A Homeless Blog

Theories & Techniques

I talked about "Education" in general before...and got very good feedbacks, opinions, and encouragements. This time, I'm going to concentrate on my field of study, Economics.

If we divide Economics (as a field of study) into two level, that would be (1) undergrad+master's and (2) doctoral. The main reason I put them this way is because of the way of the study. Undergrad and Master's degree in Economics are quite similar everywhere (or at least where I've seen). It's mostly about learning and understanding economic theories...how they work.

The doctoral study of Economics is mostly mathematical based (at least in the U.S.), which is almost totally different from the prior study. So, you don't really have to have studied economics before you take on studying Ph.D. in Economics, which is more theories in depth. In fact, it is considered an advantage to have a strong mathematical background, i.e. BS in Math or something.

I think...there are many good things about studying economics in any level. It helps with the 'vision' on the economy's well being and all. It helps improving the process of logical thinking and planning. I also believe that studying economics is useful for anyone in a society. But what I am going to say here is more about what I want to see in economic studies. And that's the techniques of conducting economic researches.

I've learned so many theories from formal economic education, but I had to learn the techniques (practical procedure of doing economic research) used in various researches by myself. Not only that, to find data or sources of data is also a self-exploration. Of course, these things are not exactly economics (at least they have nothing to do with the theories), but we have to learn "how to" in order to implement or to apply the theories we learned from classroom. And that "how to" is all the non-theory techniques I've been talking about. How to find exchange rate data? How to know which data source is reliable? How to tell the different among the three exchange rate from IMF's data? How to write SAS code for econometric modeling? How to...?

I'm not saying that learning all the math and theories is wrong or bad, but I think it'd be great if academic institutions can spend more resource on training of techniques. Afterall, these techniques are highly in demand in the job market. So, I guess my point aims at the curriculum. And I think, by now, you know I'm talking about the curriculum of Ph.D. programs in Economics.

The priority of most curriculum concentrates on passing the Micro and Macro qualifying exams, which is highly mathematical. I've seen people crying after these exams. No need to say, it's an extremely tough test...not only a test of knowledge, but also a test of endurance to the pressure...physically and mentally. Any Ph.D. student in Economics can confirm on that.

The way I see it (which is not necessary right) is that the aim of a Ph.D. Economics is to produce a person that can write "good" research papers. Which is good...depending on what "good" means. In other words, the current curriculum concentrates a lot on the theories. I believe good theories are good (a little bit redundant :P), but unimplementable good theories are useless.

Today's blog is not about saying that theorists are bad. I believe there are many good and implementable theories out there. There are those who work hard to really help improving the world. Only that I see less and less of these group of people. And I'm worried.

I guess what I want to see is more balance in the curriculum. Academics, who live in the ivory tower, should not forget that they are also human. It is absurd to keep improving your theories all day long without realizing that only a handful of people can understand it and noone has any idea how to use it. I want to see higher education that doesn't forget its root. Abstracts that come along with realities. Theories that walk hand-in-hand with techniques. Economics that is really about people.

posted by Bikku @ 7:04 AM