RE: Re: Re: Re: good economics writing & abstraction

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

New Schoolers have been notoriously famous for taking 'forever'--ten
years not unusual at all, with some coming in for 'extensions' after the
time limit has been reached.  There have been some notable
exceptions--e.g., George Argyrous, Stephanie Bell, Jim Stanford--but all
came in with an M.A. from elsewhere.  I started in '87 and earned the
phd in '96 (although I actually defended in '95 and was teaching
full-time on a tenure track job from '92).

My sense is that it might be a little better now than it was, if only
because who the hell can afford it, and that it is a few years shorter
on average at other non-traditional depts., like UMass, American, and
Riverside.  We're shooting for a 3-4 year deal here at UMKC.

-----Original Message-----
From: christian11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:christian11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:44 PM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:26199] Re: Re: Re: good economics writing & abstraction

Michael Perelman wrote:

>Doug does not belong on the list.  He is not and has never been an
"economist."  Sure, he can write now, but what about after a deadening 7
years as an econ. grad student.

Do grad students take 7 years with econ degrees? I thought they were
more "efficient" and finished in 4 or 5.

Christian