a ph.d.: the benefits and the costs

by swapna Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:05 pm

a person I know well surprised me recently when she said that she knew that she was not taking a risk when she decided, nearly six years ago, to do a ph.d. in economics.

one reason was the variety of opportunities she would have, to exercise her intellectual abilities, including a faculty position, her first choice, and fall-back positions in economic consulting (not business strategy consulting, as with mckinsey), research positions with think tanks, and policy positions with large, international financial institutions.

here's an interesting article by noah smith, an economics ph.d. and a faculty member, probably, at the u of michigan, on ph.d.s in various fields, and their prospects.

noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html?m=1

the author also has an interesting taxonomy of ph.d.s

caveat: I don't agree with everything noah smith says; nor would the person I referred to at the top.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:10 pm

swapna wrote:a person I know well surprised me recently when she said that she knew that she was not taking a risk when she decided, nearly six years ago, to do a ph.d. in economics.

one reason was the variety of opportunities she would have, to exercise her intellectual abilities, including a faculty position, her first choice, and fall-back positions in economic consulting (not business strategy consulting, as with mckinsey), research positions with think tanks, and policy positions with large, international financial institutions.

here's an interesting article by noah smith, an economics ph.d. and a faculty member, probably, at the u of michigan, on ph.d.s in various fields, and their prospects.

noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html?m=1

the author also has an interesting taxonomy of ph.d.s

caveat: I don't agree with everything noah smith says; nor would the person I referred to at the top.

funny! don't know much about an econ ph.d, but he is totally off the mark putting biology and engineering in the same bracket. engineering ph.d's don't always spend long years in the lab followed by a post-doc, and they are not always lab based. tons of people who do purely analytical or computational ph.d's in engineering. and what he fails to mention is that there is a fairly sizable market for engineering ph.d's in large companies and in start ups. and there are plenty of engineering ph.d's who take the initiative to work on their own projects and don't work on "someone else's project" as he puts it. looks like he doesn't know much beyond his little world of econ, but feels totally qualified to write shit about fields he has no clue about.

one thing though. when folks with engineering undergrad degrees go into ph.d. programs in economics, they generally seem to do very well, probably because of the superior math and analytical skills compared to someone with an undergraduate degree in the social sciences.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 20, 2015 12:46 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
swapna wrote:a person I know well surprised me recently when she said that she knew that she was not taking a risk when she decided, nearly six years ago, to do a ph.d. in economics.

one reason was the variety of opportunities she would have, to exercise her intellectual abilities, including a faculty position, her first choice, and fall-back positions in economic consulting (not business strategy consulting, as with mckinsey), research positions with think tanks, and policy positions with large, international financial institutions.

here's an interesting article by noah smith, an economics ph.d. and a faculty member, probably, at the u of michigan, on ph.d.s in various fields, and their prospects.

noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html?m=1

the author also has an interesting taxonomy of ph.d.s

caveat: I don't agree with everything noah smith says; nor would the person I referred to at the top.

funny! don't know much about an econ ph.d, but he is totally off the mark putting biology and engineering in the same bracket. engineering ph.d's don't always spend long years in the lab followed by a post-doc, and they are not always lab based. tons of people who do purely analytical or computational ph.d's in engineering. and what he fails to mention is that there is a fairly sizable market for engineering ph.d's in large companies and in start ups. and there are plenty of engineering ph.d's who take the initiative to work on their own projects and don't work on "someone else's project" as he puts it. looks like he doesn't know much beyond his little world of econ, but feels totally qualified to write shit about fields he has no clue about.

one thing though. when folks with engineering undergrad degrees go into ph.d. programs in economics, they generally seem to do very well, probably because of the superior math and analytical skills compared to someone with an undergraduate degree in the social sciences.

Several things have changed that differ from your views:

1. Postdoc-ing in Engineering is increasingly becoming common just as in Biology
2. Biology "scope" has broadened with biomedical applications and advances in medicine - which depend much on biology and biochem.
3. Biologists also have started indulging wholesale on computational modeling. I just talked to a guy doing PhD in immunology at a "top" university. He is completely into numerical simulations and computational modeling (this guy is a triple major in UG from Harvard - including one in math).

BTW, unlike Noah Smith - I know "Everything"

by truthbetold Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:42 am

uppili
Do you have numbers to support post doc comment? Or do we have to be satisfied with "I know everything".

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:57 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Several things have changed that differ from your views:

1. Postdoc-ing in Engineering is increasingly becoming common just as in Biology

only if you want a faculty job. an engineering post-doc is useless for an industry job. if one's goal is to work in industry or a national lab, a post-doc is a waste of valuable time. industry views a post-doc as someone who was not good enough to get a faculty position or an industry placement right after a ph.d.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
2. Biology "scope" has broadened with biomedical applications and advances in medicine - which depend much on biology and biochem.
3. Biologists also have started indulging wholesale on computational modeling. I just talked to a guy doing PhD in immunology at a "top" university. He is completely into numerical simulations and computational modeling (this guy is a triple major in UG from Harvard - including one in math).

true, the operative word being "started".

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
BTW, unlike Noah Smith - I know "Everything"

if you say so.

by swapna Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:06 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
swapna wrote:a person I know well surprised me recently when she said that she knew that she was not taking a risk when she decided, nearly six years ago, to do a ph.d. in economics.

one reason was the variety of opportunities she would have, to exercise her intellectual abilities, including a faculty position, her first choice, and fall-back positions in economic consulting (not business strategy consulting, as with mckinsey), research positions with think tanks, and policy positions with large, international financial institutions.

here's an interesting article by noah smith, an economics ph.d. and a faculty member, probably, at the u of michigan, on ph.d.s in various fields, and their prospects.

noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2013/05/if-you-get-phd-get-economics-phd.html?m=1

the author also has an interesting taxonomy of ph.d.s

caveat: I don't agree with everything noah smith says; nor would the person I referred to at the top.

funny! don't know much about an econ ph.d, but he is totally off the mark putting biology and engineering in the same bracket. engineering ph.d's don't always spend long years in the lab followed by a post-doc, and they are not always lab based. tons of people who do purely analytical or computational ph.d's in engineering. and what he fails to mention is that there is a fairly sizable market for engineering ph.d's in large companies and in start ups. and there are plenty of engineering ph.d's who take the initiative to work on their own projects and don't work on "someone else's project" as he puts it. looks like he doesn't know much beyond his little world of econ, but feels totally qualified to write shit about fields he has no clue about.

