PhD and Development

Just finished my freshmen year with a 3.7, had a total change of heart and flipped my major from education to economics (kept my history degree out of interest)

The question is: I want to get into development, most likey international. Should I head towards the PhD path in developmental economics or get a master degree in public policy/ international relations? I have heard from both sides their one path is better then the other, but I brings me to a lost

And another: for anyone who’s been through a phd, how was it, did you like it, regrets, etc

Can’t give much info, but my cousin is involved in international development, has a Master’s, worked abroad for a few years in Malaysia, Uganda, and probably elsewhere. She’s going back for Ph.D in order to advance career because a Master’s doesn’t cut it. That’s how I understood it at least.

Whiskey thread lately?

This seems like a weird place to ask this, but whatever.

I also have a few acquaintances that went the PhD route, one that worked with USAID for several decades as an agricultural economist. I have also studied HR/labor policy and can speak to that in general. However, I am at a rather low point, professionally, so take this all w/ them grains.

-Geography: I hope you like NY, DC, and living out of the country because one of these locations is probably where you’ll work. If you are interested in the military aspect of it (most / a lot of USAID projects are associated with the military) you also have a chance of living wherever a major base is located; in this case, security clearance may decide whether or not you’re employed. There’s also a chance to work at a state capital, but you won’t need a PhD in econ for that… it’s knowing state regulations and being a more of a lobbyist.

-Development: Local and international don’t really overlap (Comm can overlap with ID, but not much vice versa). Local/community development is, well, local by nature and helps if it’s someplace you grew up and have years of contacts with; you do not need a PhD to do this… a BA will suffice and even that isn’t necessary if you know the right people. Economic development is a little different; you definitely need a BS, but it’s more sales than anything else and a degree in public relations will probably help more than economics on a local level, but a lot of work can be done internationally on the PhD side.

-ID: It’s pretty divided into doers/implementers and analysts. If you’re interested in a PhD, it doesn’t sound like you want to implement. It definitely helps if you speak another language, particularly one of the standard languages of the UN. If you don’t naturally speak one of these, realize that a lot of the world speaks their native language and English, so you need to compete with these people. The field, in general, is also very competitive, so I hope you like to network. The UN also tends to hire people for limited amounts of time (3 years), suck up their expertise, and release them. The US Feds have a policy where you can leave your federal job to work for the UN and come back to your job, so this may be worth looking into as the USDA is the largest employer of economists in the world (they also have a booklet describing what economists do at the USDA somewhere on their site)

-public policy: it’s a very broad degree, with people going into high level econometrics, BI, operations research type stuff to more sales (US economic development = a lot of poaching big companies), community development, or programmatic work. It can compliment other education quite well, but on it’s own, a BS doesn’t seem like it’d get you much, though probably more than international relations, due to its quantitative nature. It’s also not a common degree, so nobody knows what it means. Most will interpret it as public administration, which is then interpreted as a lazy version of an MBA.

-MS vs. PhD: Anecdotally, I’d say the PhD folks seemed happier. This could be due to their acceptance of a long program, less of a rush to cram as much stuff as possible, disposition, or who knows, but they didn’t seem as stressed out. However, and I know at least one person like this, if you are really smart and a good communicator, you can get a PhD level job with just an MS; I’d imagine this is true in many fields. On a purely economic level, a PhD is not worth it; time out of the work force and other factors will yield lower lifetime salaries than just an MS (though, as a good economist, that just tells you that the utility derived from people pursuing these positions compensates for the decrease in income); this varies by field, but is true in general. A PhD is also more likely to restrict your options geographically.

-Outlook: You can check out the BLS and do your own research to really find out, but here’s my general observations. There is currently a federal hiring freeze, so it’s tough to land a federal job (this is particularly true if you aren’t a veteran), and a lot of econ jobs, esp. international, are federal. Locally, I think an MBA would help more than public policy because people at least know what that is. Also, with the growth of online education, unless you go to a top school, you’ll probably be competing with someone that was working fulltime and taking classes online, so they’ll have several more years of experience (you can decide for yourself whether or not the education is at the same level) and most government jobs only require the degree and don’t care where it’s from or how it was obtained (not the case for consultants). Lastly, a lot of unis have programs where you can extend your undergrad by an extra year, concentrate, and pick up your BS and MS in 5 years… most folks I’ve known that have done this used it as a stepping stone to get a more standard MBA or MPH… I supposed this could also be used fora phd.

I’m tired of writing.

Have you looked into the Foreign Service? You wouldn’t need a PhD to get started in that direction.

