Thanks for the comment, I’m just talking through things and appreciate the feedback.
In EA speak, I think “career capital” should be your goal. As an early grad, your PhD and skills have low direct value. You should choose either a personally interesting or high status/opportunity position.
I actually disagree with this. Firstly, those are actually pretty good skills. But secondly, I don’t think PhD’s have low direct value. Obviously most people’s PhD’s have 0 direct value, but that’s because people don’t select their areas strategically at all.
There’s a two-way matching problem here. I would like to exchange a detailed study done well on an issue for a career. And lots of institutions would like to hire someone who has studied their issues for the information and for the signalling value (only a good hire could understand the issue so well). I’ve already done this with my first paper that got me the consulting gig.
The thing is, few industries are going out looking for PhD students. The WB does, but the CIA, State Department, political risk consultants, none of them are doing that. So you need to input the effort to solve the two-way matching problem by finding them and credibly signaling your value. That’s not something most PhD students do at all. But I live in DC, and I’m good at networking so I can do that.
Additionally, everyone is seeking “career capital”. The hunt for “career capital” is super crowded and exhausting. Trying to actually do things is easier.
I actually disagree with this...I don’t think PhD’s have low direct value. Obviously most people’s PhD’s have 0 direct value, but that’s because people don’t select their areas strategically at all.
And lots of institutions would like to hire someone who has studied their issues for the information and for the signalling value (only a good hire could understand the issue so well). I’ve already done this with my first paper that got me the consulting gig.
I meant to say that new PhDs have low direct value, not that PhDs have low direct value.
Additionally, everyone is seeking “career capital”. The hunt for “career capital” is super crowded and exhausting. Trying to actually do things is easier.
I think I may have used career capital wrong? I guess I just meant ability in “getting good”, this usually comes from experience?
Thanks for the comment, I’m just talking through things and appreciate the feedback.
I actually disagree with this. Firstly, those are actually pretty good skills. But secondly, I don’t think PhD’s have low direct value. Obviously most people’s PhD’s have 0 direct value, but that’s because people don’t select their areas strategically at all.
There’s a two-way matching problem here. I would like to exchange a detailed study done well on an issue for a career. And lots of institutions would like to hire someone who has studied their issues for the information and for the signalling value (only a good hire could understand the issue so well). I’ve already done this with my first paper that got me the consulting gig.
The thing is, few industries are going out looking for PhD students. The WB does, but the CIA, State Department, political risk consultants, none of them are doing that. So you need to input the effort to solve the two-way matching problem by finding them and credibly signaling your value. That’s not something most PhD students do at all. But I live in DC, and I’m good at networking so I can do that.
Additionally, everyone is seeking “career capital”. The hunt for “career capital” is super crowded and exhausting. Trying to actually do things is easier.
I meant to say that new PhDs have low direct value, not that PhDs have low direct value.
I think I may have used career capital wrong? I guess I just meant ability in “getting good”, this usually comes from experience?
Ah, I see. I’m mixing up career capital and status actually.