I will say this right at the outset: Once you enroll in a doctoral program, and start doing very issue-specific, in-depth research, you forget how to think like a normal human being. But that's OK, because then you can do cool things like this:
In the post from yesterday, Josh reported that the USM Board of Regents unanimously endorsed the upcoming ballot referendum to install up to 15,000 slot machines across 5 locations in Maryland. This would (according to state estimates) bring in between $600 and $700 million in net revenue.
There are great arguments on both sides, political and moral. But as a grad student, and a researcher, that's not what interests me. I can't take a political side. I have no moral opinion one way or the other (I'm not a theology student). What I can do is worry about how to make good estimates.
The big issue with slots, if you're me, is that big revenue number: $600 to $700 million. Where does it come from? More importantly, what does it account for, or not account for? (For instance, competition with current entertainment industries? Competition against the 4 other states within an easy day's drive that already have established slot industries? A guaranteed decline in lottery revenues? So far, I haven't seen this anywhere in state estimates, and this is not chump-change.)
I can't post up all the questions now (I'm working on a full and well-cited report at work, and I don't want to spoil that project), but I merely post this to suggest that once you become a research specialist, the world doesn't look the same to you anymore. (See the excellent book Freakonomics, for more examples).
In the future, I may post other examples of how specialization warps your thinking; I invite other researchers, especially grad students, to email me with their own stories.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Evan-- fascinating perspective on this issue. Your research on slots is quite relevant, and I think its important that we recognize the effects of possibly inflated estimates of revenues of the proposal.
I'm an undergrad, but I'm scared to death what my thesis would be for grad school (too many PhD comics). Anyway, if it was me, if it's not related to my topic and not worthy to put on the paper, just leave that issue out. You're just there get what you need to do done. It sounds bad, but don't you have a professor on your back? Don't you want to get out of school in 4-5 yrs? You have no time to be worrying about that stuff.
Hi All - (Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I was presenting a paper on state lottery issues at a conference in England.)
To Josh- Thanks :-)
To Anonymous: PhD Comics is pretty much spot-on, but you needn't be scared. Most of us manage to get through with our health and sanity intact.
As far as limiting perspective... there's sort of a "yes and no" there. In a field like Public Policy, you want to try to be "plugged in" as much as possible, because you can't really provide useful analysis of an issue if you don't know what else is going on in that broad issue area. Doing the simple "head-down" approach may work in other fields, but Policy requires you to have one eye out for noteworthy developments.
And yes, I really, really would like to be done by the end of this (my 4th) year. :-)
Post a Comment