ExponentialDecay

@LeraK In what possible way could you take my comment as an attack? @grubyczarnykot Yes, I've worked an unglamorous 9-5. For a number of years. I'm likewise not sure what bit you in the behind: I'm not disparaging people who work 9-5 jobs. Yes, they're still generally stressful and not fun. No, few jobs will pay you for spending time with your children or eating bonbons all day. But most 9-5 jobs don't expect you to work 80 hours on a 40 hour salary and, in general, when you punch out, you're genuinely off the clock. You're also not constantly stressing about the next promotion as much, because not getting it doesn't mean you're out on your ass and have to start over in a new career. You don't have to sacrifice 5+ years of your life at poverty-level wages (and therefore delay buying a house, starting a family, and retirement) in order to just get the opportunity to apply for a job. You have some control over where you work and where you live. And, I assume OP has the wherewithal to find a job that fits their mental and physical capabilities, especially since, unlike academic positions, the availability and variety of 9-5 jobs is large. I'm going to take a break from this thread because both of you are taking my words bizarrely out of context. I don't know what deep emotional wounds of yours I stuck a finger in, but I rather think that, if you get triggered by something as innocuous as my comment, it's your responsibility to take yourselves off the internet rather than chastise me for existing.

I'd be cautious about the logical leap from flexible scheduling to spending time with your kids. Professors work a lot. You'll have flexible scheduling, but you'll be spending that time in the vicinity of your kids (if you can stand the distraction) doing your work. You're not going to be a stay at home parent with a 2 hour/week teaching commitment. If you're looking to actively spend time with your kids, your best option is to get an unglamorous 9-5 where you're not important enough to have to answer emails in off hours. A JD/PhD is overkill for 99% of government or policy jobs. One of the two is good enough, the JD only if you want to do law, and a master's+work experience is even better. Do it if you want it, but if money is a concern, it's not the optimal path.

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-public-affairs-schools/public-policy-analysis-rankings

I have unfortunately not found it too helpful because, 9 times out of 10, her advice is "your boss is toxic; find a new job".

I'll be honest, I find your response rather infuriating. If the only part of my comment that contributes to our conversation is the part where I quoted you, how am I actively engaging? For my part, your first reply bordered on offensive, but this one is way over the line, and it seems to me that your main interest here is to insult me and my field and otherwise express the chip on your shoulder. I will not engage with you, actively or otherwise, if you do not treat me with the respect I deserve as a fellow human being and co-citizen. That donor countries use development programs to further their own geopolitical interests should not be surprising to anyone. Some World Bank programs of the 80s were disastrous (many were not, and I disagree about the 90s), but I agree with the other posters that using examples from the 80s to critique development institutions now (much less development economics - which is used by practitioners at the WB but does in fact stand on its own as a bonafide academic field) is stupid. Your argument is missing a key element: how does this historical precedent you continue to cite affect the field today? Without that, we might as well argue that we should keep bombing those Fritzs. What is "mass development"? The other idea you refer to, which I'm guessing is trickle-down economics, has not been in wide use since the late 80s, and was never supported by economists in the first place. Stiglitz is relatively solitary in the field for his critique of development instituions, and to call Ha Joong Chang an economist, much less a prominent one, is a travesty. Neoliberal thinking combines Keynes' ideas along with other prominent political economists' ideas (the neoclassical synthesis). When it comes to what prominent economists wanted the field to look like, I'm not sure they wanted or expected it to look like anything. They were a disparate group of thinkers who weren't even heavily influenced by one another in most cases, and I doubt they imagined their ideas coming together to form a discrete discipline. Prior to the 1950s, economics did not exist. What you are talking about is philosophy and political economy. I went into economics in the end, but I was a very good humanities student and for a large part of undergrad I seriously considered going into literature. I am also a person from an IBRD recipient country, and in the end my choice wasn't between fields but between where I could make the most impact, because here is how this works. Economists are elitist and myopic, and there is a lot of work being done in the field which is illiterate in multiple ways and has nothing to do with reality, but if you're trying to convince someone to give you money, an economic argument will sound more convincing than a humanities one. A lot of it is because of the cultural zeitgeist and how undereducated people evaluate information they don't fully understand, but I don't live in Adam Smith's time - I live in 2018, and these are the circumstances I have to work with. Development institutions are deeply flawed in many ways and whether their impact warrants their tax dollars is an ongoing investigation, but they have a legacy and an institutional platform, and buy-in, and financial and political levers that have the power to create change. Development is an ugly world, and donors' interests need to be considered, whatever they are, and that's the system we live in. I read Althusser, I know I'm always already. I don't think we're going to critique our way out of the status quo, which is why I have 0 interest in dismantling anything or any other form of bloody revolution. It's not having a point of view on these issues that's rare - it's being in a position to implement your point of view into reality. And I just don't see how I'd do that as a rogue academic screaming into the ether. But, ngl, being in a position where the terrible neoliberal German government would clothe me and feed me for 10 years while I sat around thinking Big Thoughts would be a nice option to have. Thanks for the resources. I think you should watch the next 3 minutes of this video

