I am in my final year of the PhD program, Sustainable Development, at the School of international and Public affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, New York. Given that there is genuine interest in the field of Sustainable Development, we (the students in the program) receive many e-mails from people of various backgrounds, ages, and levels of preparation, regarding the program and prospects after.
Instead of expending effort on answering the (mostly similar types of) questions from various interested individuals, I felt it better to at least have an outline of the program, including, in many cases, simply putting the information already on the official website, in context.
While this will not (and indeed, is not intended to) answer all the questions of all individuals, it will nonetheless, address many questions which I have found to be quite common, as well as to clear any misconceptions on the part of many talented appliacants. Hopefully, after a perusal of the matter here, interested prospective applicants may at least
- Have some conception of what the program is all about
- See if the program, at the outset, is indeed what they have been planning to pursue
Simple answers to complicated questions:
- Importance/relevance of: work experience (in development related fields), research proposal (or at least a very strong research idea): It is NOT essential to have either work experience in development-related areas to either be accepted into the program or to graduate after a well accomplished dissertation. Similarly, it is NOT required for one to have a developed (or indeed any) research proposal prior to entry into the program. Addressing the former, while it is indeed true, especially for students from the developed world, that some prior expeirence of the developing world is deemed relevant for an understanding of the issues related to the developing world, it is by no means essential to have full-time work experience of any kind. Usually, study visits (serious ones, naturally) or internships probably count for much, especially since the academic rigour of the program really means that individuals who have been out of the class room for a significant period actually are at some disadvantage. In the same vein, what is expected is that applicants have some idea of the field(s) of their academic interest (at least, that they can claim, in about 400 coherent words, that they do). Naturally, in this case, some experience of the (economic, social, scientfic) context will inspire confidence in the admissions committee! To put these in context, very few individuals already in the program have either significant (relevant) full-time-work experience or a fully developed research proposal, while most of them have had some kind of (usually informal/part-time) research/work experience in the developing world.
- Identifying an advisor: It is NOT necessary to identify an advisor (or to be sponsored and/or funded by one)before one begins the Sust Dev PhD, and students usually have the normal (to the academia) chaotic search process for advisors in the II (or higher!) year of the program. Of course, if nowhere at Columbia is to be found a specialist/expert in the field that one intends to specialise in, then there is some cause for thought. Every student is funded by the department, therefore breaking the advisor-funding nexus prevalent in the sciences/Engg.
A Note on the US-style PhD program: The PhD is usually a research degree (at least in most of the disciplines), preparing students for doing rigorous academic research (which is not to say that students do not end up outside the academia; rather, it simply means that the only objective is to produce scholars/experts in a field). Therefore, the focus is on training students to write research papers/books, rather than teaching how to implement/translate resarch into policy (the latter people are usually termed "practitioners", as opposed to "researchers"). Given this, the focus in the training is always on how to make the most precise argument, in the most unimpeachable manner possible.
Therefore, those less interested in the purely intellectual aspects and more focussed on a very specific situation, are really looking for something which will help them be better practitioners, such as for instance SIPA's new Master's program, rather than a PhD. The most important distinction between the researcher and the practitioner is (loosely speaking) that the former is a producer of new knowledge whereas the latter is more a user of existing knowledge.
The Program: The program appears to have settled onto a somewhat clear approach to the problem of sustainable development: it is using a blend of economic and disciplinary (climate science, hydrology, Public Health etc) approaches to solving real world problems (climate change, managing natural resources, issues related to Public health), with all the attendant complexities. Given this, there is a very serious emphasis on both learning, and applying, the tools of modern (neo-classical) economics, while obtaining a deeper understanding the underlying causes of the issue/problem (i.e. the "science" of the issue). In other words, a "working knowledge"-type understanding of the issue, and a good understanding of the various (usually) economic/policy issues which lead to a solution to the problem under study.
This is not to preclude students with slightly different approaches, merely that the new norm appears to be what is described above.
Structure and curriculum: Naturally, given the description above, there is a heavy emphasis on economics courses, reflected in the fact that, in the I year, ALL students are required to go through the Microeconomics and the Econometrics sequence in the Economics department (with the Economics PhD students). In addition, there are a couple of required courses from the SDEV program, and usually one science (of one's choice) sequence (i.e. Fall/spring course) or odd courses in science, all of which usually add up to a very stressful and challenging year.
In more detail, mere survival in the Economics PhD courses requires, at a minimum, either a very strong mathematics background (at a minimum, serious multi-variable calculus and Honours Linear Algebra type background and preferably, some prior exposure to Real Analysis as well to some calculus-based probability and Statistical inference) or a decent mathematics background (at a minimum, serious multi-variable calculus and Honours Linear Algebra type background) and an ability to spend most of the I year (including all weekends) closeted in the libraries, engaged in study/problem sets. The science and SDEV courses are usually not as challenging but are nonetheless not very trivial either, and all of these lead to very high stress levels and bleary eyes.
The II year is comparitively benign, but with the same overdose of coursework, usually 2-3 Economics dept. courses, around 2-3 science courses and 2-3 other assorted required courses. The II year culminates in a Master's paper, which has to be squeezed in between the many courses.
The III year has relatively few courses (2-4 the entire year, on average) and involves a slow transition to doing research, identifying advisors for the Oral exam. preparing for it etc. The III year (usually) culimnates in an Oral exam (the only qualifying exam), based on a few chosen fields alongwith a research proposal component.
Background of accepted students: While current students are from widely differing backgrounds (from Policy to Hard science to Pure mathematics), it is true that most students are strong on one front, either science or Economics, and in any case, have demonstrably strong quantitative skills (read as "strong math background"). Again, it is impossible to state what is required for admission, but it is very easy to state that a weak quantitative background very much weakenes (but by no means negates) the possiblity of entry. In sum, a student who is quantitatively good, has a good Economics background and some interest in any science (related to a particular issue, that is, rather than interest in general) constitues a good fit for the program; as in real life, however, not (apparently) constituting a good fit is not the same as not being granted entry!
Prospects post graduation: At the moment, a somewhat difficult question to answer directly; nonetheless, for those whose destination is the academia and nothing-but (there are a few of this type in the program), any inter-disciplinary program is something of a lottery, and this is no exception (naturally, not having yet succeeded in obtaining an academic position, I am in no position to talk of the matter! However, from observation, and from hope!, I make the following observations). Especially true is the fact that conventional Economics departments or Science departments are unlikely to be the major hiring hope for the program; rather, it is more specific positions, suited to the speciality of the individual student (in even somewhat traditional departments), which are (hopefully) likely to be the rule. This, however, is pure conjecture at the moment.
On the non-academic front, however, there is great hope (and no demonstrable success yet, although these are very early days for the program) from the policy world (International institutions, primarily), in terms of jobs. Again, as this is a very new program, with very few graduates yet, all of this is purely speculation. Suffice it to say that there is great hope on this front, from both the faculty involved in the program as well as the students in the program.