one thing though. when folks with engineering undergrad degrees go into ph.d. programs in economics, they generally seem to do very well, probably because of the superior math and analytical skills compared to someone with an undergraduate degree in the social sciences.

it appears that noah smith is congratulating himself for having chosen to do a ph.d. in economics, and enjoying the opportunities, the intellectual freedom, the security, and the lifestyle that come with it, without ever subjecting himself to what he apparently considers the misery of lab life or the insecurity of getting a ph.d. in art history at considerable cost.

he gives the reader the erroneous impression that there are people who want to do a ph.d., and make a choice of a field of scholarship from a ph.d. marketplace, based on the benefits and costs. rather, people develop an intense curiosity, a thirst for knowledge, and an aspiration to make original contributions to a field of scholarship - or closely related ones such as physics and mathematics - and decide whether or not to do a ph.d.

I see considerable misplaced loyalty to engineering in your attempt to distance engineering from biology, and in your stated belief that engineers do extremely well in economics. indeed, the primary interests, in their undergraduate years, of the three nobel laureates, to two of whom the person I referred to earlier was research and teaching assistant, were mathematics and physics, not engineering.

your perception of the world of biology as one made up, perhaps, of petri dishes, and engineering research as substantially non-experimental and theoretical, are both inconsistent with reality. more on these topics, and about postdocs and "other people's projects," in the corporate and academic realms, perhaps later.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:25 pm

you are misinterpreting what i said. i said engineering also has a theoretical and computational component. that does not imply there is no experimental component to engineering. it is impossible these days to obtain research funding from federal agencies for proposals that do not fully integrate experimental work with a strong theoretical and/or computational component.

biology has certainly benefited in recent decades from the influx of physicists, engineers, and computer scientists entering their field.

by swapna Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:21 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:you are misinterpreting what i said. i said engineering also has a theoretical and computational component. that does not imply there is no experimental component to engineering. it is impossible these days to obtain research funding from federal agencies for proposals that do not fully integrate experimental work with a strong theoretical and/or computational component.

biology has certainly benefited in recent decades from the influx of physicists, engineers, and computer scientists entering their field.

it's not biology that has benefited from the influx of engineers, but the field of bio- and biomedical engineering which is engaged in the development of medical devices.

there are, of course, exceptions, so please prefix everything I say here with "by and large."

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:05 pm

truthbetold wrote:uppili
Do you have numbers to support post doc comment? Or do we have to be satisfied with "I know everything".

Stop treating these discussion forums as some sort of journalistic publications...asking for references, documents, etc.... if we did for everything we say and post, what do we get in return? at best, a studied silence from the one that question.

Just assume I have seen/read/heard/come across somewhere. In other words "I know everything" if you want to disprove my posts...sure go ahead, spend hours of searching, and prove it with your own documents and reference. I will accept it silently.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:20 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
truthbetold wrote:uppili
Do you have numbers to support post doc comment? Or do we have to be satisfied with "I know everything".

Stop treating these discussion forums as some sort of journalistic publications...asking for references, documents, etc.... if we did for everything we say and post, what do we get in return? at best, a studied silence from the one that question.

Just assume I have seen/read/heard/come across somewhere. In other words "I know everything" if you want to disprove my posts...sure go ahead, spend hours of searching, and prove it with your own documents and reference. I will accept it silently.

Looks like our extremely brilliant SuCh scholars are asleep. Let me respond on their behalf.

You are being highly unscientific. Without the proper scientific method and proper evidence, nothing should be done even if it means that a suicide bomber is ready to blow the place up.

by pravalika nanda Sat Mar 21, 2015 6:00 pm

had I known better I'd have studied biomedical engineering. these guys are at the forefront of developing device therapy for the human body: this might be something diagnostic such an adhesive with a bunch of electrodes monitoring your oxygen saturation once it is taped to the skin usually the finger or the forehead; it may be an implantable loop recorder that is inserted subcutaneously to capture the heart's rhythm - like having a cardiac monitor but a teeny tiny one that once inserted you just get discharged and go about your business. this loop recorder will capture and transmit data to your cardiologist. how fun is that?

These guys also design the catheters that one can use to study pressures in the right and left sides of the heart. do you need a valve replacement? these guys design materials that are biocompatible and flexible and sustainable in the heart. they do such a good job. people who get transplants have to go on a variety of immuno-modulators and steroids so the organ does not get rejected. but no one goes on steroids and shit when they get a valve replacement, they'll need a blood thinner, that's all.

imagine one day if they're able to design an artificial implantable kidney that they can place low down in the pelvis where it's really roomy and patients don't have to go to dialysis centers or go through organ transplant? just the idea that someone out there knows how to take stuff off a circuit board and convert it into something compatible with the human body - whether it is a prosthesis, or a recording device, or a reset/shocking device like a defibrillator - it's so wonderful.

anyhow. my uncle teaches me so many new things everyday!

by swapna Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Several things have changed that differ from your views:

1. Postdoc-ing in Engineering is increasingly becoming common just as in Biology

only if you want a faculty job. an engineering post-doc is useless for an industry job. if one's goal is to work in industry or a national lab, a post-doc is a waste of valuable time. industry views a post-doc as someone who was not good enough to get a faculty position or an industry placement right after a ph.d.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
2. Biology "scope" has broadened with biomedical applications and advances in medicine - which depend much on biology and biochem.
3. Biologists also have started indulging wholesale on computational modeling. I just talked to a guy doing PhD in immunology at a "top" university. He is completely into numerical simulations and computational modeling (this guy is a triple major in UG from Harvard - including one in math).

true, the operative word being "started".