@Tigla I'm not entirely sure what the example you cite disproves. It's fairly straightforward that investing money in infrastructure projects helps a country develop, and whether that money is capitalist, socialist, or comes from aliens on Mars is inconsequential. If you are arguing that somehow "the West" or development economists don't know that infrastructure investment aids development, that is patently false: there is a vast body of both empirical and theoretical work on this, and it has been widely accepted in policy circles for the past 40 years, to the point where the majority of the World Bank's lending budget is put towards physical infrastructure projects. I'm not sure how it disproves the thesis of Nations, which is that institutions aid development. That the USSR funded a successful project abroad is not testament that Soviet institutions are better than "Western" institutions - in this case, the institutions relevant to development outcomes in India are, of course, the Indian institutions. Speaking of Soviet institutions, much Soviet policy work, mainly in social policy, has produced incredible results - 100% literacy rate achieved within a generation, from paltry beginnings, and social safety nets that would be inventive and progressive even now - and there are examples in their ultimately wrongheaded industrial and R&D policy that I would still cite, but when all's said and done, when you live in a market system, the best institutions are market institutions (you don't wear skis to go swimming), and there I think "Western" institutions are superior. Which is not to say that socialism, or something close to it, can never work - it's just not our reality for now. I know less about the history of my field than I'd like to, but the beauty of economics is that I don't have to to do effective work. Development economics has actually come pretty far since your apparent break with it: we not only look at physical capital, but human capital (anything from health to education to capacity building), and natural capital, and they can be integrated into both micro and macro theory. A lot of work has also been done on pricing and funding schemes, which enables hybrid public-private funding schemes for things like steel mills in countries that need that support. A lot of work is being done on targeting interventions better, in order to maximize efficiency gains and equitable outcomes. It's an evolving field. Oh, I have no strong opinion on the field of economic history. To me it appears that you're denouncing the field of economics, and on that I do have a strong opinion. It's saying that industry did or didn't spread from Europe? In any case, periphery in economics is just the logical opposite of center. It doesn't intend any value-laden meaning. I understand that, in other intellectual traditions, "periphery" has other meanings, which is fine - who am I to tell you how you want to use a term? But I also think it's silly to effectively read a book in a language you don't understand and then complain that it doesn't make sense. Aw, bless you.

I am not familiar with Emily Oster's paper on witchcraft, but to take an example that probably all of us have hear of, idk, the rise of China, an economist looking at that question would probably subsume or assume away a lot of individual factors into a model and end up running a productivity analysis, whereas an historian would take a more holistic view, examine things like culture in more detail (rather than filing it all under "institutions" with some indicator variable), in ways that we can't model, and the two would come up with complimentary but texturally different conclusions that don't mix the way oil and water don't mix. I'm grateful for @emperor norton's list of historical monographs, because I really don't have broad familiarity with historical methods, but from the works that I've read that I'd class as economic history not written by economists, that's the impression I get. p measures how well your model fits the data. It's a poor measure of validity because it's easy to make a model fit the data in a superficial way. The statement that variable y changes significantly due to changes in variable x (this is usually what you are actually observing, not "effect") on its own is not enough to say anything about causality without running other tests.

@Tk2356 NYU is more domestically-oriented than SIPA, which, if OP is an international student (and therefore needs a visa to stay in New York), could be a problem. The kinds of organizations that realistically are able to sponsor H1B or G4 prefer SIPA 9 times out of 10.

It is likewise better to critique economic work with an understanding of economic theory and methodologies rather than systematically denouncing it because you don't understand it. The purpose of Nations isn't to establish a history of international economic development - that would be impossible. It is a pop science monograph based on Acemoglu's work on institutions and development, which largely uses contemporary datasets and is built upon a strong foundation of institutionalist work by other economists. I'm surprised that the notion that institutions aid economic development is controversial to you; it's pretty much an accepted axiom with a lot of theoretical and empirical backing in economics at this point. Perhaps Acemoglu can be tasked with misusing a historical metaphor, but that's not really relevant to the science behind the claims. Economists could improve on the outreach and communications front, for sure, but to claim that one of the most prominent practitioners should be "denounced" based on his literary journalism is ridiculous. As for your critique of p-value, yes, ditto, and this is not a mistake economists make. A p-value doesn't determine a regression's validity - and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with causality. The misinterpretation of p-values is a prominent issue, but in fields that do not have an institutional legacy of statistical methods, such as, I'd imagine, history. Statics absolutely are a valid method for making "scientific" conclusions - if they are applied correctly. The closest thing to economic history produced by economists that I know of tends to be essentially an exercise in long-run statistical inference. It's an interesting exercise and has applications in other economic work, but it is understandably far from the concerns of historians. In my layman understanding of history, historians ask different questions about past events than economists, answer them in different ways, and are looking to arrive at different results. It's not obvious to me how statistical work outside of descriptive statistics could be integrated at all into historical scholarship or what the benefits of doing so would be. That doesn't mean historical work is bad. That doesn't mean it needs to be "ripped apart". Before you rip apart a piece of scholarship, especially outside of your purview, consider whether the question you're interested in is the question it's answering. Both economics and history have valuable insights about society, as do anthropology, political science, literature, and visual art, and those insights may be very different, which is their strength, and we don't need to have a dick-measuring contest about which are more valid.

