Quantitative rigorousness

[tammy-san]

Perhaps this question exposes my ignorance and naivety, but after reading through these boards for quite some time, I notice constant debate about this or that's program's quantitative prowess. I do see the importance of knowing statistics and econ for public policy and the like, but why the obsession?

Is it due to future career prospects? But then, if you want to work for the World Bank, why not just get a Phd in Economics?

Is it for "well-roundedness" purposes? If you were to concentrate in studying international development for example, wouldn't you want to know about geology or anthropology as well as econ and stats?

Maybe, coming from a "theory-background" and having suffered through minoring in econ, I have always taken quantitative analysis with a grain of salt and am a bit wary of relying so heavily on it. Why are some of the more "prestigious" schools so hell-bent on having their students become math wizards? Do you really have to be a econ super star to make it big in the policy realm? I know some programs utilize quantitative analysis as the basis of their policy-making, but WHY?

What's the rationale?

[coaks]

For me, I think the overwhelming majority of the nuts-and-bolts of any specific position in an organization (public/non-gov/non-profit/private) is learned on the job. The biggest thing you're not going to learn on the job is the statistical and economic theory behind the tools that you use or the assumptions that you have to make about demand, supply, observed results, forecasted results and consumer behavior.

Also, trying to switch into these kinds of organizations after starting a career in the private sector, having at least two years experience applying the same principles I use at my current job to issues of public concern -- and getting the university stamp of approval for doing so -- will definitely make it easier to get a foot in the door at a lot more places.

Those are my reasons at least. Don't know about everyone else.

Edited March 26, 2010 by coakleym

[sly06]

Hey Tammy-san,

Anthro and history are definitely important when you are trying to understand why certain (environmental, social, economic) problems exist, but I think data-based training helps you deal with the "how."

As a policy-maker, if you have several different problems to address with what you're drafting, how do you prioritize which programs or regulations get attention/funding? You'll need to be able to go through data and draw conclusions. (Is carbon a more dangerous pollutant or is ___? Would it be more socially-beneficial to provide tax credits to struggling homeowners or to single-parent families? Does school performance increase when a school district puts more money in facility improvements as opposed to increasing teacher salaries?)

And after you put together a set of policies or programs, quant skills will help you measure their effectiveness. If in government, it helps you decide whether a program is worth expanding to other regions or agencies. If you're in a nonprofit, this information helps attract institutional donors who want hard numbers to help make their philanthropic decisions. (Cost-effectiveness is key.)

It helps to think of theory-based approaches as deductive, and data-heavy analysis as observation-heavy and, therefore, more inductive. You'll need both to become a good policy maker.

Edited March 26, 2010 by sly06

[Putoots]

My response is coming purely from a practical point of view (i.e., what it really means in terms of marketability and transfer of skills).

As you say, most public policy programs are very heavy in statistics and economics, and you will come out will a very technical set of skills. However, in speaking to former MPP students and those currently working in traditional "public policy" jobs -- like US GAO -- the odds of actually using your incredibly refined statistics and econ skills in any substantive way are pretty low.

Where this becomes very useful is when public policy graduates go on to do PhD programs in the social sciences. MPP grads are usually way ahead in terms of research method training.

Hope that helps...

Edited March 26, 2010 by Putoots

[tammy-san]

Thanks for the replies! I guess, in making a decision on which program to attend this upcoming summer/fall, I wanted to weigh all the costs/benefits (har har ) of each program and make sure I wasn't missing out on some integral part of my higher edumucation in choosing programs that were not as "quantitatively rigorous".