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
BTW, unlike Noah Smith - I know "Everything"

if you say so.

true, postdocing would be a waste of time if one did not aspire to a faculty position in an economics department or a business school.

over the last two to three months, I've learnt a great deal about tenure-track assistant professors' positions, job-market papers, the initial meeting between the ph.d. candidate and professors at a national meeting of the a.e.a., "fly-out" invitations to present one's research to the economics faculty at the hiring university, subjecting oneself to the intellectual scrutiny of the faculty, and finally, the offer, if any.

at the a.e.a. meeting in boston in early january, the person I know (pik) met not only faculty reps (professors), but also directors of research of other large, quasi-governmental, international organizations, and economic consulting companies.

the only surprises I received were: (1) from the economic consulting companies: how different they were from the mckinsey, boston consulting group-like business strategy consulting companies, the nature of their work, and what they were offering the new ph.d. from the top four economics departments in the u.s. (all ranked no. 1); and

(2) how accommodating, friendly, and nurturing the universities were to pik.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:52 pm

swapna wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Several things have changed that differ from your views:

1. Postdoc-ing in Engineering is increasingly becoming common just as in Biology

only if you want a faculty job. an engineering post-doc is useless for an industry job. if one's goal is to work in industry or a national lab, a post-doc is a waste of valuable time. industry views a post-doc as someone who was not good enough to get a faculty position or an industry placement right after a ph.d.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
2. Biology "scope" has broadened with biomedical applications and advances in medicine - which depend much on biology and biochem.
3. Biologists also have started indulging wholesale on computational modeling. I just talked to a guy doing PhD in immunology at a "top" university. He is completely into numerical simulations and computational modeling (this guy is a triple major in UG from Harvard - including one in math).

true, the operative word being "started".

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
BTW, unlike Noah Smith - I know "Everything"

if you say so.

true, postdocing would be a waste of time if one did not aspire to a faculty position in an economics department or a business school.

over the last two to three months, I've learnt a great deal about tenure-track assistant professors' positions, job-market papers, the initial meeting between the ph.d. candidate and professors at a national meeting of the a.e.a., "fly-out" invitations to present one's research to the economics faculty at the hiring university, subjecting oneself to the intellectual scrutiny of the faculty, and finally, the offer, if any.

at the a.e.a. meeting in boston in early january, the person I know (pik) met not only faculty reps (professors), but also directors of research of other large, quasi-governmental, international organizations, and economic consulting companies.

the only surprises I received were: (1) from the economic consulting companies: how different they were from the mckinsey, boston consulting group-like business strategy consulting companies, the nature of their work, and what they were offering the new ph.d. from the top four economics departments in the u.s. (all ranked no. 1); and

(2) how accommodating, friendly, and nurturing the universities were to pik.

And, the fact that the "Pik" was a PhD in economics from the #1 univ was a FEMALE with an "American" (ok...a Syrian Christian) name must be a huge bonus and an icing on the cake for those universities.

by swapna Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:03 am

pravalika nanda wrote:had I known better I'd have studied biomedical engineering.

it's worth asking why you didn't know better. whose job was it to raise your awareness of the possibilities and potential, and to identify a young person's talents and natural tendencies? did they instead get you to memorize the alphabets, the whole numbers to one hundred, and to dance to bollywood music? that's a tragedy, but it's not your fault.

by swapna Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:01 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Several things have changed that differ from your views:

1. Postdoc-ing in Engineering is increasingly becoming common just as in Biology

only if you want a faculty job. an engineering post-doc is useless for an industry job. if one's goal is to work in industry or a national lab, a post-doc is a waste of valuable time. industry views a post-doc as someone who was not good enough to get a faculty position or an industry placement right after a ph.d.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
2. Biology "scope" has broadened with biomedical applications and advances in medicine - which depend much on biology and biochem.
3. Biologists also have started indulging wholesale on computational modeling. I just talked to a guy doing PhD in immunology at a "top" university. He is completely into numerical simulations and computational modeling (this guy is a triple major in UG from Harvard - including one in math).

true, the operative word being "started".

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
BTW, unlike Noah Smith - I know "Everything"

if you say so.

according to a person I know (pik), here's the reason for someone who aspires to a faculty position to first do a one-year postdoc:

to spend a one-year period, engaged only in suitable research, unburdened and undistracted by teaching responsibilities - as one would be, as an a.p. - so that one can get a fast start on publications, which will then enhance his/her chances of tenure, three or six years later.

note that the "tenure clock" starts ticking only when one starts work as an a.p.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:59 am

swapna wrote:
to spend a one-year period, engaged only in suitable research, unburdened and undistracted by teaching responsibilities - as one would be, as an a.p. - so that one can get a fast start on publications, which will then enhance his/her chances of tenure, three or six years later.

note that the "tenure clock" starts ticking only when one starts work as an a.p.

Most top schools dont engage the PhD candidates in teaching when they are funded by research projects. In fact, the professor will discourage as he wants the full attention of the PhD student to be on the research (partly due to selfish reasons). The ones on teaching fellowships may be involved in teaching.

by swapna Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:09 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
swapna wrote:
to spend a one-year period, engaged only in suitable research, unburdened and undistracted by teaching responsibilities - as one would be, as an a.p. - so that one can get a fast start on publications, which will then enhance his/her chances of tenure, three or six years later.

note that the "tenure clock" starts ticking only when one starts work as an a.p.

Most top schools dont engage the PhD candidates in teaching when they are funded by research projects. In fact, the professor will discourage as he wants the full attention of the PhD student to be on the research (partly due to selfish reasons). The ones on teaching fellowships may be involved in teaching.

the comparison was between an assistant professor's (a.p.'s) position and a postdoctoral research position, not that of a ph.d. candidate.

apparently, the u of chicago is not going by your notions; pik was a teaching assistant to one NL, and research assistant to another.

by Hellsangel Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:17 pm

Congratulations to peNNu for kitting jOLi.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:21 pm

swapna wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
swapna wrote:
to spend a one-year period, engaged only in suitable research, unburdened and undistracted by teaching responsibilities - as one would be, as an a.p. - so that one can get a fast start on publications, which will then enhance his/her chances of tenure, three or six years later.

note that the "tenure clock" starts ticking only when one starts work as an a.p.

Most top schools dont engage the PhD candidates in teaching when they are funded by research projects. In fact, the professor will discourage as he wants the full attention of the PhD student to be on the research (partly due to selfish reasons). The ones on teaching fellowships may be involved in teaching.

the comparison was between an assistant professor's (a.p.'s) position and a postdoctoral research position, not that of a ph.d. candidate.

apparently, the u of chicago is not going by your notions; pik was a teaching assistant to one NL, and research assistant to another.