Lots of social workers get MPPs. You'll be fine. I second considering what this degree would do for your career (and how you could get a similar effect in other ways - which may be cheaper or more efficient).

@styliane the MPAID explicitly recommends that students considering PhDs in economics go another route. It's a lot of money and a lot of time for a degree that won't make one any more competitive for an economics PhD than a much cheaper economics or math masters, work experience, or a few math classes taken non-degree - depending on the weaknesses of the profile. These programs are geared towards generating people who hold an economist job title in industry - not PhD students. It's a lot of loans to defer. If OP isn't sure about whether they want a PhD or a career in public policy, they're probably better off waiting this round out. @terencetch why are you applying to NYU? If you want to be in NYC, apply to SIPA. Or better Harvard. NYU is a shitty program and you have very good stats.

@Comparativist lots of things that are legal are generally a bad idea, because they are immoral (socially suboptimal) or stupid (personally suboptimal). Laws and institutions do not exist to regulate every infintesimal aspect of your life, as if you were living in the warped world of We. Regulators assume that individuals have the wherewithal to look out for themselves in most cases where the Coase Law applies, or at least to listen when large swathes of others tell them that what they're doing is creepy and absurd. So please: what is the physical difference between fucking a 16 year old and fucking an 18 year old that makes the latter okay and the former not? Why do you keep requesting science, arguments, and sources from me when you have none? Your argument boils down to, 18 year old girls are hot and not jailbait so I like to date them. Nothing about that is scientific. My argument boils down to, dudes like you are creepy, gross, and usually misogynists. I have no illusions about convincing you that you're creepy and gross, or even that you should just maybe think about why you dislike women your age and need to be 10 years older than a woman to be vulnerable with her. Your personal development is none of my concern. Telling me that men like you are not creepy and gross because reasons is absolutely mansplaining. How many 30 year old dudes did you date as a 19 year old girl? I'm gonna guess 0. I'm speaking from experience and you're speaking out of your ass. That's not in itself mansplaining - but it becomes mansplaining when you presume to tell a woman what the female heterosexual dating experience looks like because you think you know better.

The power imbalance exists because you are a grown-ass man dating a teenager who was legally a child less than 12 months ago. You absolutely hold power to influence the decisions of a person you're dating - any of us do, that is the nature of personal relationships - and your power is magnified by her inexperience and naïveté. That you can't be persecuted for what you're doing doesn't make what you're doing okay. I'm not sure what "strive for the bold" means, but yes, that you think optimism, free-spiritedness etc are somehow inherently tied to a woman's age is extremely gross. If you said that about Asian women, but regarding submissiveness and domesticity, you'd be racist. It is no more misogynist than noting that women tend to be more subject to sexual abuse than men, or that women get paid less than men in positions of commensurate experience. Identifying a disprivilege is not equivalent to supporting it. It is harmful to pretend like differences don't exist when they do. That said, you're pompously mansplaining to me how I'm supposed to feel about men your age dating women my age, and that is indeed misogynist. This gets better and better. Please, enlighten me re what those reasons are: why is it "obvious" that you shouldn't fuck a 16 year old teenager, but not a 19 year old one? By experience, my own and other women's. Sure. Firstly, on average, the man is older than the woman by 1-2 years - 10 years is a few standard deviations out. Secondly, that something is typical doesn't necessarily mean that it's right or even natural. In the entire world, women are routinely sexually abused. That's not right. In large parts of this planet, women are barred from educations and jobs and forced into marriages. That's not right. To pick another example, lots of people don't brush their teeth twice a day for at least 2 minutes. That's not right either. Oh yes - but not because most men seek to date teenagers when they're in their 30s. By that scale you are considerably more depraved than the majority of men that I'd nevertheless avoid.

