http://chrisblattman.com/2008/03/01/which-is-for-you-mpa-mpaid-or-phd/ 转载文章。

Students often ask me about the MPA/ID program at Harvard’s Kennedy School, a course I completed about six years ago, before going on to do an economics PhD. (For those who are unfamiliar, the program is similar to a standard Master’s in Public Administration, but with a heavy emphasis on international development–hence the “ID”–and on advanced economic analysis.)

The most common question I receive is “should I do the ID program?”– a question that is usually shorthand for: “Is it better than an MPA?”, “Is the math too hard?” and “Is it a substitute for a PhD in economics?”

I polled some classmates, and jot down their thoughts (and mine) below. A number of more recent IDs read this blog, and I encourage them to comment as well.

The short story: whether an ID-focused program is right for you depends largely on you. The ID is probably ideal if you want to work in a large development institution, but still very good if you plan to work in another field of development. If you don’t get in, or you fear the math, don’t despair; it is a simple thing to create your own ID program at whatever graduate school you land. I have many, many friends who did an MPA at Harvard or elsewhere who are doing incredible work.

Is it a substitute for a PhD? Not if you want to be a researcher, in my opinion. But for a professional career in international development the ID is probably the superior option. Should you consider doing the ID program before a PhD? Yes but mostly no, a point I return to at the end (and also discuss here).

First, let me summarize a number of the pros and cons of Harvard’s ID program. Let’s start with the (copious) pros:

• Job placement has been outstanding, especially if you are interested in working for one of the IFIs (international financial institutions like the World Bank or IADB). The ID brand is exceptionally strong there. I think this is a reflection of great screening and selection of students, but also a superb network and a terrific environment and teaching.
• The class is likely to be more diverse and international than any other program you will find. The new perspectives this offered in and out of the classroom were real and meaningful.
• Your professors are in this game because they care about changing the world. A lot. Most academics are passionate and generous people. The MPA/ID faculty devote their lives to making better policy for poor people, and seldom lose focus of that.
• Your professors are well-informed, opinionated, influential, funny, and contrary. They will challenge orthodoxies and make you think differently than when you came in the door. That is why the program is not simply a screening device for prospective employers.
• You will be pushed intellectually in a way that my friends in MPA programs were not. An MPA may push you in other ways, but the ID program was undoubtedly more intellectually intense and intimidating, primarily because of the economic theory. (Note that this is not universally agreed upon as a pro.)
• A classmate who later attended a PhD at another Ivy lamented the absence of other professional schools there. One of the advantages of Harvard is the presence of a public health, business, law and education school with superb courses. Another classmate was most pleased to have access to faculty at Harvard and MIT, and also Tufts, BU, BC, …
• From a classmate now working in private finance, “I feel very comfortable in gliding between hardcore finance and public policy and sometimes the line dividing them is very fine, and those are the times when you value your MPA/ID lessons. I guess once my international workload picks up, where institutions cannot be taken for granted, MPA/ID learning would prove invaluable. I may not remember the maths but ideas are still very fresh in my mind.”
• The Kennedy school has a non-stop set of prominent speakers, often every day. I saw 25 current or former heads of state speak in my first year alone. Of course, you get to enjoy this from every program.
• One classmate suggests that the program is a superb entry point into the international development world and the US job market for anyone coming from overseas, especially because of the high proportion of non-Americans in the class.
• Program Director Carol Finney will become your second mom.
• From another classmate, my favorite pro: “To find a brilliant spouse.” I think you could probably do that from an MPA, of course. And I found my brilliant spouse in the slowest Internet cafe in Nairobi, which goes to show you just can’t plan these things.

Now, some cons I’ve experienced or heard from classmates (sorry, Carol!):

