Economics Courses to Take (Signalling)

[RWBG]

I'm doing a year-long MA in political science at a top-25ish school, and as part of my MA I plan on taking some graduate courses in the economics department (probably two total, in addition to math camp!). I definitely plan on taking econometrics, but I'm still deciding between a few options for the other course, with a major factor in my consideration being the relative value of different courses in terms of signalling to Ph.D program adcomms. As far as research interests, I'm primarily interested in formal theory applications in the political economy of international trade.

The two courses I'm leaning towards are micro theory and international trade theory. The sense I get is that micro theory may be a better signal, but the segments of the course focusing on producer theory/general equilibrium/some of consumer theory may not be particularly useful for someone not primarily interested in economics, especially given that I already have a fairly strong background in micro theory at the undergrad level. Trade theory, on the other hand, may prove substantively useful given my research interests, and it uses a fair bit of math/micro, but I'm not sure how adcomms would view it in terms of signalling. Anyone have any thoughts/insights?

[midwest513]

Generally I feel that if you get into a great department that you will be able to take formal theory classes (you'll be selecting schools based on that). Seems like the trade class could really influence your research agenda though and would be much more unique and inform your thinking about the topic. They can teach you the formal stuff, not the trade theory.

[IRdreams]

Signalling wise, micro is widely suggested so likely a good choice.

[mv0027]

depends what you are trying to signal. If you want to signal your research interests, just take the class that is closest to it. If you want to signal that you can handle hard courses, take the hardest econmetrics courses you can take, or just take straight up math courses.

I have a strong econ background. By mico theory do you mean like regular mico intro course? I do trade-related research, and I don't think there is much from micro that you would use in any type of trade research. Any type of firm level work is going to be pretty much straight econ territory.

[RWBG]

depends what you are trying to signal. If you want to signal your research interests, just take the class that is closest to it. If you want to signal that you can handle hard courses, take the hardest econmetrics courses you can take, or just take straight up math courses.

I have a strong econ background. By mico theory do you mean like regular mico intro course? I do trade-related research, and I don't think there is much from micro that you would use in any type of trade research. Any type of firm level work is going to be pretty much straight econ territory.

Not primarily looking to signal research interests: my thesis and other courses do that well enough, although I suppose more wouldn't hurt. Essentially, I'm looking to balance the possible added benefit (over trade theory) of micro as a signal of formal ability with the possible added benefit (over micro theory) of taking a grad-level trade theory course to my substantive knowledge (I took trade at the undergrad level.) If the signal difference is enough I would probably take micro over trade theory, but if grad trade theory also functions as a strong signal of formal ability, I might be inclined to stick with trade theory. It also would be useful to hear from someone about how much use the content of micro theory would be to future work in formal theory. I should note: I double majored in political science and economics, so I'm looking at the marginal benefit of these grad-level courses in addition to my undergraduate coursework.

The micro course would be the standard micro sequence for econ grad students. I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say trade research doesn't involve micro, but just "straight econ." Most trade research done by economists is essentially applied micro, and even a lot of political economy work on the subject (see Grossman & Helpman's Protection for Sale) uses a lot of micro. Perhaps you can clarify your point?

Also, @IRDreams, when you say it's suggested, suggested by whom/in what context?

Thanks for your responses, by the way.

Edited August 31, 2011 by RWBG

[mv0027]

I mean that that type of research is going to be done by economist, not pol sci. Grossman and Helpman are both economist. I'm not very familiar with formal theory literature, but I've never seen much pol sci research on trade theory or even trade more generally. I've seen interesting stuff from sociologist, but not pol sci. Maybe I'm just not familiar with it. Regardless, I would say the best signal is still going to be math courses. Have you taken a game theory course?

If you know of pol sci departments with strong focuses on trade, I would love to hear about them! My background is in trade and I'm considering applying in a few years.

[RWBG]

I mean that that type of research is going to be done by economist, not pol sci. Grossman and Helpman are both economist. I'm not very familiar with formal theory literature, but I've never seen much pol sci research on trade theory or even trade more generally. I've seen interesting stuff from sociologist, but not pol sci. Maybe I'm just not familiar with it. Regardless, I would say the best signal is still going to be math courses. Have you taken a game theory course?

If you know of pol sci departments with strong focuses on trade, I would love to hear about them! My background is in trade and I'm considering applying in a few years.

The political economy of trade is actually a well-developed sub-sub-field in political science. Off the top of my head, I would check out work by Helen Milner, James Alt, Lisa Martin, Michael Hiscox, Ronald Rogowski, and Judith Goldstein. Also, especially on the formal side, there's a lot of overlap with work done by economists (I think Grossman & Helpman won the APSA award for best book in political economy one year?) so it's worth checking out people like Grossman, Helpman, Rodrik, etc. as well.

Edited August 31, 2011 by RWBG

[IRdreams]

It has been suggested by many professors, especially juniors to me. I do formal work and most people who do not come from places like Rochester need to do something hard to signal credibly that they have the chops for this type of work in the long haul. Committees worry that dissterations do not necessarily convey your technical skills since you work closely with others to produce it. However, I imagine the diss is sufficient for showing substantive focus. If you remember classic signalling theory, the hardest class you can take is best and in econ depts this is generally the micro sequence or a public choice seq if available. I'm a believer that most substantive material you can teach yourself but technical material is helped by a class which is the other reason why I would take the micro in your shows.

[IRdreams]

I should say that is has been recommend to me after a full year grad sequence in game theory for clarification. This suggests that micro is often considered better a signaling this than the grad level methods course. Though I would do both so that you have the signal and the polisci take on it.

[RWBG]

@IRdreams. Thanks for the advice/info. I decided to take micro theory.

[Charlie2010]

Core micro theory is hard everywhere, so it makes for a better signal. Trade theory at at the grad level can be softer, depending who teaches. Also, a strong micro core will make trade theory easy to pick up, as well as set you up to do formal theory if you want to. You made the right choice.