YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH
You want the truth?The video with Ravi scared you?
Son, we live in a world that has departments, and those departments have to be guarded by men with models. Who's gonna do it? You? Ravikumar has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You dismiss the St. Louis Fed, and you curse Ravikumar. You have that luxury…
I want the TRUTH!
Logic bro here. What is truth?
No one will prevent you from doing good research at the board. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is just that they will not care much about it and, research or no research, will force you to do policy work that is rather dull and devoid of intellectual content.
The very fact that we have this debate every other day implies there are plenty of opportunities to do good research at the board. Nobody talks about the IMF/WB because they are strictly policy institutions.
No one will prevent you from doing good research at the board. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is just that they will not care much about it and, research or no research, will force you to do policy work that is rather dull and devoid of intellectual content.
The very fact that we have this debate every other day implies there are plenty of opportunities to do good research at the board. Nobody talks about the IMF/WB because they are strictly policy institutions.
Teaching undergrads the same thing for 10 semesters, updating slides, and answering questions about grading is not intellectual either.
The other reason we continually rehash this debate is that for some researchers, the fed provides a research environment unmatched outside the top 10 or so (data and funding). For others…. Their 20k FTA or whatever goes far enough
No one will prevent you from doing good research at the board. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is just that they will not care much about it and, research or no research, will force you to do policy work that is rather dull and devoid of intellectual content.The very fact that we have this debate every other day implies there are plenty of opportunities to do good research at the board. Nobody talks about the IMF/WB because they are strictly policy institutions.Teaching undergrads the same thing for 10 semesters, updating slides, and answering questions about grading is not intellectual either.
There's something even more fundamental. Say you fail mid-tenure review (some AFA schools are notorious for that). Then your most likely outcome is econ consulting unless you are lucky to have a decent fit at a Fed that really needs someone with your expertise. Then consider two scenarios:
1. Academia 3 years - > Econ Consulting
2. Fed Board with long-term stability.
Don't need a phd to tell which one dominates.
if if you fail tenure at any top 30, you can easily move to a fed
There's something even more fundamental. Say you fail mid-tenure review (some AFA schools are notorious for that). Then your most likely outcome is econ consulting unless you are lucky to have a decent fit at a Fed that really needs someone with your expertise. Then consider two scenarios:
1. Academia 3 years - > Econ Consulting
2. Fed Board with long-term stability.
Don't need a phd to tell which one dominates.
No one will prevent you from doing good research at the board. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is just that they will not care much about it and, research or no research, will force you to do policy work that is rather dull and devoid of intellectual content.The very fact that we have this debate every other day implies there are plenty of opportunities to do good research at the board. Nobody talks about the IMF/WB because they are strictly policy institutions.Teaching undergrads the same thing for 10 semesters, updating slides, and answering questions about grading is not intellectual either.
Eh you’d struggle to place at the Board, NY, or Chicago if you failed outside of the top 10- your record would matter, you’d probably have to have signaled you wanted to be there with a prior fellowship (eg Philly and Boston hire their fellows)
The St Louis troll probably disagrees, but man, that place is rouuughh.
if if you fail tenure at any top 30, you can easily move to a fed
There's something even more fundamental. Say you fail mid-tenure review (some AFA schools are notorious for that). Then your most likely outcome is econ consulting unless you are lucky to have a decent fit at a Fed that really needs someone with your expertise. Then consider two scenarios:
1. Academia 3 years - > Econ Consulting
2. Fed Board with long-term stability.
Don't need a phd to tell which one dominates.
Clearly you have never sat through a policy meeting with ageing disillusioned civil servants
No one will prevent you from doing good research at the board. Or anywhere else for that matter. It is just that they will not care much about it and, research or no research, will force you to do policy work that is rather dull and devoid of intellectual content.The very fact that we have this debate every other day implies there are plenty of opportunities to do good research at the board. Nobody talks about the IMF/WB because they are strictly policy institutions.Teaching undergrads the same thing for 10 semesters, updating slides, and answering questions about grading is not intellectual either.
Nonsense. Just check their recent seasoned hired - tenure rejects from anywhere top 30 top 50.
Eh you’d struggle to place at the Board, NY, or Chicago if you failed outside of the top 10- your record would matter, you’d probably have to have signaled you wanted to be there with a prior fellowship (eg Philly and Boston hire their fellows)
The St Louis troll probably disagrees, but man, that place is rouuughh.if if you fail tenure at any top 30, you can easily move to a fed
There's something even more fundamental. Say you fail mid-tenure review (some AFA schools are notorious for that). Then your most likely outcome is econ consulting unless you are lucky to have a decent fit at a Fed that really needs someone with your expertise. Then consider two scenarios:
1. Academia 3 years - > Econ Consulting
2. Fed Board with long-term stability.
Don't need a phd to tell which one dominates.
It’s not impossible, it’s just unusual and they did groundwork for that to be an option. That itself is some long term advice- if you want a policy outside option, there are things you can do to increase your odds
Nonsense. Just check their recent seasoned hired - tenure rejects from anywhere top 30 top 50.
