OK, so

[defixated]

Sorry, I just reread the OP and realized that I wrote a lot of stuff you already know. Here's the important part imo:

[ QUOTE ]
Basically my natural bent in life leads down a path that I don't want to, and I'm looking not to end up like people I pity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you pity? Who do you admire? While I thought that many of the profs at Chicago were brilliant (Lucas, Sargent, Scheinkman), and some in the same set seemed genuinely happy and kind, I didn't actually want to be like them/do what they did. Part of graduate school is something like discipleship. Is there anyone (anywhere) you see now that you would like to emulate?

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I just reread the OP and realized that I wrote a lot of stuff you already know. Here's the important part imo:

[ QUOTE ]
Basically my natural bent in life leads down a path that I don't want to, and I'm looking not to end up like people I pity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you pity? Who do you admire? While I thought that many of the profs at Chicago were brilliant (Lucas, Sargent, Scheinkman), and some in the same set seemed genuinely happy and kind, I didn't actually want to be like them/do what they did. Part of graduate school is something like discipleship. Is there anyone (anywhere) you see now that you would like to emulate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I pity really smart people who look back on their lives and think they have wasted it and lash out at circumstances which stopped them being great/constantly remind everyone how smart they are/hwo great they could have been.

I'm not sure I want a career in full time academia, I like most of the stuff that Levitt does (am guessing he would be my thesis advisor), Fryer, Becker.....

[defixated]

[ QUOTE ]

I pity really smart people who look back on their lives and think they have wasted it and lash out at circumstances which stopped them being great/constantly remind everyone how smart they are/hwo great they could have been.


[/ QUOTE ]

From what little I know you don't seem to do these things now. Are you worried about how it all turns out?

Historically, "being great" seems to be most reliably accomplished by putting yourself among motivated smart people and competing/cooperating with them in an attempt to impress each other. You (probably) won't be the smartest person in the room and some of your peers (not necessarily the smartest) will become great. When Feynman was a young hotshot he badly wanted to impress his elders at Los Alamos and outdo his rival Schwinger.

Alternatively, if you want to participate in something great, find someone with really good taste and go work for her. Writers for The Simpsons said they wanted nothing more than to make George Meyer (the head writer in the early years) laugh. People who code or design to please Steve Jobs have a good situation in a similar way.

Isolated genius is a romantic fantasy. Groups of motivated smart people who compete/cooperate produce amazing things, from Bloomsbury to Silicon Valley. When you get a sense for what would impress you, find people who work hard to the highest standards at the same thing and spend time with them. If econ is this thing, Chicago is a great setup.

Have you seen this talk by Richard Hamming?

[econophile]

[ QUOTE ]
You know their biggest name faculty member personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

SL is by no means their biggest name faculty, at least in terms of departmental pull.

[onthebutton]

I don't think it's even a question that Dean. is a bright guy, and that's just what I've picked up from reading his 2p2 posts.

Dean., I'm in a completely different field, and just finished my graduate work. Lots of the stuff gumpzilla says here is the gospel truth. The first year sucks, grad school can suck, etc. But, overall, my experience was a good one. You meet smart people who share common interests, and you do gain feelings of accomplishment throughout.

I'd also like to chime in and say that to my knowledge, a PhD in any field doesn't lock you into a life in academia (I'm sure you know this). Most people I know in my field are leaving academia for what in the past have been "non-traditional" fields for the degrees we hold. Employers now seem to view the PhD as a skillset rather than a degree, enabling you to be useful to them even if your degree is in a field outside of their focus.

I have no idea if any of this helps, but, best of luck.

[Boris]

Chicago Econ used to have a reputation of accepting a relatively large number of first year students and being brutal about the wash out process. Something to consider.

About being a professor for 40 years, you have great benefits; you don't have to answer to the man; and you get to work with young people (generally considered a plus). It ain't that bad maybe.

[JaredL]

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.

[Michael Davis]

I think you should go for the PhD and see where that leads you, you're not making the ultimate 40-year choice. In fact, you can leave after a few months if it's not what you want. And you don't owe anybody or anything, so take the opportunity and if it's not what you want, fly away.

I will say that the depression thing could be very bad. Probably the money you have made playing poker will help stave off some of the standard gradstudent-type depression, however, U-Chicago is absolutely the single most depressing college environment in this country and probably anywhere. I have several friends who attended various graduate programs there and the place creates its own cycle of depression. If you are prone to serious bouts, this may be an environment you want to avoid.

-Michael

[ike]

I have a friend who seems a good bit like you. He's working toward a PHD in chem at MIT. He's beyond miserable. Don't go to grad school would be my advice.

[NoahSD]

This just seems really obvious to me. Definitely go. You'll meet some really smart people, and you'll keep your options open since it seems like you don't really know what you want to do yet.

Incidentally, my brother's going to Harvard econ school in the fall. If you think it'd help to talk to someone who's dealing with this stuff too, PM me your AIM name or phone number or something.