polisci bros, advice needed please.
Am considering offers between an excellent political science program and a pretty solid economics program. Assuming programs are matched on location, stipend, and research interests/fit, what should I do?
Same question posted at EJMR. Also, I hate being the person that makes people hate this time of year. But still, you all are the best people I can ask this question to, I think. Sorry.
Thanks! not a troll, but I can see why you'd think it. I definitely don't want to start a flame war.
CHYMPS polici, flagship state / lower ivy econ. I'm interested in trade and development questions. I have a math/stats background and whatever research I end up putting together will be largely if not exclusively quantitative. I'm interested in salary, but also in other job considerations down the line, and in figuring out the best kind of environment to spend the next few years.
If you aren't sure about academia and might want to switch careers later, or you need a higher lifetime income, and and you can pursue your research interests equally well in either place, choose the mid-ranked econ.
If you are not deeply in debt or don't care too much about wealth and want to combine quant analytical tools with a richer sense of history and other qualitative stuff the poli sci is better for you.
Or to put it another way, would you rather in fifteen years be tenured at a second-tier poli sci job or have your choice between a 3rd tier econ professorship and a policy or private-sector job making 2-3 times as much?
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.
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.
^Totally wrong. When poli sci depts hire economists, they require that they be from the top econ programs (MIT, Berkeley, etc.). Also, lower-ranked poli sci depts don't hire econ PhDs.
The exception to the rule are the Becky Mortons, but look a the cv, jumping from job to job, climbing the ladder slowly to get to NYU
There are some great points here. Thanks. In my mind it's a trade of between substantive interest and quality of training. I find most of what I read in econ journals boring as fvck, but would probably benefit from theory rigorous methods etc. Down the road I'd much rather teach polisci stuff than econ stuff, but does that matter as much as salary? Not sure. Not the easiest choice.
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.
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.
You could not be more wrong. Seriously, you pretty much got nothing right.
Excellent refutation. You totally changed my mind.
Chrysanta:
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.
You could not be more wrong. Seriously, you pretty much got nothing right.
It is all a matter of whether you like to write a lot papers and at least occasionally have a good idea, or at least a good title.
Totally not kidding. And that's a virtue of the profession: be productive and know how to get people to pay attention. You know, like "real" jobs.
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.