If a PhD candidate is funded FULLY from a research program, that "candidate" WILL be involved fully in research. Most PhD candidates at "Top" schools, including U of Chicago are provided this fellowship or that fellowship even if the advisor has no big funded project to support. The department supported teaching and research assistantships are given out to those who dont fit the fellowship/100% funded research category. Exceptions are when a student insists on getting some teaching exposure. But, U of Chicago has a tradition of regular faculty teaching the classes and very few PhD students are put in front of students.

by swapna Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:13 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
swapna wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
swapna wrote:
to spend a one-year period, engaged only in suitable research, unburdened and undistracted by teaching responsibilities - as one would be, as an a.p. - so that one can get a fast start on publications, which will then enhance his/her chances of tenure, three or six years later.

note that the "tenure clock" starts ticking only when one starts work as an a.p.

Most top schools dont engage the PhD candidates in teaching when they are funded by research projects. In fact, the professor will discourage as he wants the full attention of the PhD student to be on the research (partly due to selfish reasons). The ones on teaching fellowships may be involved in teaching.

the comparison was between an assistant professor's (a.p.'s) position and a postdoctoral research position, not that of a ph.d. candidate.

apparently, the u of chicago is not going by your notions; pik was a teaching assistant to one NL, and research assistant to another.

If a PhD candidate is funded FULLY from a research program, that "candidate" WILL be involved fully in research. Most PhD candidates at "Top" schools, including U of Chicago are provided this fellowship or that fellowship even if the advisor has no big funded project to support. The department supported teaching and research assistantships are given out to those who dont fit the fellowship/100% funded research category. Exceptions are when a student insists on getting some teaching exposure. But, U of Chicago has a tradition of regular faculty teaching the classes and very few PhD students are put in front of students.

thanks for info that's irrelevant now. I suppose you don't understand the prefix "post" in "postdoc." btw, pik was fully funded by the best fellowship the u of chicago offers, and, as an incentive to join chicago, they offered the funding beginning in the summer before the ph.d. program started, so that she could do mentored research at an early stage for two to three months.

the u of chicago does have a pedagogical requirement for ph.d. candidates, which can be fulfilled by teaching assistance, which does not mean lecturing. assistance usually consists of the grading of assignments, and answering students' questions in tutorial sessions. but pik did more because prof. gary becker, whose assistant she was, was ill for a while.

on prof. becker:

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/business/economy/gary-s-becker-83-nobel-winner-who-applied-economics-to-everyday-life-dies.html?referrer=

becker died in may of 2014, after writing pik's recommendation to a federal reserve bank for a summer fellowship. she was his last grad student.

it's possible that pik's research assistance for another NL was funded from other sources.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:59 am

swapna wrote:

thanks for info that's irrelevant now. I suppose you don't understand the prefix "post" in "postdoc." btw, pik was fully funded by the best fellowship the u of chicago offers, and, as an incentive to join chicago, they offered the funding beginning in the summer before the ph.d. program started, so that she could do mentored research at an early stage for two to three months.

the u of chicago does have a pedagogical requirement for ph.d. candidates, which can be fulfilled by teaching assistance, which does not mean lecturing. assistance usually consists of the grading of assignments, and answering students' questions in tutorial sessions. but pik did more because prof. gary becker, whose assistant she was, was ill for a while.

on prof. becker:

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/business/economy/gary-s-becker-83-nobel-winner-who-applied-economics-to-everyday-life-dies.html?referrer=

becker died in may of 2014, after writing pik's recommendation to a federal reserve bank for a summer fellowship. she was his last grad student.

it's possible that pik's research assistance for another NL was funded from other sources.

Hahaha.. Chill now... we all know that your D is very smart and about her accomplishments....(Hey, I hear that intelligence skips a generation within a family).

My information was more in general...

Too bad that her advisor passed away. Bcz the advisor's influence, letters, recos, and behind the scene help are important to get a jump-start ones career until it accelerates full steam in a few years down the road.

by swapna Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:12 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
swapna wrote:

thanks for info that's irrelevant now. I suppose you don't understand the prefix "post" in "postdoc." btw, pik was fully funded by the best fellowship the u of chicago offers, and, as an incentive to join chicago, they offered the funding beginning in the summer before the ph.d. program started, so that she could do mentored research at an early stage for two to three months.

the u of chicago does have a pedagogical requirement for ph.d. candidates, which can be fulfilled by teaching assistance, which does not mean lecturing. assistance usually consists of the grading of assignments, and answering students' questions in tutorial sessions. but pik did more because prof. gary becker, whose assistant she was, was ill for a while.

on prof. becker:

mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/business/economy/gary-s-becker-83-nobel-winner-who-applied-economics-to-everyday-life-dies.html?referrer=

becker died in may of 2014, after writing pik's recommendation to a federal reserve bank for a summer fellowship. she was his last grad student.

it's possible that pik's research assistance for another NL was funded from other sources.

Hahaha.. Chill now... we all know that your D is very smart and about her accomplishments....(Hey, I hear that intelligence skips a generation within a family).

My information was more in general...

Too bad that her advisor passed away. Bcz the advisor's influence, letters, recos, and behind the scene help are important to get a jump-start ones career until it accelerates full steam in a few years down the road.

I mentioned that her advisor died, in order to help you feel better; I remember the trauma you and kishTiangirl maria suffered when pik left harvard (at that time, #2) for chicago (#1, along with m.I.t.,).

becker's recos on her behalf are on file in the department, and they send them off at her request.

her dissertation committee was made up of three professors: two nobel laureates who were the co-chairs, and a chief economic advisor to POTUS. two are still alive, and well known.

most importantly, her work is original, unconventional, and not part of the research agenda of any of her advisors.
she has presented it to faculties and other groups on the east and west coasts, the mid-west, and in washington, d.c. people in her field know of it now.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:25 pm

swapna wrote:
I mentioned that her advisor died, in order to help you feel better; I remember the trauma you and kishTiangirl maria suffered when pik left harvard (at that time, #2) for chicago (#1, along with m.I.t.,).

becker's recos on her behalf are on file in the department, and they send them off at her request.

her dissertation committee was made up of three professors: two nobel laureates who were the co-chairs, and a chief economic advisor to POTUS. two are still alive, and well known.

most importantly, her work is original, unconventional, and not part of the research agenda of any of her advisors.
she has presented it to faculties and other groups on the east and west coasts, the mid-west, and in washington, d.c. people in her field know of it now.