• From a classmate now working in the humanitarian field, the program really doesn’t prepare you for fieldwork and grassroots development work (prepare even in the theoretical sense–naturally you will only get field experience in the field). This lack of micro focus was my experience as well. At least at the time I was there, the faculty was dominated by eminent development macroeconomists, and there were few field economists doing applied micro work. Thus when I arrived at Berkeley I knew little about microeconomic development–a field that would later become my life and love. The applied micro focus may be better now, especially with people like Rohini Pande around, but I’d like to hear from more recent IDs on this point.
• There appears to be less placement into the US government, UN, and humanitarian agencies, and the network feels smaller there. I’m told the ID “brand name” has not carried that far, even within USAID and MCC. There is a beeline to the IFIs, however.
• If you don’t want or need PhD-level economic theory, then maybe you don’t want or need PhD-level economic theory. An MPA might be a better choice. I have a close friend who created her own ID-focused MPA, with a foreign policy and aid focus, and is now quite senior at the State Department. But (as someone noted in the pros) you may find the math is good for you in the long run.
• You have almost no course flexibility in the first year, and it is not until your second year that you can branch out and begin meeting non-ID people, even at the Kennedy School. This was my experience, and I’m an extrovert by nature.
• The career services group seems to be universally derided. I have no personal experience with it, however, since I went straight into academia.
• Another classmate reminds me that the program was expensive. Some other schools (e.g. Woodrow Wilson at Princeton) are essentially free for the majority of students. I still have Cdnk in debt, for instance, which is no small burden (and I had a half-scholarship). I just try not to think about it, especially since I now earn US dollars and the Canadian dollar has appreciated almost 50 percent since I borrowed. Is it selfish and impersonal for me to secretly hope that Canada’s natural resources and industry dry up in the next year?
• It’s not yet clear if there is a glass ceiling for IDs in professional economics positions, especially where PhDs have historically dominated. In World Bank operational jobs, my sense is that there is no ceiling so far, and in fact IDs have been doing exceptionally well. In more research-y jobs (think impact evaluation or tasks requiring advanced statistical analysis) I think the glass ceiling has already become clear in a handful of places. A couple of friends have bumped their heads against that ceiling already. But these jobs are probably a very small fraction of the total. Outside the professional research positions, I think an ID will get you further ahead than behind.

Now, to the PhD questions. Is the ID a substitute for a PhD? A precursor? My answer is weakly “no” to both points, but it is better if I explain.

The best reason to get a PhD is if you want to be a professional researcher. Some would go even further, and say that a PhD is appropriate only if you want to take a position as an assistant professor. Dani Rodrik has blogged this opinion (and he is the Director of the ID program). My sense, however, is that a PhD is also right for people who want to do institutional research as well–statistics for the World Bank or census bureaus, impact evaluation for MCC or the Poverty Action Lab, and probably senior macroeconomic policy at places like the Fed or IMF.

Is the course work similar? The microeconomic and macroeconomic course sequence were very close to what I covered in the PhD program at Berkeley (although the general equilibrium training was weak the year I did the ID). In contrast, the PhD econometrics coursework was orders of magnitude more advanced. If your goal is applied statistical analysis, a PhD may be a better option.

For all other development careers, I would endorse the ID program with gusto. Yes, a PhD program has its benefits, but the opportunity cost in terms of alternative experience (and foregone earnings!) is enormous. A PhD makes you a one-trick pony. An MPA or MPA/ID plus three or four years of work experience makes you a handy jack of all development trades.

Should you do both? That’s what I did, and that’s what Dani did too. Many of my classmates have gone on to PhDs as well. In general, however, if you are pretty sure you want to do research and you can get into a top PhD program, then go straight there. An MPA or ID will be a pleasant detour, and will inform your work and research, but better just to get the PhD done. Fast.

If you hesitate between practice and research, an MPA or ID program is terrific. It helped me, Dani, and many others sort out our priorities. The program also gave me the breadth and field experience that was of great benefit in my own PhD (although it meant I was the old man of the class). In my case, it also gave me the training and credibility I needed to get into a top PhD (although I could have done that with an economics MA, I suppose).

If you do go the PhD direction, see my post on how to get a PhD and save the world.

Former IDers: comment away. This will be a much more helpful post to future inquisitors if you applaud me, harass me, or tell your story and experience.

================

UPDATE: Marshall Jevons (that can’t be his real name) lists other excellent ID programs.

Also, Dani responds here. As I hoped, he notes that the ID program’s focus on micro development has increased.

And as for whether long posts are good for my career, well, everyone needs a hobby. I do appreciate the concern, and it might be warranted. I’ll make my the-blog-is-not-a-career-death-move-and-might-even-help-tenure argument another time. The short answer: every single thing I’ve ever done in academia that people have liked has begun with conventional economists (Dani is not one of these) telling me it’s not a smart move. I like to follow my instincts and, as I mentioned above, do what I love. It’s an experiment. I’ll let you know how it works out in, oh, about seven years.

