CURSED IF YOU DO, CURSED IF YOU DON'T. John in the Shadow of Mount Hollywood notes that the graduate programs in the United States produce more Ph.D.s than there are tenure track jobs for them. This phenomenon, which he correctly notes is glossed over at some of the academic weblogs, has been present since the mid-1970s, with The Progressive once editorializing (let's face it, any article in any opinion magazine is an editorial) "Ph.D., the new migrant." And yes, the effect of excess supply is to drive down salaries as well as to provide incentives to substitute contingent workers doing a lot of teaching for little pay in place of teacher-scholars with some time to think about new ideas, particularly if your vision of higher "education" is more Big Red Subway than Great Steel Fleet.

But what happens when the novices and the postulants notice that the abbeys are full? That's the situation in economics, where one school of thought holds that the occupational birth control is misguided, with "math bigots" controlling access to the graduate programs with dire consequences.

As a result, it is impossible to survive as an economics graduate student with a math background that is less than that of an undergraduate math major.

Methinks he doth protest too much. Most of the fundamental mathematical theorems for general equilibrium or game theory come in the first chapter of a basic real analysis text. (A colleague in math explains that the subsequent chapters tackle the kinds of abstractions that are more likely to appeal to pure mathematicians.) Micha at Catallarchy contends that the mathematization serves the same function as the liquor licensing board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the bar exam, namely to lessen competition and restrain trade. (Thanks to A Constrained Vision for the links.) I'm not prepared to grant that (yes, I have a vested interest in the status quo, but there are as-yet unexploited extensions of the existing paradigm for the clever.

A second school of thought is concerned that there is a disconnect between the undergraduate program and the graduate program, and that might be affecting the domestic supply of graduate students. An all-star panel at the Midwest Economics Association convened to address that problem. The share of enrollment in U.S. Ph.D. programs of students who did undergraduate degrees in U.S. universities peaked in 1976 (let's see, that's about when the "new migrant" meme came out), and the total production of economics Ph.D.s has remained constant since then, although total Ph.D.s in all social sciences has continued to increase (more boxcars to convert into coaches?)

This panel looked at the domestic supply of Ph.D. students, identifying the Ph.D.-degree granting universities (the "big football schools," which might describe Northern Illinois) and the elite private colleges (which enroll many children of the existing faculty.) The program at Swarthmore provides future economics Ph.D.s, many of whom you'd recognize if I had remembered to write their names down. But Swarthmore provides an interesting mirror to hold up to look at the demand side of the equation. Future economics majors respond to incentives. We have a downturn in enrollments after 1975, about the same time the Silent Generation and early hippie cohorts snagged a lot of the tenured slots. Then let's compare and contrast two departments with eleven faculty members, Swarthmore, and Northern Illinois two years ago. We have more accounting majors than Swarthmore has majors of all kinds. The work is rewarding, but you have to like it, and you can't be too in love with making money to be happy in the mid-majors. Sure, it would be nice to offer all undergraduates the kind of temptation to do economics and the kind of support that Swarthmore does, but that would be too Great Steel Fleet for all too many administrators still mired in a Big Red Subway, "Lay off six of those men!" mentality. Likewise, a core curriculum for undergraduates with a required derivative-producing calculus sequence as a prerequisite to economics or finance would help break the disconnect between the undergraduate, literary economics tradition, and the graduate, set-theoretic way of thinking. But that would involve REQUIREMENTS. Can't have that.

A participant in the session, who attended the undergraduate program that provides the most U.S. economics Ph.D.,s (Seoul National University, if you're curious) correctly objected to a subtext of the panel, which is "there aren't enough U.S. graduate students in your programs." He, correctly, didn't like being treated as an outsider. Administrators, however, ought keep in mind that if professoring is such a cushy job for such high pay, there ought to be swarms of domestic students lining up for a shot at those jobs. Not the case. I wonder why not?

Wouldn't it be better for those administrators to consider a few more useful actions, such as tightening admission and graduation requirements, and paying entry-level economics faculty more?