Trauma ? me ??? why should I be in one ? If your D is the only one in the whole wide world who was at Harvard and then at U Chicago, I can understand. Proves that your memory is playing mind games on you and time to see your neuro.

by swapna Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:one thing though. when folks with engineering undergrad degrees go into ph.d. programs in economics, they generally seem to do very well, probably because of the superior math and analytical skills compared to someone with an undergraduate degree in the social sciences.

I have little doubt that some people who majored in engineering for their bachelor's degrees, went on to do well in economics for their ph.d.s. and in their careers. however, I have not seen a strong engineering b.s.-economics ph.d. connection.

on the other hand, many of the best economists received their bachelor's degrees in mathematics or physics, not the social sciences - then developed an interest in economics, and earned a ph.d. in economics or mathematics. here are three examples of professors from the u of chicago:

gary becker: bachelor's in mathematics, princeton, ph.d. in economics, chicago; nobel 1992;

james heckman: bachelor's in mathematics/physics, colorado college, ph.d. in economics, princeton; nobel 2000;

roger myerson: bachelor's, master's, and ph.d., all from harvard, all in applied mathematics; nobel 2007.

it is not merely mathematical skills that they wanted to apply to economics, but the intellectual framework and rigour of mathematics.

an excerpt from becker's autobiography at the nobel site:

[size=63]by the time I finished high school, my interest in mathematics was beginning to compete with a desire to do something useful for society. These two interests came together during my freshman year at Princeton, when I accidentally took a course in economics, and was greatly attracted by the mathematical rigor of a subject that dealt with social organization. During the following summer I read several books on economics.[/size]

[size=63]To be financially independent more quickly, I decided at the end of my first year to graduate in three years, a seldom used option at Princeton. I had to take a few extra courses during the next year, and I chose reading courses in modern algebra and differential equations for the summer afterwards. For the equations course, I was given a set of unpublished lectures that emphasized existence proofs and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations. I learned a lot about such proofs, but very little about actually solving one of these equations. Still, my heavy investment in mathematics at Princeton prepared me well for the increasing use of mathematics in economics."[/size]

[size=63]an excerpt from heckman's nobel autobiography:[/size]

[size=63]"[/size]
My high school years were spent in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. A decisive influence on my intellectual development was my exposure to Frank Oppenheimer, brother of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Scientific Director of the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb in World War II. Frank Oppenheimer was a distinguished experimental physicist in his own right... In 1958, the Superintendent of the local school district in Lakewood asked him to teach physics to a class of students chosen by competitive exam. Oppenheimer closely linked theory to evidence when he taught physics. Under his guidance, I learned the beauty of experimental science and the pleasure of matching theory to evidence. Although I later abandoned physics for economics, my enthusiasm for scientific empirical work guided by theory was born in his classroom. Oppenheimer later went on to found the Exploratorium in San Francisco."

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:47 pm

there have not been a sufficient number of undergraduate educational programs of a quality similar to the engineering programs offered by the IITs in other disciplines in india. a lot of people who would have been better served studying physics, mathematics, chemistry, or economics therefore ended up engineering. eventually some of these people have found their way to other fields. one person we are both familiar with, teaches and does research in physics at yale. migrations by such people to economics and finance is relatively more recent. there are many i am familiar with. in the fullness of time i expect such people to make strong contributions to economics. the example of raghuram rajan is a start. your conclusions are premature.

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:09 am

d/puk

puk = person you know

by Hellsangel Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:09 pm

A simple question Ammachi, if d/puk did such great work, won't the University in the not at all insignificant city seek her out?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there have not been a sufficient number of undergraduate educational programs of a quality similar to the engineering programs offered by the IITs in other disciplines in india. a lot of people who would have been better served studying physics, mathematics, chemistry, or economics therefore ended up engineering. eventually some of these people have found their way to other fields. one person we are both familiar with, teaches and does research in physics at yale. migrations by such people to economics and finance is relatively more recent. there are many i am familiar with. in the fullness of time i expect such people to make strong contributions to economics. the example of raghuram rajan is a start. your conclusions are premature.

Raghuram Rajan is one of those who did not work for a day as an engineer and went to IIM and then MIT for PhD in FINANCE. Not in a million years he will truly "accepted" as an "economist" outside India. You can call it egotistic superiority among the professions. Everyone is tagged based on their undergraduate education - be it an enginner, physicst, economists , mathematicians...

Quite a few IITians have gone onto become great "economists" including the Wall Street Looter Rajat - the criminal - Gupta, Buffet's chief advisor, and a few other deans of big mgmt schools.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:17 pm

Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

by pravalika nanda Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:23 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years
** i'm leaving in 2 months to a more densely populated indina website. there aren't enough people here. i don't want to be the child who gets left behind. any suggestions? let me know.

and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"
**i can't participate.

I cant wait to watch the fun.
** i won't be around. here's a box of kleenex.

by bw Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:36 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:32 am

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.

yeah rite.... tell us after they graduate - wht exactly they studied.... Razz

by b_A Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:45 am

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.

I just don't understand the importance given to economics.
To call it a science is an insult to other real sciences. The only useful aspect is forecasting but it is no better than the astrology.
As the joke goes the economists have predicted 15 of the last 5 recessions.

Most of the economists predicted rosy economy at end of 2007 and gloomy stuff after 2009.
As recently as four years back ,they were predicting the dollar collapse, upswing in gold proces, runaway infaltion because of the QE's etc.
As Greenspan said bubbles become evident only after they collapse.
If you replace the FOMC committee members with opinion polls among viewers of CNBC , Bloomberg etc, you will not have much different results. They cut interest rates after the crisis and rise them only after inflation signs become rampant.

Some more economist jokes.

On the first day, God created the sun. In response, the Devil created sunburn. On the second day, God created sex. In response, the Devil created marriage. On the third day God created an economist. This was a tough one for the Devil, but, in the end and after a lot of thought, he created a second economist.

