The Great Debate: Practical vs Ph.D. to get ahead in DC....

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/29/so_you_want_to_get_a_phd_to_work_in_dc
So you want to get a Ph.D. to get ahead in DC....

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 2:37 PM Share

So, my post about good and bad reasons to get a Ph.D. in political science has made a few waves.  I'd like to clarify, endorse and respond to some of the feedback I've received. 

Just to recap, here was the primary point of my post:

Even standard political science departments are littered with students who have sterling resumes, glittering letters of recommendation from well-connected fixtures of the foreign policy community, and that disturbing tendency to look past the task at hand to plot out steps three, four and five of their Ascent to Greatness.
Here's the thing about these students: 95 percent of them will not earn a Ph.D. -- and most of the rest who do get it will only have done so by finding the most pliant dissertation committee alive. Ambition and intelligence can get someone through college and a professional degree. It can even get someone through Ph.D.-level coursework. What it can't do is produce an above-the-bar dissertation.
In my day, I've known too many students who were talented in many ways, and yet got stymied at the dissertation phase. For people who have succeeded at pretty much everything in life to that point, a Ph.D. seems like just another barrier to transcend. It's not. Unless you are able to simultaneously love and critically dissect your subject matter, unless you thrive in an environment where people are looking forward to picking apart your most cherished ideas, you won't finish.

Now, some of the comments and tweets about this post suggested that I was pooh-poohing the idea of getting a Ph.D. if you don't want to become a professor.  To be clear:  that is not what I was trying to say.  Indeed, if anything, given the state of the academic job market I heartily endorse "non-traditional" career paths for Ph.D.s.  Furthermore, as Joshua Foust notes in his response, "If you want to succeed in Washington, a PhD is the quickest path to it. Anything less is just an uphill battle." 

There is no shame in going from a doctoral program to a job in DC, and I was certainly not implying that there should be. 

Foust offers a strong counter-explanation for why aspiring policy wonks should go for a Ph.D.:

[A] PhD offers a better way for many [than getting a professional M.A.]. PhDs are usually funded, which means they cost nothing to the student (stipends may not be much, but that’s a separate matter — the financial loads are drastically different). They also take a lot longer, say 5 years minimum but more likely 7 if you’re young and right out of undergrad.

Even so, that PhD is more or less free. Entering the DC workforce with a PhD, instead of a Masters, is an instant leg-up. For organizations like think tanks, it instantly signals research skills; for NGOs it signifies a strong work ethic. And for many government jobs, contractor jobs, or jobs at IGOs like the World Bank or IMF, it is a basic minimum requirement for most non-admin jobs. In almost any field, having a PhD is a shortcut to the initial round of CV scrutiny — an easy and quick way to sort candidates.

Now, let's assume Foust is correct about the money (doctoral students about to comment that a doctorate is not "more or less free" -- I know!!  I'm not asserting this, Foust is!!  Go bug him!!!).  It seems like the Ph.D. is the smart play then, right? 

Wrong.  Foust is assuming that the choice is a binary one -- between climbing the policy ladder without a a doctorate or with a doctorate.   The point of my initial post is that there's a third possibility, and it's the one that will fell people getting a Ph.D. for professional reasons only -- that one will start a Ph.D. program but never finish. 

First of all, that is, by far, the worst outcome.  Matt Groening can express this far better than I: 

In all seriousness, life is not quite this bad for those who fail to finish.  It's not great, however.  For those who recognize early on that the Ph.D. is not for them, it's OK.  Exiting a doctoral program after, say, three years with a terminal masters is about as graceful an exit as one can execute. 

The more years one stays in, however, the greater the pain of exiting.  There's a lot of psychological scarring, and the networks built up in a doctoral program are likely inferior to those that would be built up via a lower-level policy job.  And I'd wager that it's precisely the ambitious, career-minded DC types who are less likely to cut and run -- because their entire life experience to date suggests that quitting is the wrong course of action. 