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:

[/quote]

A lot of this was focused on graduating and going to work for the government. IMO, having a PhD in economics will open you up to more positions at NGOs, think tanks, maybe even the Fed. I’m not sure how much of democracy building/international development work is contracted out, but you can also work for a private organization whose a contractor to the federal government which probably doesn’t require the PhD.

Go find some of these places and look at job listings to try and gauge what the market looks like. I do this all the time, and you can learn a lot about what is really going on.

Everybody I know who has went the PhD route says, “You will not regret it, once you have it” but it is very hard work for long hours with not a lot of pay.

So what I would say, figure out what you want to do, and do it despite whatever economic costs or work is required. You’ll spend the majority of the rest of your life working, and you’ll be much happier if it is in something you like, versus something that you do just to pay the bills.

Okay, I am going to come off as seeming really mean here but you just finished your freshmen year, changed your major, and are now asking about a master’s/PhD program? You need to take a lot more major-specific courses before you can even know if you have the true desire and/or aptitude to study your field at a graduate level. A 3.7 g.p.a. is decent, but that is for just your freshmen year. All you have taken is intro-level and general education classes, classes only get harder from here and the vast, vast majority of student’s g.p.a.s drop or at best stay constant from their freshmen year.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when admissions committees for PhD and Master’s programs (I have sat on these before) look at your g.p.a., we break it up into two different g.p.a.s. The first one is your field-specific g.p.a. This will be the average of the scores you get in classes that are considered critical to success in the program you are applying for. The second is every other class you take, such as general education and non-field specific electives. The field-specific g.p.a. is by far more important, which should be common sense, but we see many, many applicants who seem to be under the impression that they can get average grades in their field-specific classes and balance them out with high grades in gen-ed classes. The bottom line is that an A in Intro to Archaeology or History of Jazz will not impress an admissions committee for a PhD program in economics, but a B average in economics courses will certainly have them thinking twice about offering you admission.

Now, as to the actual question of Master’s vs PhD, there is only one good reason to get a PhD and that is because you are very passionate about a specific sub-field within the larger discipline that you want to conduct original research in that sub-field. That is the whole point of PhD programs, to teach you how to do original research, and that is it. Once you get past the Master’s degree you have already learned all of the general information about the general subject to succeed at an industry job. PhDs are not (in general) designed to prepare students for industry or trade jobs. They are to prepare you for a career in research.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Okay, I am going to come off as seeming really mean here but you just finished your freshmen year, changed your major, and are now asking about a master’s/PhD program? You need to take a lot more major-specific courses before you can even know if you have the true desire and/or aptitude to study your field at a graduate level. A 3.7 g.p.a. is decent, but that is for just your freshmen year. All you have taken is intro-level and general education classes, classes only get harder from here and the vast, vast majority of student’s g.p.a.s drop or at best stay constant from their freshmen year.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when admissions committees for PhD and Master’s programs (I have sat on these before) look at your g.p.a., we break it up into two different g.p.a.s. The first one is your field-specific g.p.a. This will be the average of the scores you get in classes that are considered critical to success in the program you are applying for. The second is every other class you take, such as general education and non-field specific electives. The field-specific g.p.a. is by far more important, which should be common sense, but we see many, many applicants who seem to be under the impression that they can get average grades in their field-specific classes and balance them out with high grades in gen-ed classes. The bottom line is that an A in Intro to Archaeology or History of Jazz will not impress an admissions committee for a PhD program in economics, but a B average in economics courses will certainly have them thinking twice about offering you admission.

Now, as to the actual question of Master’s vs PhD, there is only one good reason to get a PhD and that is because you are very passionate about a specific sub-field within the larger discipline that you want to conduct original research in that sub-field. That is the whole point of PhD programs, to teach you how to do original research, and that is it. Once you get past the Master’s degree you have already learned all of the general information about the general subject to succeed at an industry job. PhDs are not (in general) designed to prepare students for industry or trade jobs. They are to prepare you for a career in research. [/quote]

Amen!

