Granted, DC is better than St Louis, but it is not a super vibrant place either. Most fed economists live deep in suburban Virginia or Maryland anyway.
At Louis fed is good because it’s in St. Louis. People can’t do anything with their life there so have to spend time doing research. Imagine living in St Louis over DC
No. I'm referring to interesting methods work being done by folks like Ed Herbst, Michael Gordy, or Hie Joo Ahn. And others who do interesting policy work that often isn't publicly visible.
Sit down and let the adults talk. You're the reason why this website is going down the drain and is a fraction of what it could be.
"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 jokeSome 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.
I am at the board and yet had to check who Hie Joo Ahn was:)
Gordy has probably given up on research now that he became chief
No. I'm referring to interesting methods work being done by folks like Ed Herbst, Michael Gordy, or Hie Joo Ahn. And others who do interesting policy work that often isn't publicly visible.
Sit down and let the adults talk. You're the reason why this website is going down the drain and is a fraction of what it could be."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 jokeSome 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.
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.
You forgot the best option.
3. Econ consulting from the start. You will earn way more.