Re: OK, so
Dean,
Having chatted with you on this before, my advice (or lack thereof) is similar. It's an extremely difficult decision given what you've said and IMO either way you'll probably be fine. Obviously the decisions has pretty serious consequences but I think going the business route and the Chicago route will both lead to good outcomes for you in the future.
Here are in my opinion the major benefits of going to grad school:
- while you haven't described it, it would seem that your business idea could wait. Chicago probably won't. That it's the [censored] University of Chicago econ program means that they don't particularly care if you go or not. If you go that's fine with them, if you don't they'll just let someone else in or not even bother. You have your foot in the door now and that you didn't get initial funding IMO indicates that you probably don't have a lot of pull as far as deferring. As Econophile pointed out above, Levitt is far from the biggest name there in terms of clout despite being the biggest name there in terms of people my mom may have heard of. So basically, if you don't go now you are quite likely closing the Ph.D. door.
- Others have mentioned this above as have I before. Getting a Ph.D. in Economics at the U of C is going to help a lot in terms of opening doors and not only in terms of connections but how much more sellable you and your ideas will be later. If you at some point need investors for your business venture, I think having a Ph.D. will be beneficial. Also, if you go home the University of Chicago is one of the small handful of schools that is well known there I would assume. All else being equal people are more likely to throw money to a Ph.D. economist than some poker player with the equivalent of a bachelors degree. It may or may not be fair or correct, but that's how it is.
Grad school downsides:
- You don't really seem like your heart is in it. I can't remember the exact quote but you once said something to me about how a lot of economists just make little models to jerk themselves off. This is fine, and I have both thought this before and no doubt will in the future, but it's the kind of stuff frustrated grad students tend to say and not excited soon to be grad students. The first year really is crushing. It's hard to describe really, but it [censored] sucks. I can't imagine getting through that part alone if you aren't excited, and I mean really excited, about the idea of doing research and becoming an economist. That's ignoring the difficulty of making it and any susceptibility you have toward depression.
- On a related note, there is a reasonable chance you will fail out. Chicago is renowned for having a brutal program. The standard line is that at most top schools it is extremely difficult to get in and difficult to fail out once you get there (would be curious to hear the thoughts of those who made it out of such programs) but that's not the case at Chicago. You are going to be up against people who are as smart as you, work harder than you, and want it more than you will. You are going to study stuff that you think doesn't matter, you will ignore once the qualifying exams are over, and that you think isn't even economics. In my program I was smarter than the other students in my class, but they were more successful and had a much easier time because while they worked hard and had good study habits I was lazy and didn't know what I was doing when I did put in work. If they were as smart as me and my program were designed to fail people as is the case at Chicago, I wouldn't have stood a chance without a huge shift in work ethic. Someone mentioned above that you could fail out as in get nothing for your efforts except a letter asking you not to come back.
I may have more thoughts later, but as I said I think it's close.
|