A lot of young people of either gender who prefer to date older say that it's because they're too mature, certainly (as I'm sure you're aware). But I don't think there is any reason to assume that the young counterpart's motivations must map one-to-one to their older partner's. In fact, I'd argue there's reason to assume the opposite - since it's an unequal relationship with a significant power imbalance. In other words, you're saying that it's easier to mold a younger woman into your ideal partner? To, I don't know, subtly manipulate her into satisfying your needs, without much regard for her own? And I get it, the best part is that you have plausible deniability: nominally she is of age, so you're not committing assault in the legal sense, and practically it's not like you're forcing her, you're only guiding her (of course, she's too young to know what she wants or who she is - but maybe, spherically in a vacuum, she would've chosen the path you suggested to her anyway - it's not like we can compare against a counterfactual!). And of course sometimes these relationships work out, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that they exist in a highly imbalanced power dynamic that tilts in the older person's favor. Certainly, there are pros and cons to everything, but that's not really what I'm talking about. You're trying to portray your preference as ethically neutral, when in fact it's quite problematic. We can't help what we like, sure, but it does help to critically examine why you prefer what you prefer - none of us exist in a vacuum, and our seemingly natural desires may well be influenced by the social and cultural norms around us. I'm sorry, I'm not clear on how this makes you a priori not creepy. For myself, yeah, the idea of a 30 year old graduate student dating a teenage girl who is presumably an undergrad at his institution does gross me out (and is counter most institutions' bylaws these days - are you at Cornell?). For myself, I've certainly dated a lot of graduate students in my undergrad days, as well as faculty, and I don't think it's strictly verboten or crucify anyone who does that, but I also don't think it's a behavior that deserves the kind of spirited defense you're giving it. It's a questionable practice, and I think people should regard it as such, above all people who engage in it. In my experience, men who actively seek out younger women - especially men who seek out much younger women in subordinate positions, such as yourself - are strictly to be avoided.

Am I the only one who thinks it's super weird for a early to mid-20s person to actively seek out teenagers to befriend/date? @Comparativist you'd date someone just out of high school who can't even drink? Anyway, in my experience as a younger woman dating men your age, the problem with having a preference for younger women is that a lot of the time it comes from a place of immaturity or manipulation. Certainly if you articulate it as "younger women are more pleasant to be around". Because we don't have the wherewithal or courage to call you out on your bad behavior?

Ask this to the people working in whatever institution you're aiming to work for, i.e. your future colleagues and the people who are going to be promoting you. Theirs is the only opinion that matters.

I mean, you can try to get an internship in both. Trying only costs your time.

are they giving you any money?

If you've already been admitted to the program, you can rest easy that your background is sufficient for success in it (at least according to the admissions committee, who at this stage know better than you), so you don't really need to prepare. If you feel antsy, EdX/coursera/khan academy (depending on what you're looking to take) have some free courses in basic economics/math. Paying money to take something for credit is imo overkill.

not according to their admissions requirements my question would be, why does OP need a second masters? they won't be able to practice actual law without a law degree, which the MA is not, and if they just want to work around the topic of international law, they can do so with their existing degree. they don't need to undertake another degree program in order to build knowledge of a field. so what is the ROI?

@heyitsme the thing is, economists are cliquey (as I'm sure you know), and an applicant coming from an MPA program is going to be viewed with suspicion - even if you take a lot of quant classes. fwiw, the quant classes you most need (multivariable, linear algebra, diff eq, real analysis) you can't take through an MPA program and would be a waste of per-credit tuition dollars in an MPA program. the vast majority of MPA programs (except for, like, the MPA-ID) just don't go anywhere near mathematical enough for your needs. you are a few classes short of being good for a master's, but you're better off taking the math you're missing non-degree at a community college. MPAs are professional degrees. They are explicitly not geared towards setting you up for academia. They state as much. if you have time and money to burn, by all means get an MPA and learn about the thought process that goes behind etc etc, but it'll set you back for the PhD imo.

@heyitsme any reason you are targeting such... non-quantitative programs? if you're aiming for a PhD in econ, an MPA will generally be a waste of time and money (you're much better off spending a year in the UK or Europe doing an econ MA). Otherwise, with the exception of Princeton (which is a crapshoot and which likes a lot more work experience), your profile looks fine.

is this some kind of sexual innuendo? I don't get it.

If you don't want to do the coursework component, get a PhD in a country where PhDs don't have one.

If I were you I'd stick with neuropsychology, but... international work experience or work experience with policy (can be public sector, can be NGO, private sector), better, with the type of policy you want to study in your degree. international work experience in policy is best, unless you plan to focus on US issues. take intro macro/micro and statistics good GPA/GRE, strong work experience, strong letters, good essays. the usual. in the vast majority of cases, it's important to show programs you can do basic math by e.g. taking a college level math course or scoring 160+ on the QGRE. a small spectrum of programs like to see more math preparation, e.g. linear algebra or multivariable calc. never more than that. important You're going to be okay. Don't forget to enjoy being young.