Hopefully on this blog.


-
前后照应一下：上文转载自网络。

　　学科介绍：

　　国际关系属于一门比较理论化的专业，但是如果学习的人真的感兴趣，还是可以有所作为的。之所以所国际关系是理论化的专业，是因为现代国际关系主要是朝理论化发展，最发达是美国，中国现在的学习方法和研究方向正在逐渐向美国靠拢。
比如美国最新的著作，我曾经师从于的现实主义学派的大儒，John Mearsheimer（约翰米而斯海默）的著作《大国政治的悲剧》在美国上市没有多久就在北大等学府作为教材了。

　　现代国际关系学对于理论的研究对学生体系性的思维非常有帮助，比如现实注意，架构主义等都是按照基本的假设设置模型，并用现实的事例和史实来进行分析、验证。细分来看，国际关系研究很多国家之间的关系，包括但是不限于经济关系、战略安全、法律、贸易等等。研究方向不同，导师不同，收获自然不同。我没有读完博士，混了个硕士就回国了，主要是对国际关系的学术不是很感兴趣。所以我只能是管中窥见豹吧，谈谈我的一些肤浅的理解。

　　我是芝加哥大学当年唯一一名录取的，有奖学金读国际关系的大陆学生，我所研究的是国际安全，导师是美国五角大楼的前安全顾问，毕业于哈佛肯尼迪政治学院的Charles Glaser。他给我最大的收获有几点，也改变了我从前在国内对于国际关系的看法：

　　1． 国际关系是一门有用但是局限性非常大的学科。从国家利益最大化的角度来看，国际关系可以通过对历史的检验，使用交叉科学的方法，进行分析归纳，提出非常合理的政策建议。比如，美国的战区防御导弹系统TMD（Theater Missile Defense）System对中国的影响和中国、俄罗斯的对策，需要从运筹学，投资回报比，概率，博弈论等多方面角度进行分析。它的趣味性是非常强的，对于多学科能力的交叉使用要求也是比较高的。

　　2． 它的局限性在于，你提出的政策再有用，国家采取政策是政党、政客等很多利益博弈之后的结果，比如布什采取贸易制裁中国对美国不利，但是对自己竞选有利，他就会采取，也就是说政策分析如果不对国家领导的胃口是没有用的。但是如果学者为了迎合政策来发表见解，那是一件非常可耻的事情，美国的学术界一般不会这样做。

　　3． 如果感兴趣，国际关系必须读研究生，本科生什么都学不到。国际关系必须到世界顶尖的学府，比如芝加哥、哥伦比亚大学来学习，现代国际关系理论的开山之作Theory of International Relations的作者Kenneth Waltz是业内都知道的大师，他健在，还在哥伦比亚，有什么能比亲自聆听他的教诲更加有帮助呢？国内的国际关系发展比起美国还是有差距的，不说别的，可以用英文标准地说出并且拼写出山本五十六、东帝汶、墨索里尼这三个名字的学者在中国就没有几个了，其他就不用说了。

　　4． 国际关系是一门在美国、中国都不容易学有所用的专业。我的同学有的进入华盛顿的思想库，有的进了大公司，还有一个美国人Sean在中国作生意，和我都在北京，每次见面的时候还经常点评国际形式，作为酒桌的谈资。国际关系可以锻炼你的思维，但是一个海龟想在中国的外交部门得到重用，我个人感觉不大可能，因为海龟只是理论还可以，实务不行。此外，在中国政府工作，考察的非学术因素也比较多。那么你在美国要就业的话，他们咨询师更喜欢用美国人。

　　5． 国际关系的研究需要博古通今，需要强烈的兴趣。我不想做教授，也不想给美国人当政策顾问，估计回中国当政策顾问的几率也不太大，所以就想从商了。

　　个人感想：关于出国、赚钱、创业

　　我出国之前，大学三年级就在新东方学校上课赚钱了，算是见过一些世面，生活也算小资。出国主要是想见识见识美国什么样子，否则天天给学生讲美国，自己都没有去过，太土了。
来芝加哥大学读研究生院确实让我接触到了世界商最牛的老师和学生，芝加哥是美国出产诺贝尔奖最多的学校，让我学会了理性的思维，让我知道了什么是真正的学术。

