IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Interview Scheduling Strategies of New Ph.D. Economists

Listed author(s):
  • John A. List

Given the importance of job placement for Ph.D.s, it is surprising that economists have not closely examined the factors that affect procuring job interviews for new Ph.D. economists.' In this study, I investigated those factors using a data set gathered at the 1997 American Economic Association (AEA) meetings in New Orleans. My purpose was to increase the information available to Ph.D. candidates who wish to maximize their postgraduation job prospects. In addition, this study may guide undergraduates and master's candidates who seek to pursue a Ph.D. in economics. The results of the findings, however, could benefit more than job seekers-they may provide academic departments and private industry with a comparative baseline for making decisions to interview job candidates. The job market for new Ph.D.s consists of two submarkets-academic and businesshndustry. The following are questions regarding job seekers in both submarkets. (1) Do employers in academia seek the same attributes as businesshndustry? (2) Is there discrimination in the interview decision? (3) Is an MBA important in the Ph.D. market? (4) How many more interviews are secured by candidates with a finished dissertation? (5) How important are teaching and research credentials? (6) Are graduates from top-ranked programs given special consideration in the job market? (7) Do personal letters of recommendation or calls from professors make a difference in the interview decision? (8) How influential are recommendation letters from prestigious economists? (9) What is the marginal effect of submitting another application? A simple theoretic construct provides a basis for understanding the two-step job-search process carried out by new Ph.D. economists.* In the first step, the job seeker decides whether to enter one or both submarkets and determines the optimal number of applications to submit. The second step reflects the actual decision process regarding acceptance or rejection of a job offer. Because a natural

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal The Journal of Economic Education.

Volume (Year): 31 (2000)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 191-201

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:31:y:2000:i:2:p:191-201
DOI: 10.1080/00220480009596776
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Scott, Loren C & Mitias, Peter M, 1996. "Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(2), pages 378-400, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:31:y:2000:i:2:p:191-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.