The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.

by Kris Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:24 pm

bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.

>>>I have heard this too of late. I guess it comes down to what they want to do after that, either by way of adding skills or going the MBA route.

by swapna Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:23 pm

Kris wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.
>>>I have heard this too of late. I guess it comes down to what they want to do after that, either by way of adding skills or going the MBA route.

[size=62]The study of economics is an excellent way to acquire problem-solving skills and develop a logical, ordered way of looking at problems. It leads naturally to careers in business, law, and in economics research and consulting.[/size]

[size=62]Economics is a standard pre-business major, because it provides insight into the operation of individual markets for goods and services, financial markets, and the global economic system, and because it provides the quantitative and analytical skills that enable students to succeed in a wide variety of business activities.[/size]

[size=62]https://economics.wustl.edu/undergraduate/whyecon[/size]

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:54 pm

swapna wrote:

[size=62]Economics is a standard pre-business major, because it provides insight into the operation of individual markets for goods and services, financial markets, and the global economic system, and because it provides the quantitative and analytical skills that enable students to succeed in a wide variety of business activities.[/size]

[size=62]https://economics.wustl.edu/undergraduate/whyecon[/size]

Sorry.... cannot accept this WUSTL....cite Oooonly Harvard or U of Chicago.

by bw Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:10 pm

Kris wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.
>>>I have heard this too of late. I guess it comes down to what they want to do after that, either by way of adding skills or going the MBA route.

guess it paves the path towards landing a lucrative job - either at wall street or the assorted consulting firms. the scholarly ones aim to get a faculty position at a business school - business school faculty are the highest paid of the lot and with a consulting gig or two on the side, it is as lucrative as any IB job but with a lot more freedom. they are also the best dressed ones at the university - rarely see one with shabby clothes and unkempt hair!

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:15 pm

bw wrote:
Kris wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:d/puk

puk = person you know

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.
>>>I have heard this too of late. I guess it comes down to what they want to do after that, either by way of adding skills or going the MBA route.

guess it paves the path towards landing a lucrative job - either at wall street or the assorted consulting firms. the scholarly ones aim to get a faculty position at a business school - business school faculty are the highest paid of the lot and with a consulting gig or two on the side, it is as lucrative as any IB job but with a lot more freedom. they are also the best dressed ones at the university - rarely see one with shabby clothes and unkempt hair!

definitely the most lucrative academic job, but certainly not as lucrative as an IB job or a job as the top dog in finance in any large fortune 500 company. however, there is a lot freedom, and very little stress. in particular, they certainly don't have to continuously worry about research funding to keep their enterprise afloat as some other schmucks have to.

and among business school academic types, the ones who rule the roost are accounting faculty.

by bw Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:19 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
bw wrote:
Kris wrote:
bw wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

The only time Rev Flimmy Iyer is genuine with his views, emotions, and sincerity is when he talks proudly of his Daughter. He has every right to be proud - something he must have worked hard in not messing her up.

Just wait for a few more years and we will have a whole lot of proud mothers and fathers with their wards in ivy leagues, med schools, and pseudo Ivies. And all those SuCHers who advise on "allowing their kids to be whatever they want to be" will be justifying their kids "selections"

I cant wait to watch the fun.

almost every kid i know of seem to be doing economics. the new 'hot' area. i met two high school kids y'day - both plan to major in economics.
>>>I have heard this too of late. I guess it comes down to what they want to do after that, either by way of adding skills or going the MBA route.

guess it paves the path towards landing a lucrative job - either at wall street or the assorted consulting firms. the scholarly ones aim to get a faculty position at a business school - business school faculty are the highest paid of the lot and with a consulting gig or two on the side, it is as lucrative as any IB job but with a lot more freedom. they are also the best dressed ones at the university - rarely see one with shabby clothes and unkempt hair!

definitely the most lucrative academic job, but certainly not as lucrative as an IB job or a job as the top dog in finance in any large fortune 500 company. however, there is a lot freedom, and little stress. they certainly don't have to continuously worry about research funding as some other schmucks have to.

and among business school academic types, the ones who rule the roost are accounting faculty.

i agree - i was thinking in absolute terms. of course, the top dogs in IB and finance earn several orders of magnitude higher. after a certain point, isn't money earned just a mere number?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:27 pm

bw wrote:
guess it paves the path towards landing a lucrative job - either at wall street or the assorted consulting firms. the scholarly ones aim to get a faculty position at a business school - business school faculty are the highest paid of the lot and with a consulting gig or two on the side, it is as lucrative as any IB job but with a lot more freedom. they are also the best dressed ones at the university - rarely see one with shabby clothes and unkempt hair!

Of course...how else they can deceive the rest that they are some sort of intellectuals and "professionals?" (exceptions dont make the rule). After all, this is the "gang" that produced(s) the wall street looters and the people who contribute to the society's anarchy.

by swapna Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:52 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there have not been a sufficient number of undergraduate educational programs of a quality similar to the engineering programs offered by the IITs in other disciplines in india. a lot of people who would have been better served studying physics, mathematics, chemistry, or economics therefore ended up engineering. eventually some of these people have found their way to other fields. one person we are both familiar with, teaches and does research in physics at yale. migrations by such people to economics and finance is relatively more recent. there are many i am familiar with. In the fullness of time i expect such people to make strong contributions to economics. the example of raghuram rajan is a start. your conclusions are premature.

you have not given any example of iitans who migrated to economics. the yale professor you referred to is a physicist, and raghuram rajan is not an economist; his ph.d., from m.I.t.'s sloan school of management, is in management, not in economics. sixty years after the founding of the iits, has the fullness of time not arrived?

the only migrations that one can see are those of iitans who could be productive civil, environmental, and aerospace engineers in a fast-growing economy, to information technology.

it is likely that the iitans that you think are finding themselves and becoming scholars of economics are actually switching to finance because they believe that there's more money in finance, and the mathematics of finance is not difficult and may come easily to engineers.

but finance is not economics, and the desire to raise one's income is neither scholarliness nor passion for economics.

in fact, indians today, and iitans in particular, are egregious consumers of education; first, the parents, in many cases, force them into the iits merely because they are nerds, and due to the potential for a high income. even after they graduate and become relatively independent of their families, they can only migrate to information technology!

indeed, they never find themselves.

by Guest Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:09 pm

Since the subject seems to touch upon the IITs, here's some venting by someone from the Indian Army.