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Okay, I am going to come off as seeming really mean here but you just finished your freshmen year, changed your major, and are now asking about a master’s/PhD program? You need to take a lot more major-specific courses before you can even know if you have the true desire and/or aptitude to study your field at a graduate level. A 3.7 g.p.a. is decent, but that is for just your freshmen year. All you have taken is intro-level and general education classes, classes only get harder from here and the vast, vast majority of student’s g.p.a.s drop or at best stay constant from their freshmen year.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when admissions committees for PhD and Master’s programs (I have sat on these before) look at your g.p.a., we break it up into two different g.p.a.s. The first one is your field-specific g.p.a. This will be the average of the scores you get in classes that are considered critical to success in the program you are applying for. The second is every other class you take, such as general education and non-field specific electives. The field-specific g.p.a. is by far more important, which should be common sense, but we see many, many applicants who seem to be under the impression that they can get average grades in their field-specific classes and balance them out with high grades in gen-ed classes. The bottom line is that an A in Intro to Archaeology or History of Jazz will not impress an admissions committee for a PhD program in economics, but a B average in economics courses will certainly have them thinking twice about offering you admission.

Now, as to the actual question of Master’s vs PhD, there is only one good reason to get a PhD and that is because you are very passionate about a specific sub-field within the larger discipline that you want to conduct original research in that sub-field. That is the whole point of PhD programs, to teach you how to do original research, and that is it. Once you get past the Master’s degree you have already learned all of the general information about the general subject to succeed at an industry job. PhDs are not (in general) designed to prepare students for industry or trade jobs. They are to prepare you for a career in research. [/quote]

Amen!

[/quote]

Now that’s why you ask the bodybuilding site!

yes thank you for the straight answer, I was hoping for a reply from you. Thanks everyone that replied actually.

I realize its early but its honestly put a fire under me after my economics classes (I took intermediate micro and macro this year due to advance credits) and I just haven’t been able to get a straight answer. I got As in both classes, so definitely not a B average yet in econ. A professor I met through my Fraternity (he’s is an alumni and is majorly involved with it still on the national level) is really big into development economics, and focuses on Africa. He travels all the time for research and the subject along with the travel both appeal to me.

I do realize though I have three years to decide.

For policy, you need to make sure you get your calc classes. The pre-Phd MS where I went requires 5 different calc classes that don’t even count for degree credit (so, you should really have them done before you begin). This is in addition to linear and matrix algebra, real analysis, differential equations, discrete mathematics, etc. (which do count)

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
there is only one good reason to get a PhD and that is because you are very passionate about a specific sub-field within the larger discipline that you want to conduct original research in that sub-field. [/quote]

This was my wife’s downfall with grad school. She was passionate about learning but didn’t really have a passion for research let alone knowing what she wanted to research. Her research topic was basically just picked because she had to pick something. When she completed her graduate level coursework she had little interest left in continuing her research.

Research, euuugggggghhh.

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
For policy, you need to make sure you get your calc classes. The pre-Phd MS where I went requires 5 different calc classes that don’t even count for degree credit (so, you should really have them done before you begin). This is in addition to linear and matrix algebra, real analysis, differential equations, discrete mathematics, etc. (which do count)[/quote]
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
For policy, you need to make sure you get your calc classes. The pre-Phd MS where I went requires 5 different calc classes that don’t even count for degree credit (so, you should really have them done before you begin). This is in addition to linear and matrix algebra, real analysis, differential equations, discrete mathematics, etc. (which do count)[/quote]
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.[/quote]

There are lots of courses that can be considered “calculus” courses, even if they are not called calculus. The standard 3-course introductory non-theoretical calculus sequence is obvious. Calculus is so fundamental to the study of differential equations that many do not consider them different subjects (I an not among these). Beyond that, most schools at the undergraduate level use the terms “real analysis” and “advanced calculus” interchangeably since the study of theoretical calculus is important to the study of real-valued functions, and some schools even have intermediate level intro to real analysis courses that are in between non-theoretical calculus and full real analysis courses. Beyond that, you can even study Lebesque integration and Fourier analysis, which is a much more useful formulation of calculus since it is not limited to real-valued functions and allow for better (or rather more useful) definitions of continuity, connectedness, compactness, and such.

[quote]texas man wrote:
yes thank you for the straight answer, I was hoping for a reply from you. Thanks everyone that replied actually.

I realize its early but its honestly put a fire under me after my economics classes (I took intermediate micro and macro this year due to advance credits) and I just haven’t been able to get a straight answer. I got As in both classes, so definitely not a B average yet in econ. A professor I met through my Fraternity (he’s is an alumni and is majorly involved with it still on the national level) is really big into development economics, and focuses on Africa. He travels all the time for research and the subject along with the travel both appeal to me.

