I have been in your position and the job market for a new PhD can be scary and difficult.
This is especially so when you are not at a school with a top placement record (as you know, HYPS and star candidates can have advisors making calls and setting up offers before the market even starts). It can feel like your life can be very uncertain.
On the other hand, there are many people in a similar position as you and many of them have been very successful and happy in academics and industry.
It is impressive you are thinking ahead and that you deliberately chose an important and relevant subject and are thinking of altruism.
I think I have basic thoughts:
For non-star and non-high ranking people, especially if you end up having 3⁄3 teaching loads (and don’t love teaching), I think your situation favors non-academic positions. In addition to the teaching issue, my guess is that academic success in polisci is very connection and network based, making placement important. Whereas, in “industry”, you can progress in your career and achieve status similar very high candidates, especially if the work is not academic in nature.
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. Also, you should generally favor large orgs where you can get exposed to politics, move around or can take management roles (maybe especially managing research). All this points to a non academic placement.
I certainly could do that. It would drive me toward more crowded fields, particularly development. But competing with lots of other really smart people is playing life on hard mode.
I think because of “career capital” concerns, even if only development has value,, it’s possible that being successful in another position for 3-5 years will make you much more effective and you can circle back. Or maybe you will develop unique insight or connections or access to policy that lets you have influence or support development in some other way. Or maybe your skills will stop WW3.
Overall, it seems implausible that you can be certain you have to choose development now to maximize impact (unless my knowledge or guess is terrible, please correct me).
I think the above advice is generic—you may already know this if you made an EA forum post. If I am wrong, please just correct me and I hope someone else does too.
Usually what I say is right or something (?) but this is EA and I just got heavily corrected by Linch on what I thought was a plausible idea.
Edit: Eh, I saw you posted several times, read 80k hours, etc. I’m pretty sure my message is just noise. Please review and let me know if you think I am wrong, I am interested in learning from you.
Usually what I say is right or something (?) but this is EA and I just got heavily corrected by Linch on what I thought was a plausible idea.
To be clear, I still think what you said there was plausible. I genuinely meant my correction as limited to that subpoint rather than about your comment overall.
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?
I have been in your position and the job market for a new PhD can be scary and difficult.
This is especially so when you are not at a school with a top placement record (as you know, HYPS and star candidates can have advisors making calls and setting up offers before the market even starts). It can feel like your life can be very uncertain.
On the other hand, there are many people in a similar position as you and many of them have been very successful and happy in academics and industry.
It is impressive you are thinking ahead and that you deliberately chose an important and relevant subject and are thinking of altruism.
I think I have basic thoughts:
For non-star and non-high ranking people, especially if you end up having 3⁄3 teaching loads (and don’t love teaching), I think your situation favors non-academic positions. In addition to the teaching issue, my guess is that academic success in polisci is very connection and network based, making placement important. Whereas, in “industry”, you can progress in your career and achieve status similar very high candidates, especially if the work is not academic in nature.
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. Also, you should generally favor large orgs where you can get exposed to politics, move around or can take management roles (maybe especially managing research). All this points to a non academic placement.
I think because of “career capital” concerns, even if only development has value,, it’s possible that being successful in another position for 3-5 years will make you much more effective and you can circle back. Or maybe you will develop unique insight or connections or access to policy that lets you have influence or support development in some other way. Or maybe your skills will stop WW3.
Overall, it seems implausible that you can be certain you have to choose development now to maximize impact (unless my knowledge or guess is terrible, please correct me).
I think the above advice is generic—you may already know this if you made an EA forum post. If I am wrong, please just correct me and I hope someone else does too.
Usually what I say is right or something (?) but this is EA and I just got heavily corrected by Linch on what I thought was a plausible idea.
Edit: Eh, I saw you posted several times, read 80k hours, etc. I’m pretty sure my message is just noise. Please review and let me know if you think I am wrong, I am interested in learning from you.
To be clear, I still think what you said there was plausible. I genuinely meant my correction as limited to that subpoint rather than about your comment overall.
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.