Col Satish Shukla: STOP GIVING MY MONEY TO IITIANs

IF IITIANS ARE SO INTELLIGENT AND CAN EARN LAKHS IN THEIR PLACEMENTS, WHY DO THEY SPONGE OFF TAXPAYERS' MONEY?

Dear Shri Narender Modiji,

At the drop of a hat, every government, including yours, says that subsidies are bad for the economy and should be done away with.

Many of the subsidies in your ministry are going to those who don't deserve it. IITians are the most guilty of this pilferage. To make things worse, they hardly do anything for the country. Best-selling fiction is not known to help farmers.

1) To begin with, this is what they cost us
While it takes over Rs 3.4 lakh to educate an IITian per year, the student pays only Rs 90,000 per year. The rest is borne by the government. That is close to Rs 2.5 lakh per student per year, which is being paid by the tax payer. If one extrapolates this to all the 39,540 students in the Indian Institute of Technologies, the cost borne by the tax payer on educating IITians extends to 988.5 crore annually.

According to budget estimates, Rs 1703.85 crore is to be allocated to the IITs for 2015-'16.

2) What do we get in return for the Rs 1,700 crore we spend on them?
Inspite of producing 9,885 world-class engineers in computer science, electrical, electronic, chemical, mechanical, production fields every year...

a) The Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle, though successful with the Russian Cryogenic Engine, has time and again failed with the indigenous cryogenic engine. We have succeeded only once with our indigenous cryogenic rocket.

b) Indigenous submarines are still a distant dream because of the technological complexity in building them. Though many projects are coming up in our own shipyards, they are happening because we are merely manufacturing them in India with foreign technology.

c) The indigenous Indian Small Arms System rifles for our army, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, have always been reported as problematic, and we import assault rifles from Israel.

Why could our world-class engineers, who are educated with tax payers' money, not have built them?

3) This is what our top IITians gave a miss
A Right to Information application that was filed recently has shown that less than 2% of engineers at the Indian Space Research Organisation are from IITs and the National Institutes of Technology. Our best space programme doesn't get our best engineers every year.

The army doesn't get engineers and officers from the IITs. Between 1986 and 2006, not a single IITian has joined the Indian army.

The DRDO has a shortage of more than 2,700 scientists, and it is stretched and overworked, but our world-class engineers don't find it challenging.

4) If an IITian wants to run an online shop, then why do I, a taxpayer, have to pay for his chemical engineering degree?
Going by 2013 figures, Flipkart, the online mega-store, recruited seven students from IIT Madras in 2013.

One can understand the logic behind Flipkart hiring a computer science engineer. But six of the hires had studied aerospace, chemical, metallurgy, bio-technology and engineering physics. What specialist knowledge will they bring to Flipkart?

These students do not have any interest in what they learnt in their four-year undergraduate programme, and want to erase their history by moving to a different field.

5) Why did I pay for Chetan Bhagat's mechanical engineering degree?
I have nothing against Chetan Bhagat, but I do know that Indian taxpayers paid to make him a mechanical engineer. He has done everything but engineering.

Another RTI filed with IIM Bangalore has revealed that out of the current batch of 406 students, 97 students are from IITs. Fifty-six of these are students with less than two years work experience.

If all these engineers wanted to be was managers, why does the tax payer need to pay for their engineering education at the IITs?

6) Get a loan, why seek a subsidy?
All students from IITs can get collateral-free loans from nationalised banks for upto Rs 20 Lakh.

And IITians are obviously so awesome that companies are eager to pay them crores of rupees.

Then why should a world-class engineer who makes crores of rupees and adds no value to India be given a subsidised education at the IITs? Can't they get educated with a bank loan of their own and repay it after getting their huge salaries?

7) Remittances help forex? Nope, not really.
Whenever there is a debate on brain drain from the IITs, the remittances issue pops up. Many believe that IITians who go abroad send back remittances and contribute to foreign exchange reserves. However, it is a pittance for India.

A report in the Economic Times shows that out of the total remittances of $70 billion to India, the remittances from IITians who go to developed countries is much lower than the remittances from the Middle East to the state of Kerala.

Most of the Malayalis in the Gulf are blue-collar workers, not IIT engineers.

So, why should the common man subsidise an IITian's college fees?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Mar 30, 2015 12:56 pm

Kinnera wrote:Since the subject seems to touch upon the IITs, here's some venting by someone from the Indian Army.

Col Satish Shukla: STOP GIVING MY MONEY TO IITIANs

IF IITIANS ARE SO INTELLIGENT AND CAN EARN LAKHS IN THEIR PLACEMENTS, WHY DO THEY SPONGE OFF TAXPAYERS' MONEY?

Dear Shri Narender Modiji,

At the drop of a hat, every government, including yours, says that subsidies are bad for the economy and should be done away with.

Many of the subsidies in your ministry are going to those who don't deserve it. IITians are the most guilty of this pilferage. To make things worse, they hardly do anything for the country. Best-selling fiction is not known to help farmers.

So, why should the common man subsidise an IITian's college fees?

Finally, my rant all these days is fully justified.....

P.S. I think Raghuram Rajan did his PhD in Finance from Sloan - I checked him out the day he was nominated. But, I might be wrong and not going to check again. He is in dept of Finance of U Chicago and taught Finance 201 (or something) in the 2 semesters he worked recently.

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:39 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Since the subject seems to touch upon the IITs, here's some venting by someone from the Indian Army.

Col Satish Shukla: STOP GIVING MY MONEY TO IITIANs

IF IITIANS ARE SO INTELLIGENT AND CAN EARN LAKHS IN THEIR PLACEMENTS, WHY DO THEY SPONGE OFF TAXPAYERS' MONEY?

Dear Shri Narender Modiji,

At the drop of a hat, every government, including yours, says that subsidies are bad for the economy and should be done away with.

Many of the subsidies in your ministry are going to those who don't deserve it. IITians are the most guilty of this pilferage. To make things worse, they hardly do anything for the country. Best-selling fiction is not known to help farmers.

