More on being lazy and smart and being a fair but not extreme success

[JaredL]

So after writing all this it occurs to me that it's quite long. Not sure everyone will read it, but I'm sure at least a few will find something interesting. If it's too bloggy feel free to lock it. I've done a bit of cliffs notes at the bottom. If you don't care to read about me, please just read my points at the bottom.

Reading Anacardo's thread was eye-opening for a number of reasons, some of which I won't get into.

Like many of you, I'm the smart and lazy type. It seems that these types are hugely overrepresented here. Let me describe myself, I'm sure many of you will sit there nodding.

In high school, I took all the AP courses the school offered. I especially excelled in math. I honestly don't recall ever doing homework except for things like the odd 5-10 page paper that was due every once in a while. I didn't work hard at all and got the good but far from great 3.57 GPA. That I remember my high school GPA to two digits and am 27 years old is probably strange and possibly relevant.

I went to undergrad at the University of Oregon, which is not particularly good or bad, standard state school. I planned on teaching math and spanish so I became a Math and Spanish double major. I started in math by taking honors calc, a course which started with 20-25 students but by the time the third term rolled around there were 7-8 of us. In that class I got a B,B-,B+ in the three terms. That kind of sums up my life. Anyway, I went to Spain my second year (all 24 others that got accepted were 3rd year or above) and had a kick-ass experience. When I got back I kept going in Math and Spanish.

In math, I did ok, but far from really well. For example, my third year I took linear algebra. It was a basic intro to LA class like you'll see at every school. Before taking this I'd taken multivariable calc, and difeqs so I already had had a solid intro to linear algebra. There was some new stuff but it was easily one of the 4 or 5 easiest classes I took during undergrad. I got a C+. Basically for other classes, I took hard classes that were mostly undergrad and grad courses - Topology, Analysis, linear algebra out of Hoffman and Kunze. I got through these classes with anywhere from A- to C+. Tha basically means I was able to keep up with them, but didn't really excel at all. I didn't put in much work, mainly cramming for exams. Essentially, I got mediocre grades putting in not a lot of time in classes that most students would fail with any level of effort. The analysis professor to this day tells people this story about me. I went into his office at the beginning of the term. This was the term before my (Econ) grad school apps went out (see below) so basically I wanted to take his course, but not if I would get really screwed by getting a really bad grade. In other words, I would be happy with a C or better. I ended up getting a C+. He's been a prof for a while and had many students go into his office telling him that they are hoping for a C. I'm the only one that ever actually got the C.

In Spanish I did very well usually getting an A or A- despite never doing the reading. Having learned Spanish well in Spain ([censored] me do I ever suck at it now) I benefitted from both speaking and writing better as well as just being more outgoing and willing to speak up in class which the professors always like. Often in class it would be very obvious what was going on in the story and what the answer to the question was just by the discussion in class and for most students, especially those struggling with the language, I was better able to answer their questions having not read the text than they could having read it. I was basically never the top student in these classes, but nearly always 2nd or 3rd best.

My third year I took an intro to econ class to meet a general ed requirement. I got an easy A and became interested in game theory which was introduced via the prisoners' dilemma. I went on to take further classes and study more. I destroyed all the micro classes with no effort and admittedly struggled in macro and econometrics. I finished out the major, becoming a triple-majorr, and decided to go to grad school in economics.

My application was a strange one. My GPA was 3.30, B+ basically, which was not good at all. It pretty much eliminated me automatically from the big programs in the top 10. My GRE was good as the I got an 800 on the math which most all good applicants do. I also had taken a lot more math than the vast majority of applicants even at the top schools. However, my grades in these courses, as mentioned above, were less than stellar. I applied to 9 schools, for those that know and/or care they were Michigan, Duke, CMU, Cal Tech, Virginia, Texas Austin, Wisconsin, Maryland and Pitt. I got outright rejected from Michigan and Maryland, got on the waiting list for admission (and then rejected) from Duke, CMU, and Cal Tech. I got in without funding to Virginia, Texas, and Wisconsin. I got in with funding only to Pitt. Pitt btw is easily the lowest ranked of the above. Michigan, Cal Tech and Wisconsin I believe are in the 5-10 range, and the other schools are I believe in the lower end of the top 25 or a bit below. Pitt ranks in the mid 40s or so, but it varies wildly in any given ranking because it used to be a program ranked 10-15. So again, I got into a decent school, but not one that you would call great.

