Survey responses from Ph.D. graduates and thesis advisors are used to estimate the time required for the class of 2001-02 to earn a degree. Median time to earn the Ph.D. is 5.5 years, up from 5.25 years for the class of 1996-97. The time required to write a dissertation is a little longer than the time required to complete comprehensive examinations and coursework. Graduates who had their first child while in a Ph.D. program are estimated to finish almost one year later than others. Those with predominantly fellowship support finished about six months faster than those funded predominantly by a teaching assistantship, as did those whose dissertation was a set of essays rather than a single topic treatise. Americans who did their undergraduate work at either a Top-50 U.S. liberal arts or other U.S. college or university that does not offer a Ph.D. in economics finished faster than their counterparts who earned a bachelor’s degree from a U.S. university that offers a Ph.D. in economics. International students from predominantly English speaking countries finished faster than other students studying in the U.S. on temporary visas.

A period of malaise in the mid-1990s led to a contraction in enrollment at many economics Ph.D. programs. The resulting reduction in the supply of new Ph.D. economists, combined with a smaller contraction in demand for new Ph.D. economists, generated, as the Wall Street Journal reported, a "hot pursuit " for some economics Ph.D.s, with "even low-level candidates [being] treated like big shots " (Jon E. Hilsenrath, 2001, p. B1). As might be expected, the scarcity of new economics Ph.D.s that materialized at the end of the decade appears to have induced more enrollments in economics Ph.D. programs, with annual matriculations rising by about 25 percent between Fall 1998 and Fall 2002 (Charles E. Scott and John J. Siegfried, 1999-2003). Predictions for the current job market are mixed. On the one hand, demand may expand as some academic departments whose hiring had been constrained by financial exigency return to active recruiting (Jennifer Jacobson, 2003). On the other hand, the aftermath of the recession continues to limit some public university budgets at the same time that the supply of new economics Ph.D.s may start to expand, resulting in a job market for American Ph.D.s that The Economist describes as “bleak ” (“Unemployment Forecast, ” 2003, p. 60). Five years ago we reported the results of a comprehensive survey of the labor market for economics Ph.D.s graduating in 1996-97 (Siegfried and Wendy A. Stock, 1999). In contrast to other social science and science disciplines, most economists who graduated with a doctorate in 1996-97 found full-time career-tracking jobs that paid well (those in permanent full-time jobs in the U.S. earned an average starting salary of $61,000). Many of those employed in business and industry, however, were not satisfied with their jobs despite receiving a significant salary premium relative to academics. 1 Here we report results from a new survey of the class of economics Ph.D.s graduating in 2001-02. This information should be of interest to current and prospective Ph.D. students, of use to advisors of undergraduates considering graduate study in economics, and of assistance to faculty concerned with the employment prospects of applicants they admit to their doctoral programs. For methodological details consult our earlier report (Siegfried and Stock, 1999).

The types of knowledge, skills, and proficiencies that should be imparted to students in graduate economics programs are a matter of long-standing controversy. A 1953 American Economic Association (AEA) report cataloged major shortcomings in graduate economic education and recommended changes to enhance the quality and effectiveness of economics Ph.D. programs (Howard R. Bowen, 1953). By the 1980’s, the perception grew that economics Ph.D. programs devoted excessive attention to theoretical work at the expense of real-world application (Wassily Leontief, 1982). This development triggered David Colander and Arjo Klamer (1987) to conduct an independent study based on interviews with graduate students at elite Ph.D. programs. Their study reinforced the views of many, including leaders in the AEA, the National Science Foundation, and several private foundations, that something was amiss. In 1988, the AEA established the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics (COGEE) to undertake a thorough study of graduate training. The Commission’s major concern, based on extensive surveys and interviews of graduate students, faculty, and employers, was that graduate education in economics had removed itself from real-world economic problems (Anne O. Krueger et al., 1991). The COGEE study is distinguished by its attempt to determine the emphasis given to cultivating a set of economic proficiencies in graduate school and the importance of an array of skills for success in graduate school and later on the job (Hansen, 1991). The proficiencies included in the COGEE study were: providing rigorous training in economic theory, providing training in econometrics and measurement, applying theory to real-world problems, using economic theory in empirical applications, and conducting independent economic research. For this study, we added three proficiencies to the COGEE list: understanding economic institutions and history and understanding the history of economic ideas, to capture concerns about curriculum changes that eliminated or scaled back training in these two fields, and developing teaching skills, to reflect recent emphasis on improving the quality of instruction (William E. Becker, 2003). The skills included in the COGEE study were: critical judgment (analyzing ideas, reviewing literature, formulating pertinent comments), analytics (understanding and solving problems, making and analyzing logical arguments), application (seeing practical implications of abstract ideas, analyzing real-world policies and processes), mathematics (constructing and analyzing proofs, manipulating mathematical abstractions), computation (effectively and quickly finding and manipulating relevant data, estimating economic relationships using statistical software), communication (speaking and writing effectively, quickly understanding spoken and written ideas of others, explaining ideas clearly), and creativity (conceiving interesting questions, finding new means of analysis). We added instruction (being an effective classroom teacher) to the skills list for the same reason mentioned above.

Matriculation in U.S. Economics Ph.D. Programs: How Many Accepted Americans Do Not Enroll? by T. Aldrich Finegan, Wendy A. Stock and John J. Siegfried. Published in volume 96, issue 2, pages 453-457 of American Economic Review, May 2006

In Lazear's model of long‐term incentive contracts, age discrimina‐tion laws barring age‐ based involuntary terminations preclude such contracts, reducing efficiency. Alternatively, such laws may serve as precommitment devices for these contracts, without pre‐venting firms from offering strong financial incentives to induce retirement at specific ages. In this case, age discrimination laws may encourage Lazear contracts, hence increasing efficiency. We assess evidence on these alternative interpretations using variation in state and federal age discrimination laws. The evidence indicates that age discrimination laws steepen age‐earnings profiles for co‐horts entering the labor market, suggesting that these laws encour‐age the use of Lazear contracts.