Well, your first paragraph describes exactly why I went to law school instead of grad school out of college. I suspect I’d be better at dealing with it now. Seeking out the quiet introverts and avoiding the dick-wavers would be one strategy.
Anyway, dick-waving, smirking, competitiveness and pedegogory isn’t exactly absent in the rest of the world - take this board, for example. 
Though I don’t doubt it’s worse in grad school than about anywhere else.
Yes.
More importantly, it’d give it a non-zero chance at getting published. No one’s going to buy a book written by a guy with no credentials.
Edited to add: And I need to know more in order to write it.
This is probably the best out there, written in ordinary English :Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. (Free: PDF.) It was written by a guy named Warren Mosler, who is not an academic. (He made a ton of money on Wall Street, and now does whatever the fuck he wants.) My impression is he gets way less respect than he deserves, because he’s not credentialed. FWIW.
If you look at the recommendations on the first page you’ll see three from UMKC professors, and one from James Galbraith, at LBJ.
MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is not really a good name for it, btw, IMO. It has nothing to do with monetarism, and just kind of sounds hokey. I’d prefer the Kansas City school of economics. At least there’s precedent.
If you look it up on Wikipedia it used to redirect to “neo-chartalism”, which is even worse. Luckily, it looks like somebody’s changed that.
The thread title should probably be changed: “Fruitlessly try to talk me out of a terrible life decision I’ve already made.”
I mean, you want to go to the incredible hassle and expense of getting a PhD, of all things, for the sole purpose of confirming some crackpot economic theory of yours that you’ve arrived at with no math skills or study of economics. This is what crazy people do. I’m sure you’re very smart and nice but pet obsessions are what weekends are for. Not dragging your family across the country for years at a time.
(Are you still paying off your law school debt?)
I get the general thrust of what you’re saying.
I’m sort of an introverted, intellectual type. Success in my field - financial success - depends a lot on marketing, advertising, and salesmanship. (Something they definitely don’t tell you in law school.) And some would say, just outright lying. These are things I’m not good at. And part of why I think what I’m doing is probably not a good fit for me. And why I’m looking to make a change. I can see my future walking the halls of the courthouse, and it’s not where I want to be.
Here’s some good elevator jokes lawyers like to tell each other:
What did the criminal defense lawyer say when he won the lottery?
I guess I’ll keep practicing until I run out of money.
What’s your retirement plan?
To be dead when I hit the ground.
The Zambia/Peru issue may be a problem at some of the other schools, other than UMKC, I mean.
I appreciate your input.
Are you in grad school?
Ha. Fair enough, and obviously I had enough interest in it to do so. But do you really have a good handle on what math you will have to do in grad school? I’m not convinced you do.
Yes, and I addressed that in the next post (sorry about misreading the OP in the first post I made).
And I wasn’t replying to a question about whether you would get in, which is a whole separate question.
I was talking about the courses you would have to take once you got in and what (math, in particular) they would expect you to know going in order for you to usefully take those courses. Same for the LBJ school of Public Policy, although their website is a little less explicit on that point.
Here’s a story to illustrate the difference. My graduate work was in physics. The prerequisites for physics graduate school are generally (and were in my particular school) a good foundation in quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and electromagnetism. I had a very good foundation in QM and (for various reasons, mostly bad) a pretty much terrible foundation in CM and E&M.
They did let me in to grad school. Several of them, in fact. However, I had to take an extra years’ worth of CM and E&M to catch up with the other students, on top of all the other classes I had to take, all of which already assumed familiarity with classical physics.
No, not really, it was interesting to find out about. But I do think you should probably find out more about what math these schools expect you to know and what courses you will have to take (and what math they will be using in those courses). This is directly relevant to the question of whether you should go to grad school no?
I believe Ace was answering a different question than I was. He was talking about either programs other than the specific ones you are considering or your actual research.
The specific program in Salt Lake that you are considering does involve econometrics courses. However, your research would not involve econometrics.
To some extent you pick an adviser and an adviser picks you. If you don’t get along with your adviser, or if you are assigned to him more or less against his will, you will have problems. If your adviser has students who jump off bridges (it happens) you probably don’t want him. Ditto if your adviser thinks you are stupid.
