I am a professor at the George Mason University Economics Department. I teach the required second-semester Ph.D. Microeconomics course. Just finished my first lecture last night! Selfishly, I’d like to pack my class with top-notch students. But when undergraduates ask me for career advice, I set my own dreams aside and bluntly tell them what’s in their own best interest.
In fact, I’ve got a standard script that I reenact whenever a prospective Ph.D. student turns to me for advice.
Question #1: “What is your career goal?” Students often respond that their “career goal” is to get another degree! “Well, I want an M.A. so I can go to a better law school.” Getting degrees, however, is not a career. When all their formal education is complete, what do they want to do? If their response is, “To be an economics professor,” then I confidently inform them, “A Ph.D. in economics is the correct credential for your career goal.” If the response is, “I want to succeed in business,” then I confidently tell them, “A Ph.D. will be a waste of time for you.”* If they say they want to work in a think tank, I respond, “This might be a good idea, but you could plausibly skip the whole program by launching a successful Substack. Why not try that instead?”
Question #2: “Why would you want to get a masters?!” Students who seek advice are often hazy about the masters degree versus the Ph.D. Many are initially convinced they should do the masters degree by Goldilocks “logic”: a B.A. is too little, a Ph.D. is too much, therefore the M.A. is just right. I tell such students that the Ph.D. is almost always a better choice. If you start a Ph.D. and decide you only want a masters, you normally get your masters as a consolation prize. (This consolation prize even has a macabre name: the “terminal masters”). If you start a masters and decide you want a Ph.D., in stark contrast, you normally have to restart coursework from scratch. Furthermore, Ph.D. funding is much better than masters funding. Upshot: The Ph.D. is a better deal for almost everyone.
Question #3: “How much short-run suffering are you willing to endure to advance your long-run career success? Be honest!” If they say, “I’m willing to suffer a lot,” then I respond, “If you can get into a top-25 program, go there. It will be uninspiring at best, but you’ll probably get a better job. Otherwise, come to GMU econ, because your job prospects will be at least as good.” If they say, “I’m not willing to suffer a lot,” then I respond, “Regardless of where you get in, come to GMU. Unlike most Ph.D. students, ours have high morale and a lot of fun, and those who publish still get tenure-track jobs.”
Suppose, however, that the student can win admission to a top-25 program, is willing to suffer, but correctly believes that Masonomics is intellectually superior to mainstream economics. What then? My answer: Go to the top-25 program anyway. You can absorb everything that GMU economists know by reading our work and asking us questions via email and Zoom. We’re highly responsive to curious minds. Indeed, if you fit the preceding profile, you’d probably be welcome to spend your summers hanging out in my office building and joining us for lunch every day. A true scholar knows at least 10x as much about his subject as he learned in his official coursework, so don’t worry too much if your official coursework is a vast wasteland. I ought to know; after all, I went to Princeton.
I end all of my Ph.D. advising sessions with the following Blanket Admonition: “It’s conceivable that everything I just told you is wrong. But I am definitely not wrong about what I’m about to tell you. Namely: Apply to many schools. At least 15. Why? Because there is enormous randomness in the system. Randomness in admission. Randomness in funding. If you want a good outcome, throw a big pile of dice.”
I go on to tell advisees about multiple students who ignored my advice and lived to regret it: “Poor me, I applied to two schools. One rejected me, the other offered me no money. How did this happen?!” As Walter White told Jesse Pinkman, “Because you didn't follow my instructions.”
If you’re curious about getting a Ph.D. at GMU, I’m always happy to chat. Before we talk, however, please take everything above to heart. To wit:
Know your career goal.
Know why the intermediate option of the masters is almost always imprudent.
Know your preference for short-run suffering versus long-run career success.
Know you can learn all the Masonomics you desire while attending a competing school.
And for God’s sake, if you want a Ph.D., apply to at least 15 schools!
* True conversation with a student from China:
Me: What is your career goal?
Student: To run a textile factory in China.
Me: In that case, you definitely shouldn’t get a Ph.D. in economics at GMU. None of us know anything about running textile factories. We can’t help you.
Student: Then what should I do?
Me: Have you thought about working in a textile factory?
Student: I’ve already done it. My uncle owns a textile factory.
Me: Then why don’t you just work for your uncle and learn the business?
Student: I don’t like my uncle.
I went for a PhD program in computer science, dropped out after a couple years, and got a masters as a consolation prize. The consolation masters is fantastic! Nobody in industry ever cared, ever, that I had a masters degree. However, I didn't realize that as a student, and getting the masters was psychologically very reassuring as it encouraged me that dropped out wouldn't mean "wasting the two years".
Does this advice only apply to prospective economics students? I'm a student at a state university for an engineering degree (hopefully avoiding a lot of the signalling which plagues other disciplines), and I'm currently planning on getting master's degree. My school offers a 4+1 program which will allow me to get my master's in only one extra year, so I think the master's has a good cost benefit, but I don't believe that the same applies for the PhD.