I do realize though I have three years to decide.[/quote]

It is good that you have found a subject that you are passionate about, and you are doing well so far and you should keep that up. However, do not get so far ahead of yourself thinking about grad school that you lose track of where you are now. Concentrate on learning as much as you possibly can at the undergraduate level and focus on retaining what you learn because if you do get into grad school your professors will not waste time reteaching you stuff that you have already been taught. We will just make you retake the undergraduate courses which means that you do not get graduate credit for that course and it still counts as time in residence as a graduate student and most PhD programs give you two years to pass a comprehensive examination of graduate level material which is considered necessary to begin work on your dissertation and if you do not you are dropped from the program. This is the number one reason why potential PhD candidates do not make it in most programs.

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.[/quote]

I went to a rather quant-heavy school (though, I didn’t do the phd-prep route), so I don’t know if this is the case everywhere, but the undergrad classes required to graduate (but not for credit, as mentioned above) include:
Introduction to Mathematical Software
Calculus I
Calculus II
Differential and Integral Calculus
Integration, Differential Equations & Approximation
Calculus of ApproximationÂ

These are in addition to discrete mathematics, real analysis, linear algebra, matrix algebra, econometrics, statistics, and mgmt science courses.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
For policy, you need to make sure you get your calc classes. The pre-Phd MS where I went requires 5 different calc classes that don’t even count for degree credit (so, you should really have them done before you begin). This is in addition to linear and matrix algebra, real analysis, differential equations, discrete mathematics, etc. (which do count)[/quote]
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.[/quote]

There are lots of courses that can be considered “calculus” courses, even if they are not called calculus. The standard 3-course introductory non-theoretical calculus sequence is obvious. Calculus is so fundamental to the study of differential equations that many do not consider them different subjects (I an not among these). Beyond that, most schools at the undergraduate level use the terms “real analysis” and “advanced calculus” interchangeably since the study of theoretical calculus is important to the study of real-valued functions, and some schools even have intermediate level intro to real analysis courses that are in between non-theoretical calculus and full real analysis courses. Beyond that, you can even study Lebesque integration and Fourier analysis, which is a much more useful formulation of calculus since it is not limited to real-valued functions and allow for better (or rather more useful) definitions of continuity, connectedness, compactness, and such. [/quote]
Thanks, Doc. Always super reliable.

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.[/quote]

I went to a rather quant-heavy school (though, I didn’t do the phd-prep route), so I don’t know if this is the case everywhere, but the undergrad classes required to graduate (but not for credit, as mentioned above) include:
Introduction�?� to�?� Mathematical�?� Software
Calculus�?� I
Calculus�?� II
Differential�?� and�?� Integral�?� Calculus
Integration,�?� Differential�?� Equations�?� &�?� Approximation
CalculusÃ??Ã? ofÃ??Ã? ApproximationÃ??Ã?Â

These are in addition to discrete mathematics, real analysis, linear algebra, matrix algebra, econometrics, statistics, and mgmt science courses.
[/quote]
I see. I’ve seen some of approximation calculus before but never heard of it as a course. Makes sense though. Am I correct in thinking that differential and integral calculus would be the equivalent of calc 3? “Introduction to Mathematical Software” sounds a lot like “Computing for Engineers”. Did you use Matlab?

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]1 Man Island wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:
5? Would you care to elaborate? I can only think of 4. I don’t believe precalculus counts calc and don’t see why anyone would need take both survey of calc and calc one.[/quote]

I went to a rather quant-heavy school (though, I didn’t do the phd-prep route), so I don’t know if this is the case everywhere, but the undergrad classes required to graduate (but not for credit, as mentioned above) include:
Introduction�??�?� to�??�?� Mathematical�??�?� Software
Calculus�??�?� I
Calculus�??�?� II
Differential�??�?� and�??�?� Integral�??�?� Calculus
Integration,�??�?� Differential�??�?� Equations�??�?� &�??�?� Approximation
CalculusÃ???Ã??Ã? ofÃ???Ã??Ã? ApproximationÃ???Ã??Ã?Â

These are in addition to discrete mathematics, real analysis, linear algebra, matrix algebra, econometrics, statistics, and mgmt science courses.
[/quote]
I see. I’ve seen some of approximation calculus before but never heard of it as a course. Makes sense though. Am I correct in thinking that differential and integral calculus would be the equivalent of calc 3? “Introduction to Mathematical Software” sounds a lot like “Computing for Engineers”. Did you use Matlab?[/quote]

It is usually called “numerical analysis” and they are not considered calculus courses but rather a discipline in and of itself since you are not using limits and the techniques are not always limited to the same constraints that the theorems in calculus are, but the techniques that are developed in this field are very useful to approximate solutions when the solutions cannot be found explicitly, which is most of the time.