Prof. Jaqueline Oliveira

Prof. Jaqueline Oliveira (Ph.D., Yale University) is Assistant Professor of Economics at Rhodes College. Her dissertation was entitled “Intergenerational Transfers, Fertility, and Human Capital.” Before she joined Rhodes College, she was an Assistant Professor at Clemson University where she taught Introduction to Econometrics and Family Economics. Her research interests include topics in Development Economics, Labor Economics, Family Economics, and Urban Economics.



A lot of your research focuses on family economics. On the subject of “family economics,” based on your experience, would you recommend having more than one economist in one’s own family? (In my blogging, I have noticed that economists are often married to other economists.)

Gary Becker--the1992 Nobel prize winner--studied how individuals in the “marriage markets” decide whether and whom to marry, as well as how the attributes of potential marriage partners affect these choices. One of the insights from his research, which helps explain the phenomenon you just described, is that one stands to gain more from forming partnerships with someone like them (“equals attract”) because some traits are complements in the production of “marital happiness”, not substitutes. Having a husband who is also an economist has many perks. We can laugh at each other’s nerdy jokes (he knows why it is funny to have a hat with the Greek letter Beta on it; even funnier if the hat happens to be BLUE); rant about Trump’s misguided economic policies (tax on Mexican avocados to pay for a border wall?? really??); share ideas on how to teach the Intro to Economics class (especially if you happen to work at the same school).

You have taught and studied at big schools and smaller schools, public schools and private schools, and in the U.S. and in Brazil. What differences have you seen in these different places when it comes to studying and teaching economics?

College in Brazil is mostly vocational. Unlike in the U.S., students must decide for a major before taking the admissions exams (normally at the age of 17), and spend all of the four years of college focusing on that major. The upside, in my opinion, is that students graduate with a more in-depth and technical grasp of their field. The downside is that, unlike in the U.S., students do not enjoy the freedom to choose classes and explore interests in other areas of knowledge. Another striking difference is the transition to graduate school. In Brazil, it is common for students to spend two years pursuing a Master’s degree before a Doctorate degree. In the U.S., the norm if for students to start their Ph.D. studies after finishing college.

As for private versus public school, my impression is that there is not a marked difference between those types in the U.S., particularly when it comes to graduate school. In Brazil, the best economics graduate schools are private.

Finally, I personally did not feel a big difference between teaching economics at Clemson and Rhodes College. While I do enjoy the smaller class sizes at Rhodes, I think the challenges and rewards that come with teaching are basically the same.

Do you have any advice for an aspiring economist like me?

My advice for anyone thinking about pursuing a career in economics is to consider a Ph.D. degree. I do not think I really understood the power of economics as a framework with which to think about the world, and the vast array of interesting and relevant issues it could address, until I became a Ph.D. student. And with that in mind, I would recommend taking (and excelling at) as many mathematics and statistics classes as one can while in college. Admission into Ph.D. programs has become increasingly competitive over the years. It is important to figure out what it takes to build a strong application and take the necessary steps early on to enhance the chances of being accepted into a good program.

Prof. Jerry Ellig

Dr. Jerry Ellig is a research professor at George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center. He previously served as the chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission and as a senior economist for the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.



When you testify before Congress or advice policy makers, what economic ideas are the hardest to communicate?

The idea that good intentions do not guarantee good results. Time and time again I see people in the policy world assume that if they have good intentions, then the policies they favor will produce the results they say they want -- even if they have no empirical evidence that the policy actually does produce those results. If an economist questions whether a policy will in reality produce the hoped-for results, he or she is assumed to be attacking the proponent's good intentions. If policymakers were more willing to make decisions based on actual evidence, I'll bet that fewer policy debates would degenerate into the nasty name-calling wars we see on TV and social media every day.

What is the best (or worst) advice you received when you were studying to become an economist?

Best advice: Go to George Mason. Worst advice: Don't go to George Mason. George Mason was the lowest-ranked school that offered me money, but I went there anyway for my Ph.D because it was the most intellectually stimulating. I don't regret it. Education should be about learning something you're passionate about learning, not just pursuit of credentials.

Prof. Ian Fillmore

Ian Fillmore (Ph.D., University of Chicago) is Assistant Professor of Economics at Washington University in St. Louis. His research focuses on the economics of education and education markets, the effects of technological change on workers, and optimal taxation.



Is being really interested in economics a good enough reason to major in economics?

I remember during my Freshman year of college having the sudden realization that just because I found a subject interesting, that didn't mean I had to do it for a living. So, just because you find economics interesting, that doesn't mean you should necessarily become a professional economist. But economics can still be a terrific major even if you don't become an economist. Learning to "think like an economist" will open your eyes to important concepts like tradeoffs, opportunity cost, and thinking about seen and unseen forces and consequences. Economics is also a great way to train yourself to weigh empirical evidence and distinguish between correlation and causation. Finally, the economics major provides skills that are applicable in a wide variety of careers, so you have a lot of flexibility with what you want to do after you graduate.