Furthermore, not finishing a Ph.D. is not exactly uncommon.  Click on this slide show about Ph.D. attrition rates from the Council of Graduate Schools, and note the following three facts:

1)  Only 46% of all entrants finish their Ph.D. after seven years in a program.   
2)  For social science Ph.D.s, that figure is even lower -- 41%
3)  If you extend it out to ten years, the lowest completion rate among the social sciences is political science -- only 44% complete a doctorate after a decade.  In other words, entering a Ph.D. program and then not finishing is the modal outcome. 

Foust is likely correct that getting a Ph.D. gives one a leg up in the DC policy wonk rat race.  But I know I'm correct when I say that starting but not finishing a Ph.D. is the worst possible career trajectory.  It is this outcome that I'm harping on when I'm warning ambitious go-getter policy wonks to think long and hard about why they want to get a doctorate.  It can't just be to win "The Game." 

Now, to be fair, Tara Maller makes a valid point when she notes that "personal challenges" can fell a Ph.D. candidate.  However, I would argue that the biggest impediment to finishing is not having a clear idea of what's involved in getting a doctorate in the first place.   In an email from Afghanistan, Lieutenant Colonel Jason Dempsey -- a Columbia Ph.D. and published scholar -- made this point: 

Part of the dynamic I think is 'degree-inflation' where everyone has a master's, so it seems logical that to distinguish yourself from the pack that a PhD is the next logical step.  While finishing my dissertation I had quite a few officers who had just finished MA or MPA programs asking how they could proceed to a PhD, with no idea that they were two entirely separate animals.

I've also had to break it to people that publishing an academic book is not the road the glory it might seem from afar, and that the most you can expect out of it beyond the intrinsic reward of contributing to an ongoing discussion is a box of very heavy 'business cards'....
Knowing what you are getting into and the need to fully embrace the topic are key to success.  Sometimes that will align with a non-academic career-- probably more often not....  The difference between an MA and a PhD isn't incremental but fundamental, and that is a hard gap to bridge when coming from an institution that is decidedly pragmatic and application-oriented as a matter of survival.

Dempsey's point is the one I was trying to ham-handedly make in my last post.  It is natural for people in DC to believe that the Ph.D. is the next logical step after a professional or masters degree.  It.  Is.  Not. 

When asked about whether getting a Ph.D. is a good idea, I usually tell men that writing a dissertation is the closest experience they will have to being pregnant -- except that instead of nine months they'll be carrying that sucker for 2-5 years.  I then tell women that, of course, writing a dissertation is not remotely close to being pregnant -- but take the most volatile relationship from your past and then multiply that volatility by a factor of fifty.  That's what it's like.  And I haven't even gotten to the incredible socialization pressures within graduate school to feel like you should pursue an academic career instean of a non-academic one. 

Despite these barriers, is it possible to simply "grind out" the Ph.D. without loving the subject matter and the process?  Yeah, in theory.  I've met one or two extraordinary people in my day who were able to pull that off.  But -- and I cannot stress this enough -- I've met far more people who thought they could grind it out and then met their ruin on the shoals of some doctoral program.  These are the people who stay in a doctoral program long after everyone else knows that the jig is up.  That is the fate I am warning policy wonks  away from. 

There is no shame in thinking that a Ph.D. gives one a leg up in the Beltway job market.  But that cannot and should not be the primary reason to get a doctorate.  What separates a Ph.D. from other degrees is the scholarly act of writing a dissertation.  If there is no genuine fascination with the subject matter, if there is no love of the topic, then there is a 99.5% probability of failure.  That has to be the primary driver.  If it's fame and fortune, then the professional degree route -- a J.D., an M.B.A. or a M.A.L.D. -- is the better route for you. 

Steve Saideman sums up why I'm making this argument so vehemently: 

An MA is a professional degree for the policy-maker but most PhDs are not that.  They require patience, analytical rigor, the ability to think theoretically, to be open to criticism, and so on.  So, [Dan] has seen those who are in it just for the stamp flounder and fail. 

That's correct.  Maybe I'm exaggerating the costs of failure here -- but I don't think so. 

So, to conclude.  There is no shame in getting a Ph.D. with the intention of pursuing a non-academic career.  Foust is correct that there are certain material rewards that come with earning a Ph.D.  But unlike other degrees, those rewards cannot be the principal reason you choose to pursue a doctorate.  That is the recipe for misery and heartbreak. 