On the other hand an adviser with grants depends on the grad students to get the work done, so if he or she is mean to grad students the research will suffer. I know plenty of good professors (from a research angle) who have lots of things they prefer to do than teach undergrads, but none who don’t care about grad students. But they will spend more time with the students they respect.
Remove the trailing “/” in the link to get it to work - I edited the one below to do so. I’m not an economist, and I only looked at the list, but none of strikes me as that controversial in non-wacko economic circles. Krugman has said much the same things in his column. Is this kind of good sense controversial today? I’m disappointed.
What I probably need to do is go and talk to some of the students. When I went to LBJ, there were these little cubicles, with what I assume to be grad students scribbling away. They were surrounded by actual offices with professors’ names on them, pretty much all of them locked and empty. They (the students) definitely didn’t look like they wanted to be bothered, and I had no way of knowing which ones were Galbraith’s students, so I decided not to try to take a survey.
Galbraith’s office was not locked and empty, but he wasn’t there. The young girl who was there subsided from outright hostility to mere annoyance after I told her why I was there. His office was filled with piles and piles of his latest book. She sent me away.
I was told to go to the - I forget what they called it - “Office for Prospective Students”, or some such thing. They were nice, but perfectly clueless. They gave me a pamphlet with pictures of smiling students, but couldn’t answer basic questions. But at least they got me in to talk to another professor. Not Galbraith, but another economist who studied the transportation of coal, or some such thing. He asked me a lot of questions about myself, but I wasn’t able to get much out of him. I do remember he made an offhand dismissive comment about Galbraith, however. (I don’t think he thought I caught it.)
I do remember one other thing. At the end of the building they had “Chancellor’s Office” or “President’s Lair” or something. It looked like the gates of a palace.
It was a little discouraging.
But LBJ is - I think - a relatively prestigious place. Anyway, Obama and Clinton are there today, and LBJ seems to have lots of money to throw around. Maybe things are less medieval at other places.
A long story, which doesn’t exactly answer your question, except to say its hard to find out about the inside of a place, unless you’re already inside the place. Or at least friends with someone willing to tell you the truth about it.
As far as the math goes, I guess if they make me take math I’ll take math. I promise you, there’s tons of boring shit in law school, and I got through that. (Ever wondered about the future interest of a remainderman in a life estate with a tenancy in common versus a tenancy by the entirety?)
For the record, I don’t hate all math: I like probability and statistics. It’s just useless pointless math that pains me.
Anyway, I don’t mean to sound defensive. Just trying to gather information.
I’m going to be honest here. You really don’t have the preparation you want to have before doing this. Wandering the hallways of a school and expecting an impromptu pow wow with the celebrity prof is not preparation.
When I applied to grad school, I didn’t have any problems finding inside info, because I lived and breathed the subject and everyone I knew had been to or was planning to go to one of the schools I was considering (despite my living on the other side of the globe and having never been to the cities these schools were in). I talked to people who had gone there, got dozens of opinions from industry insiders on the reputations of each school, and had a precise knowledge of which organizations hired which positions from which schools down to an extremely granular level. By enrollment, I had basically planned out my coursework and knew exactly what would be expected of me. And my first year was relatively easy because I had already read most the books for work and pleasure years ago.
And I was among the less informed of my peers. One of my friends did his grad school decision making by compiling a 50 column spreadsheet with weighted criteria covering everything from number of professors working full time in his concentration to the attractiveness of the ladies on campus.
Celebrity professors are neat. But just being at their school isn’t going to buy you much access. They are more there for the other professors than for students. It’s like any job with a powerful supervisor. If you are shockingly brilliant and likely to quickly become senior leadership, they may make some time for you. But in most cases, that’s the exception. What you really need to know is all the other professors. They will have a much larger influence.
“Work at some kind of think tank”
Is not a career plan. Which think tank? So they hire from your school? I know a lot of people who work at think tanks, and it’s not exactly like getting a job at Taco Bell. They are competitive, trend towards hot young talent, pay more in prestige than cash for early and mid career positions, and tend to hire from a narrow candidate pool. It can be done for sure. But you need to have a very strong understanding of who they hire, and getting that understanding means knowing people who work in them.
Don’t give up. But take another year, talk to some people who are actually economists, try to get an internship or something so that you meet people and start to understand the field, brush up on your math and get to the point where it’s obvious to you where to go.