Prof. James DeNicco

James DeNicco (Ph.D., Drexel University) is director of the Principles of Economics program and also coordinator of the Dead Economists Society at Rice University, where he has been awarded the Malcolm Gillis Award for Distincion in Undergraduate Teaching.



A recent study suggested that graduate students experience depression at six times the rate of the general population, and that "anxiety symptoms among economics Ph.D. students is comparable to the prevalence found in incarcerated populations.” Does that ring true to you. Does it have anything to do with how the subject is taught?

Well, I have often described the first year or two of getting a PhD in economics as intellectual hazing. I guess it somewhat depends on the person, but it is a difficult time for most people and there is a lot of pressure and sacrifice. In my case I had to travel over an hour each way to get to Drexel. I was 29 and married when I started the program and already had my first child and a mortgage. That certainly made it tougher for me.


I think it may be how it is taught. Most places take the fire hose approach to teaching the material. You have a lot of information flowing your direction and at times it seems impossible to take it all in. I found I would really understand the material a semester or two after I first learned it and started using it. I understand why it is that way though. 5 years is long enough in grad school. I wouldn’t want it to take 7 and that might be required to have a more comfortable pace and incremental curriculum.


Now, after the first two years for me things changed completely. The first two years were mostly classroom work and qualifying exams. After that it was research and teaching, which I throughly enjoyed. I had a great mentor and dissertation committee, which means a lot of course.

I have heard that you have "Supply" and "Demand" tattooed on your biceps. Have you come across many other economics-themed tattoos? 

Lol, up until now I am the only one I know crazy enough to get an Econ themed tattoo. Demand is on the right bicep and supply is on the left so when I do pull downs at the gym, demand is downward sloping and supply is upward sloping!

Prof. Maria Bach

Maria Bach (Ph.D., King's College London) is Assistant Professor of Economics at the American University of Paris. Her research focuses on the history of economics, especially 19th-century India. She podcasts at ceterisneverparibus.net.

As an economic historian, do you feel like you have more in common with economists or with historians?

I see myself more as an historian of economics – that is to say, I analyse the history of ideas, intellectual thought (whatever you want to call it) rather than events, facts and economic trends. I do however contextulise the texts and discourse I analyse, so I use economic history research in my research. So do I feel more like an historian than economist? My gut instinct would say the latter. I am a trained economist, I did economics and mathematics for my undergraduate and development economics for my masters of science – which is not always the case for historians of economics. I had to learn historical techniques and approaches in my PhD, but my research leans towards understanding how interlocutors observe and perceive the economy from the perspective of an economist. Of course, I contribute to historical research by documenting and analysing texts that were written in the past, but I analyse more from an economics perspective than historical.

You've studied and taught in France and the U.K. and elsewhere. Are there any noteworthy differences between the way economics is taught in those countries and elsewhere?

The main difference I have seen in France and UK in economics teaching is the inclusion of history of economics in France (and not in the UK). Otherwise, it’s pretty similar. Perhaps there is a bit more socialist slant in France than in the UK, but this will depend on the university and professor.

Prof. William Collins

Prof. William Collins (Ph.D., Harvard University) is the Terence E. Adderley Jr. Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of Enterprising America: Businesses, Banks, and Credit Markets in Historical Perspective (University of Chicago Press, 2015).


Which teacher or professor had the biggest impact on your career path (whether it was an economist or someone who taught another subject), and what made that person a good teacher?

There is a long line of educators from my elementary school days through graduate school and beyond who have had profound influences on my career path.  I would start with those who encouraged a love for reading, writing, and independent investigation.  Being an academic economist entails asking good questions and crafting clearly written answers; that is at the core of what we do.  The single most important professor in my career has been Jeff Williamson.  Jeff was both my undergraduate thesis advisor and my dissertation advisor.  His expertise, genuine enthusiasm for research and teaching, generosity of time, and confidence in his students (including me) made a world of difference.

Economics is a much more quantitative field than it was a long time ago. What are the trade-offs when it comes to this change?

There have been real gains from the quantitative turn in economics. In theory, it requires more precise statements of the model one has in mind and descriptions of how it works.  In empirical work, it requires better data and more careful interpretation of patterns detected in those data.  I suppose one tradeoff is that it is easy to loose sight of the forest when one is deep in the technical trees. Many of the problems we work on require intense attention to technical details, but  communicating the importance of any project requires a broader vision.  A second potential tradeoff is that some important and complex questions may not be well suited to formal modeling and econometric analysis, but it might still be useful for economists to weigh in on those questions to the extent that we can.

Prof. Raymond Sauer

Prof. Raymond Sauer (Ph.D., University of Washington) is Professor of Economics at the University of Clemson. He is the founder of The Sports Economist, a popular multi-author weblog which focuses on economic aspects of sport, and is former President of the North American Association of Sports Economists.


You have written a lot on the economic aspects of sports. Is the “sports and economics” niche full, or is there room for more people to work in this area?