Critical Infrastructure: Possible EPA Grants To Protect Water Systems From Climate Change

Cardin Seeks EPA Grants To Protect Water Systems From Climate Change

Posted: November 19, 2012

 

Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), chairman of the Senate subcommittee overseeing EPA's water program, is seeking to create a new, $250 million EPA grant program to help strengthen wastewater and drinking water systems from threats posed by the effects of climate change, a growing focus since Hurricane Sandy damaged systems in the Northeast.

The senator Nov. 14 submitted an amendment to S. 3525, a bill intended to authorize hunting and fishing programs, to allow EPA to provide grants to update municipal water systems to withstand changes in hydrological flows caused by climate change, the latest in a slew of efforts by Democratic lawmakers to gain more funding for water infrastructure.

The measure appears likely to gain support from lawmakers whose states were hit by the storm. For example, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) told a Nov. 15 Senate environment committee hearing on legislation authorizing Army Corps of Engineers projects that there is a need for such funding given the effects of the recent storm.
"During Sandy, we also saw outdated water infrastructure lead to two water treatment facilities breaking down, with millions of gallons of sewage leaking into Newark Bay as a result. This shouldn't happen. There's no excuse not to have modernized water infrastructure," he said.

S. 3525, which was introduced Sept. 10 by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), seeks to require that not less than 1.5 percent of land put aside each year under the Land And Water Conservation Fund be made available for recreational access such as hunting and fishing and calls for extending wetlands conservation project funding among other things.

Although the bill addresses several GOP priorities, such as limiting lead in hunting ammunition and fishing tackle from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the bill currently lacks Republican sponsors. The bill is slated for a floor vote Nov. 26.

Cardin's amendment seeks to create a "'Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program," which will require EPA to issue grants totaling $50 million for each year from 2013 through 2017 "for the purpose of increasing the resiliency or adaptability of the water systems to any ongoing or forecasted chances (based on the best available research and data) to the hydrological conditions of a region of the United States."

Entities eligible to seek the grants include community water treatment works, water systems, storage and transport systems and floodwater runoff management infrastructure.

The amendment seeks to set aside funds "exclusively to assist in the planning, design, construction, implementation, operation, or maintenance" of projects that address water conservation, efficiency, enhance watershed management, support the adoption of advanced water treatment technologies, modify or replace existing systems and "not further exacerbate stresses on ecosystems or cause redirected impacts by degrading water quality or increasing net greenhouse gas emissions."
The funding can also be used for flood mitigation measures, including modifying levies and preventing development in floodplains. Priority for grants will be given to those systems that are at the most "immediate risk of facing significant negative impacts due to changing hydrologic conditions." Cardin, who chairs the senate environment committee's water panel, has long championed water infrastructure needs, including the need for re-authorization of EPA's State Revolving Fund grant program.
Senators' Amendments
In addition to Cardin's amendment, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is offering an amendment seeking a biennial progress report from EPA on the implementation of the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico.

The amendment calls for the reports to "assess the progress made toward nutrient load reductions, the response of the hypoxic zone and water quality throughout the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin, and the economic and social effects." Data in the reports could be used to "recommend appropriate action continue to implement or, if necessary, revise the strategy set forth in the Gulf Hypoxia Plan 2008."

The plan, enacted in June 2008, seeks to address excess nutrient runoff from 12 states in the Mississippi River watershed, including a goal of reducing "the 5-year running average of the areal extent of the hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers by 2015," although the plan acknowledges reaching the goal is likely impossible.

Meanwhile, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT) is seeking to use the bill to require EPA to do an economic impact analysis of a revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter, particularly as it effects the agricultural sector -- granting the agency a year reprieve from finalizing the NAAQS to complete the review. And the senator has submitted language that would amend the bill to include a prohibition of the regulation of green house gasses under the Clean Air Act, the authority EPA has pointed to in its green house gas reduction efforts.

http://insideepa.com/Inside-EPA-General/Inside-EPA-Public-Content/cardin-seeks-epa-grants-to-protect-water-systems-from-climate-change/menu-id-565.html?S=LI&goback=%2Egde_1826367_member_191091139