Eh you’d struggle to place at the Board, NY, or Chicago if you failed outside of the top 10- your record would matter, you’d probably have to have signaled you wanted to be there with a prior fellowship (eg Philly and Boston hire their fellows)
The St Louis troll probably disagrees, but man, that place is rouuughh.if if you fail tenure at any top 30, you can easily move to a fed
There's something even more fundamental. Say you fail mid-tenure review (some AFA schools are notorious for that). Then your most likely outcome is econ consulting unless you are lucky to have a decent fit at a Fed that really needs someone with your expertise. Then consider two scenarios:
1. Academia 3 years - > Econ Consulting
2. Fed Board with long-term stability.
Don't need a phd to tell which one dominates.
Nonsense. Just check their recent seasoned hired - tenure rejects from anywhere top 30 top 50.
We get people from T15 econ and T15 finance routinely because spousal considerations and usual academia disillusion makes DC attractive. It's not a given that you'll make it, and may of these files don't even get interviews.
Some things to consider when you hear claims about what life is like at the Board:
- The Board and DC are especially great places for two body problems. This is why you'll see people who could make the effort to get tenure elsewhere choose to be at the Board instead.
- The Board is high heterogeneity between the different departments (called "sections"). Some allow for more research than others. Some have much more interesting policy work than others.
- The Board enables researchers to have access to fairly large RA pools and technical infrastructure. Certainly people will complain internally about tech, but that happens everywhere. The ability to engage in resource intensive research without having to spend time competing for grants should not be discounted.
- The seminars could be better. Excellent visitors but only in certain domains, so the proximity of your research agenda to the Fed's biggest focal points matters. Also, the previously stated heterogeneity means the audience isn't always asking the best questions.
- Effective tenure earlier. Certainly, some people use this as an excuse to be deadwood. But it also enables you to say "to hell with the journals" and focus on what you find interesting. This allows both work that is higher risk and work that is interesting but doesn't necessarily fit what the journals are looking for. What people don't observe from the outside is the amount of high risk academic work that gets done at the Fed. One thing you can observe is the amount of papers on issues like market microstructure that aren't as popular in academia, but intellectually interesting and vital for individuals making actual policy decisions.
- Unfortunately, the Board makes it hard to 'market' papers. There are a lot of barriers to being an invited speaker at an academic department, so most don't. Thus, there isn't an investment in the marketing and framing involved to make these high risk papers higher impact.
Overall, the Board is an excellent place. But like any other employer, ranking isn't the only important trait; other characteristics dictate match. For example, if you study microstructure or financial econometrics, it is probably among the best places I could recommend to you. If you do labor, we're perfectly fine but it is much easier for an academic department to compete with us.
Any examples of T10 or, if you prefer, T15 who had tenure hopes and joined recently?
Nonsense. Just check their recent seasoned hired - tenure rejects from anywhere top 30 top 50.
We get people from T15 econ and T15 finance routinely because spousal considerations and usual academia disillusion makes DC attractive. It's not a given that you'll make it, and may of these files don't even get interviews.
"This allows both work that is higher risk and work that is interesting but doesn't necessarily fit what the journals are looking for"
you must be referring to Jeremy's Fed working paper which somewhere claims that "the primary role of mainstream economics in our society is to provide an apologetics for a criminally oppressive, unsustainable, and unjust social order." :)
the board is a joke
Some things to consider when you hear claims about what life is like at the Board:
- The Board and DC are especially great places for two body problems. This is why you'll see people who could make the effort to get tenure elsewhere choose to be at the Board instead.
- The Board is high heterogeneity between the different departments (called "sections"). Some allow for more research than others. Some have much more interesting policy work than others.
- The Board enables researchers to have access to fairly large RA pools and technical infrastructure. Certainly people will complain internally about tech, but that happens everywhere. The ability to engage in resource intensive research without having to spend time competing for grants should not be discounted.
- The seminars could be better. Excellent visitors but only in certain domains, so the proximity of your research agenda to the Fed's biggest focal points matters. Also, the previously stated heterogeneity means the audience isn't always asking the best questions.
- Effective tenure earlier. Certainly, some people use this as an excuse to be deadwood. But it also enables you to say "to hell with the journals" and focus on what you find interesting. This allows both work that is higher risk and work that is interesting but doesn't necessarily fit what the journals are looking for. What people don't observe from the outside is the amount of high risk academic work that gets done at the Fed. One thing you can observe is the amount of papers on issues like market microstructure that aren't as popular in academia, but intellectually interesting and vital for individuals making actual policy decisions.
- Unfortunately, the Board makes it hard to 'market' papers. There are a lot of barriers to being an invited speaker at an academic department, so most don't. Thus, there isn't an investment in the marketing and framing involved to make these high risk papers higher impact.
Overall, the Board is an excellent place. But like any other employer, ranking isn't the only important trait; other characteristics dictate match. For example, if you study microstructure or financial econometrics, it is probably among the best places I could recommend to you. If you do labor, we're perfectly fine but it is much easier for an academic department to compete with us.