First, I believe there is plenty of work left to do in the field of sports economics. I've been around a while and have seen the field blossom. At its best sports economics uses the sports as a way illustrate economic forces at work, while simultaneously informing us about sports in ways we might not have otherwise understood. There are plenty of young people just getting started and I'm sure they will do fantastic work for years to come.

Everyone is familiar with Moneyball. In your opinion, what is the best book about sports and economics that is less well known and what makes it great?

As for great books about sports and economics, Moneyball is a standout, as you mention. A lesser known but excellent book is The Baseball Economist, by John Charles Bradbury. JC is a sharp economist, huge baseball fan, and is superb at rendering complicated statistical findings into readable prose. Although the book is a bit dated), the economic thinking in it sets it apart from other sabremetric books and it is full of interesting nuggets. The chapter on "The Mazzone Effect" in particular is worth savoring. Also, as an Astros fan I must mention Astroball, by Ben Reiter. The 2017 Astros were a championship squad built on sharp analytical thinking, smart economic management, and great character. Reiter's book chronicles this moment, a dozen years or so after Michael Lewis' classic.

Prof. Timothy N. Bond

Prof. Timothy N. Bond (Ph.D., Boston University) is the Director of Undergraduate Programs for the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University. His research focuses on labor economics and the economics of education.



"When I starting my studies to become an economist, I wish someone had told me _____." How would you fill in that blank?

Take more math and stats! Actually, people told me that I just didn’t believe them. Also graduate school is very different from undergraduate – it’s a full time job (or more). Understanding that, and developing the work ethic necessary to be successful in such a position was the biggest challenge I faced early on in graduate school.

I volunteer at a charter school in a poor neighborhood in Memphis. What are some interesting research questions one might pursue if data/statistics were available? Some questions are obvious ones, like improvement on test scores, but maybe there are ones that are not so obvious?

Having access to a school that would let you run interventions would be a real asset. Things like studying the impact of different instructional methods, tracking (allowing for honors classes or not), or maybe even attendance policies. I have been critical of methods that evaluate school policies using only test scores, so some way to link the students to long-run outcomes would lead to a wealth of exciting questions you could answer (but an enormous undertaking, of course). Maybe college placements would be feasible? 

Inika Mishra

Like me, Inika Mishra is a high school student who has a blog aimed at students who want to learn more about economics. She lives in India and blogs at talkeconomicstoday.wordpress.com.

 


How did you first become interested in economics?
 
When I first attended an Economics lesson back in my freshman year of high school, I found the subject very intriguing. This was because It was slightly similar to the subject Business Studies which I had been studying for a month & which had become my favourite subject in such a short span of time. Soon, as I got to learn more & attend more Economics lessons, I realised that it is, in fact, different yet as interesting as Business Studies. I understood Economics well & had an aptitude for it. This made me love studying it even more. 

Are there particular books about economics that you've especially enjoyed or learned a lot from?

I’ve learnt everything about Economics from Economics articles, newspapers, blogs but mainly from my textbooks. The first Economics textbook that I read was ‘Cambridge IGCSE Complete Economics’ by Brian Titley. I learnt the basics of Economics from it. Later, In 11th grade, I was introduced to ‘Cambridge International AS & A level Economics Coursebook’ by Susan Grant.

Is there any specific area of economics that you find most intriguing?

Honestly, everything about Economics is intriguing. However, I do enjoy the topics in Macroeconomics (Trade, Balance Of Payments, Inflation, Government intervention etc.) since they can be a little challenging at times.

Prof. Sriya Iyer, who teaches at Cambridge, has recently gained attention for her book on religion and economics in India. Who are some of the best known economists in India?

Amartya Sen is one of the best known economists who has won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Manmohan Singh is another great economist who is also India’s former Prime Minister

Prof. Sarah Smith

Prof. Sarah Smith (Ph.D., University College, London) is head of the Department of Economics at the University of Bristol. Her research focuses on consumer behavior and public economics. She is the co-author of The Economics of Social Problems (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). 



If you were queen for a day and could require all students to read one book in the field of economics, what would it be and why?

Queen Elizabeth II has retained her position for so long by keeping her views to herself. But, in this hypothetical world, I would tell students to read Economics for the Common Good, by Jean Tirole. In contrast to Freakonomics, which popularizes economics by picking on "quirky" applications, Tirole tries to make the breadth of academic economics meaningful to people. It talks about the economics that I believe in--as a way of looking at the world to make it a better place. And it is very eloquently and elegantly written. 

What’s the biggest difference between the way economics is taught in the U.K. and in other countries?

Unlike the US, UK school students not only have to apply to a particular college/ university, they also have to say in advance what they want to study. This means that they choose to study economics—or something else—when they are 16 or 17. At this stage most don't really know what economics is about/ think it's about money and finance (because I haven't been made queen to tell them to read Tirole's book). Many UK universities are embracing the core-econ (www.core-econ.org/) curriculum which introduces economics as a way of understanding the big issues of our time. But unless we reach out to school students, most of them won't really be aware of the breadth of economics. In the UK, economics is mainly studied by men—and also disproportionately attracts students from private schools. We are just beginning to wake up to the need to engage more with local schools.