So, why should the common man subsidise an IITian's college fees?

Finally, my rant all these days is fully justified.....

P.S. I think Raghuram Rajan did his PhD in Finance from Sloan - I checked him out the day he was nominated. But, I might be wrong and not going to check again. He is in dept of Finance of U Chicago and taught Finance 201 (or something) in the 2 semesters he worked recently.

Just because the Indian army so far hasn't been able to get back the Indian territory still occupied by the neighboring countries, should there be a public demand to the Govt. to stop funding the army, like the above letter by an army officer to the P.M. to stop giving money to the IITs because IITans are not doing much for their country?

by swapna Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:39 pm

swapna wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:there have not been a sufficient number of undergraduate educational programs of a quality similar to the engineering programs offered by the IITs in other disciplines in india. a lot of people who would have been better served studying physics, mathematics, chemistry, or economics therefore ended up engineering. eventually some of these people have found their way to other fields. one person we are both familiar with, teaches and does research in physics at yale. migrations by such people to economics and finance is relatively more recent. there are many i am familiar with. In the fullness of time i expect such people to make strong contributions to economics. the example of raghuram rajan is a start. your conclusions are premature.

you have not given any example of iitans who migrated to economics. the yale professor you referred to is a physicist, and raghuram rajan is not an economist; his ph.d., from m.I.t.'s sloan school of management, is in management, not in economics. sixty years after the founding of the iits, has the fullness of time not arrived?

the only migrations that one can see are those of iitans who could be productive civil, environmental, and aerospace engineers in a fast-growing economy, to information technology.

it is likely that the iitans that you think are finding themselves and becoming scholars of economics are actually switching to finance because they believe that there's more money in finance, and the mathematics of finance is not difficult and may come easily to engineers.

but finance is not economics, and the desire to raise one's income is neither scholarliness nor passion for economics.

in fact, indians today, and iitans in particular, are egregious consumers of education; first, the parents, in many cases, force them into the iits merely because they are nerds, and due to the potential for a high income. even after they graduate and become relatively independent of their families, they can only migrate to information technology!

indeed, they never find themselves.

the best preparation for a ph.d. and a faculty position in economics, I think, is a bachelor's degree in economics complemented by mathematics and statistics, earned at a u.s. university.

the reason for preferring a u.s. university is that economics calls for a wide range of background and knowledge, e.g. history, political science, psychology, and the arts and literature, besides economics, mathematics, and statistics. the u.s. university education model, with its distribution requirements and flexibility allows more breadth along with the desired depth than any other university system in the world.

the iitan is severely limited by the narrow scope of his undergraduate studies; his only transferable ability is his skill in mathematics. I intentionally said skill rather than knowledge because, by and large, what the iitan brings to economics is a toolkit, not the insights or the deductive reasoning ability that he gained from a study of mathematics.

indeed non-iit indians, both from the u.s. and india are greater contributors to economics than the iitan. look up sendhil mullainathan (bachelor's in economics, computer science, and mathematics in the u.s.), raj chetty (bachlor's in economics) - both are macarthur fellows, and professors at harvard; and t n srinivasan (b.a. and m.a. in mathematics, university pf madras), a padma bhushan who is a professor emeritus at yale, and kaushik basu (economics with a minor in mathematics, from delhi university), former chief economic advisor to the government of india, professor at cornell u, now the chief economist of the world bank.

the non-iit indians who were mostly educated in india, developed themselves into eminent economists by thoughtful pursuit of their passion for economics. with a rare exception or two, one can't say the same about iitans.

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:09 pm

The IITans can however brag about d/puk to a forum full of strangers.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:17 pm

on a related topic -- i was having a discussion about undergraduate majors recently with a friend. she said something that had me in splits -- that's she'd rather have her kid come out and say he's transgender than say he's an english major.

by b_A Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:37 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:on a related topic -- i was having a discussion about undergraduate majors recently with a friend. she said something that had me in splits -- that's she'd rather have her kid come out and say he's transgender than say he's an english major.

That reminds me. Is getting admission in harvard/yale but in a useless liberal arts mjor like european history better than say Electrical Engg in CalTech? Most people are impressed when someone says they are from harvard/yale/princeton than say MIT/CalTech etc.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:49 pm

b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:on a related topic -- i was having a discussion about undergraduate majors recently with a friend. she said something that had me in splits -- that's she'd rather have her kid come out and say he's transgender than say he's an english major.

That reminds me. Is getting admission in harvard/yale but in a useless liberal arts mjor like european history better than say Electrical Engg in CalTech? Most people are impressed when someone says they are from harvard/yale/princeton than say MIT/CalTech etc.

i don't know. i went to neither. however, i can confidently say that i have met a sufficient number of people who got their undergraduate degrees from MIT to conclude that not all of them are extraordinary. what makes MIT MIT is their faculty and equally importantly, their graduate students.

many of the ivy league programs truly deserve their reputation. however, if i wanted to do engineering, i'd rather attend the u of illinois at urbana champaign than dartmouth.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:57 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b_A wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:on a related topic -- i was having a discussion about undergraduate majors recently with a friend. she said something that had me in splits -- that's she'd rather have her kid come out and say he's transgender than say he's an english major.

That reminds me. Is getting admission in harvard/yale but in a useless liberal arts mjor like european history better than say Electrical Engg in CalTech? Most people are impressed when someone says they are from harvard/yale/princeton than say MIT/CalTech etc.

i don't know. i went to neither. however, i can confidently say that i have met a sufficient number of people who got their undergraduate degrees from MIT to conclude that not all of them are extraordinary. what makes MIT MIT is their faculty and equally importantly, their graduate students.

many of the ivy league programs truly deserve their reputation. however, if i wanted to do engineering, i'd rather attend the u of illinois at urbana champaign than dartmouth.

Princeton and Cornell are quite good among the Ivies. Columbia - depending on the major. Rest of the IVies are junk in engineering and are good only on select fields like Law, or medicine, or economics.

In engineering U of IL, Purdue, GT, and U of M, Berkeley (all state schools) are in the top 10 along with Stanford, MIT and Caltech. UCLA, Austin, Texas A & M, Wisconsin are in the 10-20 in most majors.

by Sponsored content