I studied a economics for a degree – often dreadfully wrong (pseudo-psychological) theory and and taught myself in an interdisciplinary choice of courses and seminars where I could pick them up before and during my economics and business PhD.

I think interdisciplinary programs can be intellectually challenging and stimulating as one learns a lot about different perspectives – there is just not one way of seeing the world.

However, that’s also what makes these programs dangerous for one’s career. There is no way to go back to one-sided solutions afterwards – particularly if you point to problems of one-sided thinking, which is often not people want to hear / read / talk about. Admittedly it is *not* easy to present several interrelated perspectives clearly, so more effort is necessary in finding a clear presentation.

We fall under the broad but not deep category. I actually just had a meeting with some people today about adding more economic theory, but I don’t think they were taking well to it. Also, there’s the fact that they’re all a bunch of communists.

Despite all this, I’m still thinking about going for a PhD in urban studies. Any recommendations for this?

- Anecdotally, IS programs have high variance. For every Cal Tech social science, you have many others that simply fail to land people jobs. Chicago social thought, CMU decision sciences, Santa Cruz His Con, etc. All have great faculty, but they have very spotty placement.

-Cal Tech works because it is actually a disciplinary program. The curriculum is essentially applied micro-economics. People get jobs in either econ programs or other econ friendly programs, like policy, business, and politics. I have never seen a Cal Tech graduate truly jump into “hostile” territory like political theory or cultural anthropology. Basically, it’s just a highly technical econ program with more of a policy tilt.

- Informally, I’ve been told that interdisciplinary programs only work for a small minority of students. Most students need the social and intellectual structure of a discipline. A small handful thrive in the free form structure.

- Perhaps the most successful IS ethnic studies program is Berkeley, which has a pretty darned good placement record. The reason it works is that people have to do “double duty” graduate work. Not only do they have to take topical courses, but they are also required to take traditional course work. for example, one person who did the IS ethnic studies courses but then tacked on an entire sequence of sociology and ethnography. Result? Award winning books, but geez, it took forever – yet they were amazingly well trained.

- Another good example is the interdisciplinary logic PhD program in Berkeley. You have to do the course work in math AND philosophy. It’s a killer program and few graduate. But those who do seem to succeed.

So here’s what I say. There are two successful models of interdisciplinary graduate programs.

1. The disciplinary program in disguise. Basically, you just set up a slightly modified core from a regular discipline. But create electives and faculties who go beyond the traditional boundaries. But there is always a core referent discipline.

2. The double-PhD model. Technically, you only get 1 PhD, but you make grad students do the entire training in more than one field (math and philosophy; ethnic studies and history; medicine and chemistry; etc).

It also helps to have many faculty with strong disciplinary backgrounds, but broad interests. If you have people who actively reject disciplines (UCSC HisCon) then they simply won’t do the training grad students need so they publish books and articles.

Fabio

http://www.uadphilecon.gr

Also the International “Max Planck Research School on Adapting Behavior in a Fundamentally Uncertain World” worths a look.

http://www.imprs.econ.mpg.de

http://www.epp.cmu.edu

I have often been concerned that what the program has in breadth, it may lack in depth. However, I feel that having ideas across a variety of fields helps to see the big picture, and also helps one to home in on interests more confidently.