One cliche about grad school is that people [censored] their pants because they were top students as undergrads but then again everyone else in grad school was too, so they have trouble adjusting when others are at their level or even higher. I heard this and I expected it, but it was far from the case. Part of this is that I came from math classes with friends of mine many of whom have become successful grad students just finishing up their PhDs in math. I mainly looked around at my classmates thinking "How the [censored] did these idiots get into grad school?" Classes came around and it was pretty clear how. They all study quite well, much better than I do. For example, the day of an exam for class A, in class B it would be clear that some of them had done the reading whereas I basically never did the reading and was blown away that not only had they done it but they had done it the day or two before an exam from a different class. In other words, they were organized and spaced their studying out, which is a concept I've yet to grasp. The day topics were introduced in classes they would ask horrendously obvious questions and would in general not get the material. By exam time they understood it quite well. In contrast I usually got stuff fairly well or very well the first time, and homework and a bit of cramming brought my understanding up a bit. That really hurt me in econometrics and to a lesser extent macro where my initial understanding was much lower than in micro. In any case, I got through the classes and comprehensive exams as clearly the top micro student in my class, and just doing enough to scrape by in macro.

The comprehensive (some call them Preliminary) exams take place in June and August of one's first year. Students generally study for them for weeks. When people fail the first try for example, they often work 5-10 hours a day the whole time from the couple weeks after the first exam until the second. Our department allows for a third attempt the following year if you fail only one of them twice. I studied a total of about 15 hours for Micro and a bit more for macro. I got the top score in micro and failed macro. The retake was similar, I barely studied for it and solidly failed. My thought process was that I hated macro and would try to get lucky on the questions and pass without studying. For micro I did not get lucky to pass btw. The next year I studied a lot and passed.

Currently, I am a fourth year grad student. The norm for finishing in Econ is 5 years. Many go in 4 and it is better to do so, but many also go in 6 or 7. I am working on two papers, both which seem quite promising and professors seem pretty excited about. Perception of me in the department is that I'm smart, but don't take it seriously enough and am not good enough at finishing projects (one of the projects I've had since my second year but have yet to run the experiment). I basically agree with this perception. It is pretty clear that when we go on the market next year, I won't be the top person from my school despite most probably agreeing that I have the most potential.

Cliff's Notes: High School - good but not great results with no effort whatsoever. Undergrad - similar. Ended up applying to grad school with a very mixed application. Got in to an ok but not great school as well as some quite good schools without funding. Grad School - similar, I've gotten through without working very hard and done ok. I am viewed as smart and lazy which is certainly not good. When I go on the market, if things don't change, I expect to do ok but not great for someone at my school. This is very bad news since people from my program haven't done all that well other than the top person every year.

So in writing this post, I've actually somewhat gone away from my initial intent as the post has increased in length. Here are some questions/issues I have:

1. (this was the initial question I had in mind) What draws people like me, there are many of you out there, to poker and message boards like this one? It seems that people like us are hugely overrepresented.

2. What can people like me do to stop the cycle? Thinking of it the only way I really can anymore, from a behavioral economics perspective, I think part of it is that I've always done well enough. That is, I've never gotten a huge failure. For example, had I gotten rejected from everywhere in the applications my behavior may have changed, or at least I would have been more introspective and tried to work on some things. Basically, I want to do something about the problem before it all comes crashing down.

3. Quite related to 2, but something I find is that I hugely overanalyze things. For example, one thing that works well for others is to say to themselves "OK I'll work until at least 10, then go have fun." I try it and it works for a VERY short period of time and then I think to myself "10 is pretty damn arbitrary cutoff that means nothing, it's only 8:30 but [censored] it I can stop now." In other words setting arbitrary goals doesn't seem to work because in my head they are arbitrary and don't matter. Not sure what to do about this as my ability to analyze a variety of things is one of my strengths. Also, this has gotten much worse since I started grad school.

4. I think this is very related to the whole thing, but as some of you know, I'm quite overweight. It's amazing to see pictures of me from when I got back from Spain to now becuase I was so much smaller then. My weight pattern is basically that I maintain my weight for an extended period and then for a period it goes up do to poor eating. In general I have trouble starting and especially continuing with any diet plan. I should really learn to cook as well as I don't do it much at all, my wife doesn't all that much especially as she stays quite busy with work.

5. The limon hypothesis (you're not lazy, you're a coward) really hit home for me. I think that this is correct. None the less, I'm not really sure what to do about it. I'm irrationally afraid of two things - heights and large dogs I don't know. I pretty much instantly freeze up when I see a big dog on the street and when I'm say on the roof of a house I'm scared shitless and get clammy and that feeling in the pit of my stomach and my legs get wobbly. In other words, I know I have this problem, what can I really do about it? I have yet to solve my phobia of dogs and heights and it's far from clear how I'm to conquer those fears. My fear of finding out how good I really am seems tougher than these to crack.

Congrats for making it all the way to the end, you're a trooper. Any thoughts appreciated.

Jared