have physics envy and political scientists have econ envy."
is the worst advise possible.
CB and few other are an exception! It is extremely hard to switch from Econ to Poli Sci. However, our econ ego and your advisors who suffer from the same ego believe and mistakenly advice that.
Evidence of this are many very good students from Columbia, Harvard and MIT that went on the poli sci market and got no calls.
So, if you want a job in Poli Sci go to an top poli sci program or a hybrid as many suggested. That said, do train yourself in economics. The best students in those programs are normally econ majors who keep talking classes in econ.
-
We had a search in my department (R1) and no one could convince the faculty that we should even interview econ PhDs, many of whom applied and were well qualified.
The OP said that salary is very important to them so it is a no brainer: Do Econ. In poli sci, you will be considered lucky if you are making 6 figures by the time you are 40.
-
Go to the CHYMPS department and do the main economics sequences you're interested in (micro, macro, metrics, whatever). You can pick up an MA in economics along the way to improve your exit options, and get the rigorous training in economics you want at a school that probably has a better economics program than the econ programs you've been admitted to. Depending on the school you might even be able to do a joint degree.
-
^ Agreed. I increasingly see ABDs getting an MA/MS in economics en route to a PhD. It's a smart choice.
Get a PhD in poli sci only if you want to be an academic and that's it. End of story. There are non-academic options, but I'll say less than 5 pct of poli sci PhDs get non-academic jobs that are financially and professionally rewarding. Sure, some work at Google or the World Bank but they are rare. Most non-academic jobs for poli sci PhDs are those they could have gotten with a masters.
-
Cherilyn:
Interesting. Too bad.
Haven:
Cherilyn:
Just curious: is that the only course that King teaches?
yesNot sure why that is too bad. Gary is a big picture kind of guy. He also is good at explaining things in an abstract and easy to understand way. His current class does all of that. But I'm not sure you would want to learn the nitty gritty math details from him, nor would be really be interested in teaching something like that. So his current class is perfect for him and he has basically perfected it.