　　读研究生院是一项很辛苦的事情，熬夜是正常的现象，来自优秀的同学的压力也是非常大的，我的成绩一直非常好，我写的论文被部门主任叫去谈话，怀疑不是我自己写的，因为语言太流畅了。这个不是自己吹牛，真的是自己英文功底太强了，回国考了一个GMAT（美国商学院）入学考试，不仅总分非常高，写作是满分6分，全世界只有3％的人可以达到这个分数，绝大多数美国人都不行。我的美国同学也说我写作是genius（天才）。但是读研究生院，我发现自己的投入和产出不成比例，我花了大量时间写出的论文，老师可能十分钟看看，给个分就扔在一边了。我始终认为自己的聪明才智可以在现实生活中产生更大的回报，我拒绝了康乃尔大学法学院录取和继续读博士的机会，回国创业。我不想看到自己未来10年的道路，所以我选择挑战。芝加哥的一个老大哥，杜景涛给了我很多的鼓励，我们就一起回国了。

　　在美国我看见了和中国同样的现实，我看到了资源只有投入到投资回报比最大的地方才会有最大的收获。比尔?盖茨如果不从哈佛辍学，我么可能没有Windows用，Jim Clark如果不从斯坦福放弃教授的职位，就不会有网景公司和硅谷图画公司。

　　“出国不过是一种选择”，它即非成功的充分条件，也非必要条件。出国读书，只是增加了我们的部分人力资本，但是我们学得越深、越专，失去得机会成本也就越大，将来的范围反而越小。为什么读书越多反而越赚不到钱？因为我们一辈子在学习，准备为别人打工，作个更加、更加高级的打工。我们在学习如何从高级工人变成工程师，从兵变成将，而不是成为帅才。等绝大多数人Ph.D.（博士）毕业的时候，中国最好的机会可能他们已经错过了，暴利的行业已经不容你们进入了，可能作个中产阶级就满足吧。

　　从芝加哥回国后，我的校友们给了我很大的帮助，尤其是芝加哥商学院主席杜景涛，他对我的影响最大，他有一次给我说，你看国内那么多土人都赚钱，我们在美国憋着干什么？给别人打工，一辈子坐不了奔驰600。其实赚钱已经不是我们的首要目的了，我们真正想的是为社会作出更大的贡献。感谢芝加哥，感谢老杜，给我洗脑，让我学会思考。

　　芝加哥的背景让我回国有机会接触了一批非常优秀的人，从“海龟”到没有出国读书的人，我发现我回国学到的东西更多、更宝贵。这些人的帮助，加上我的背景和能力，我有了一种横扫千军的霸气和能力。我写的任何一本书，在其相关领域都是水平最高的，也是最畅销的。很简单，比如说《挑战托福作文满分》，我自己是GMAT考试写作满分（那个考试比托福难多了），芝加哥的硕士，我知道中国学生差距在哪里，我把美国最先进的学习方法引进中国，重金聘请哈佛、弗吉尼亚的教授修改中国学生的文章。这本书肯定是新东方最好的托福作文，也是中国最好的托福作文教材。再比如，留美申请，我成立的Hi All团队，两年时间向美国哈佛、斯坦福等前50名的学校送去了一百多名全奖的中国学生，《留美申请白皮书》收录了他们的真实案例，也就难怪成为畅销书了。我自己考了GMAT（美国商学院入学考试），LSAT（美国法学院入学考试），成绩都很不错，但是我反而不着急读书了，因为我现在有一种前所未有的充实感和快乐，看到我们的出版和培训蒸蒸日上，我对社会做成的贡献和自己所得到的回报都是非常大的。

　　国际关系给了我很强的研究能力和分析问题的能力，还有对事务的敏感性，虽然我最后没有从事相关的直接相关的工作。我的建议是，有兴趣的同学如果要出国，一定要把综合能力提高，大学成绩非常重要，英语就更不用说了。国关虽然不如会计、统计实用，但是它带给你的可能是一种潜移默化的理性思维，分析问题的深度和全面性。这个专业还有很多发展空间，就读与中国相关的名校对出国是非常有帮助的。希望学习国际关系的同学都梦想成真，学有所成。

Search

Political Science Specialty Rankings: International Politics

Ranked in

Political Science Specialty Rankings: Comparative Politics

Ranked in