I went to the Fashion Institute of Technology which is part of the SUNY (State University of New York) system which has core standards that all SUNY schools must meet. My point was, if they even teach math at a fashion school, wouldn’t it be relatively standard to teach at least some**** math in college?
I think FIT did push math courses a little bit more than most though solely because of the assumption that fashion students are not good at subjects like that. This is based on things professors said, etc.
Interesting that your undergrad didn’t have any required courses.
Anyway, my whole point about math, is math seems pretty central to economics. When I took economics in college (I had to take macro and micro economics) I’m pretty sure there was a math pre-req which had to be taken first, although I don’t recall which course it was.
I got through a normal undergrad at a state school with no real math. Our pre-reqs specified that we had to take at least two “quantitative” courses, but a lot of random classes had the quantitative designation. I took a simple concept focused optics course and a course literally titled “physics for poets.”
Taking my GREs a decade later was an adventure.
The math is neither useless nor pointless - it’s a tool used to formulate a model. Sometimes a mathematical model is the right tool for what you’re doing, and understanding the math helps you know when that’s the case. Often it’s the wrong tool, and understanding the math helps you know when that’s the case. Either way, the math itself is fundamental to understanding the capabilities and limitations of the model.
If you want to argue that widely accepted ideas or models are wrong, it’s going to be really important (if you want to be taken seriously) for you to thoroughly understand those ideas. Even if they’re based on math.
I’d think estimating material use and how this scales with size would take at least a bit of both algebra and geometry. Far more than law, anyhow. And if they train you for the industrial shmatte business, it would take even more.
Yes, that is correct. I also had to take two statistics courses, business math and I am a scatter brain and don’t remember the exact name of the course but we did things like calculate interest, model population growth, etc. The professor was a male model on the side which was an added bonus.
I’m not surprised that there’s no math in law school. Did the OP state was his undergrad degree is in?
I wish I could have taken Physics for Poets, even sven.
That’s an excellent idea. Here is what I consider to be an effective method to do so, if you are interested: find the students you are interested in (presumably Galbraith’s students) and find papers they have written (Galbraith’s group appears to have several that are accessible on the internet). Read them enough times that you think you understand them and have some questions for the author. If you can’t understand them, well, that’s a question too. This has the dual purpose of also making you aware of exactly what kind of work his grad students do and whether you might be interested in doing that kind of thing.
Then email one of the grad students whose paper you’ve read. (The email is usually given on the paper.) Say that you’re a prospective nontraditional grad student, have read Paper X, think it’s a fascinating paper, and have some questions about it and the graduate program in general. Ask if you can meet with him to talk about these things in his office or over a cup of coffee (your treat, of course). (Not to leave out women, but I can tell you as a previous female grad student that you, as a man in your 40’s, are more likely to have luck with this if you ask a male grad student.) If that student does not reply in a couple of days, try again with another one, but I would be shocked if you had to try more than two. (Grad students, you see, love two things: a) the idea that someone has ACTUALLY READ THEIR WORK, and b) free food/drink.)
That’s what I wanted to know (and for my part I apologize if I was a little snippy about it). If you’re okay with having to do math then that’s great. I had thought that you were dead set against it, and was having a hard time reconciling that with wanting to go to econ grad school. (For the record, I still think that it would not be a good fit for you, but whatever, I’m just a random person on a message board. And public policy is sounding like it could be fun for you, actually.)
I’m glad you like probability and statistics, as (especially in public policy) these are the parts of math you are most likely to be using. As for your last sentence… well, let me just quote for truth what Enginerd said about math:
[QUOTE=Enginerd]
The math is neither useless nor pointless - it’s a tool used to formulate a model. Sometimes a mathematical model is the right tool for what you’re doing, and understanding the math helps you know when that’s the case. Often it’s the wrong tool, and understanding the math helps you know when that’s the case. Either way, the math itself is fundamental to understanding the capabilities and limitations of the model.
If you want to argue that widely accepted ideas or models are wrong, it’s going to be really important (if you want to be taken seriously) for you to thoroughly understand those ideas. Even if they’re based on math.
[/QUOTE]
If you ever do get to meet a “celebrity” professor and express interest in working with them, I would not let it be known that you hate math. I imagine that even heterodox economists see themselves as scientists. And I can’t imagine any scientist not feigning an appreciation for math, at the very least.
Yeah, that’s basically what I was going for!