When does one become an 'economist'?

BESman

I've often wondered about this one... the title of 'economist'.. at what point does an individual earn the right to claim this title? Accountants, lawyers, architects, etc all have professional bodies, professional exams and a certain period of a training contract with a professional firm before they can qualify and call themselves accountants, solicitors or whatever. What do economists have? I'm not aware of a professional body. So is it a case of randomly waking up one morning and saying "I'm no longer a TCD graduate with an economics degree, I am an ECONOMIST!"

...even though they didn't pass any professional exams or training period to earn any kind of title.

Anonymous1987

BESman wrote: »

I've often wondered about this one... the title of 'economist'.. at what point does an individual earn the right to claim this title? Accountants, lawyers, architects, etc all have professional bodies, professional exams and a certain period of a training contract with a professional firm before they can qualify and call themselves accountants, solicitors or whatever. What do economists have? I'm not aware of a professional body. So is it a case of randomly waking up one morning and saying "I'm no longer a TCD graduate with an economics degree, I am an ECONOMIST!"

...even though they didn't pass any professional exams or training period to earn any kind of title.

In practice it seems you are an economist when you job title describes you as so or your work involves a large degree of economic research. For example last week Joe Durkan mentioned he didn't have a Phd on Vincent Browne's show. Personally though I would think you should have a Phd which takes on average about three years similar to the three year training contract that accountants go through. Preferably an economist should have both a Phd and practical research experience aside from their Phd thesis IMHO. It is ridiculous that economists do not have a professional licensing body since even the psychologists down the corridor do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychology_Association

Time Magazine

PhD imho.

kippy

I think you need to collect 15 Tayto packets with the special sticker on them...........(joke)


I would suspect PhD level and a job title of some type of economist.

pjmn

BESman wrote: »

I've often wondered about this one... the title of 'economist'.. at what point does an individual earn the right to claim this title? Accountants, lawyers, architects, etc all have professional bodies, professional exams and a certain period of a training contract with a professional firm before they can qualify and call themselves accountants, solicitors or whatever. What do economists have? I'm not aware of a professional body. So is it a case of randomly waking up one morning and saying "I'm no longer a TCD graduate with an economics degree, I am an ECONOMIST!"

...even though they didn't pass any professional exams or training period to earn any kind of title.

... not at all - you just 'assume' you are one!

Stabshauptmann

Its when you start working as one!

Time Magazine

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Its when you start working as one!

I disagree. I wouldn't call a monkey who does forecasts/spreadsheet-analysis for some investment firm an economist.

BESman

A professional body or institute is badly needed. Has there been any developments on this in recent times, or is it likely to ever happen?

There are no actual restrictions on describing yourself as an accountant in this country - any one could rent an office and set themselves up as an accountant.

You do need to pass the exams, do a training contract, pay annual fees etc to say you are a member of the various institutes.

I think you do need a cert from certain recognised bodies to describe yourself as an auditor.

BESman

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no actual restrictions on describing yourself as an accountant in this country - any one could rent an office and set themselves up as an accountant.

You do need to pass the exams, do a training contract, pay annual fees etc to say you are a member of the various institutes.

I think you do need a cert from certain recognised bodies to describe yourself as an auditor.

Pretty sure thats illegal. And no one would do business with them unless they had one of the institutions plastered all over their stationary etc.

BESman

BESman wrote: »

Pretty sure thats illegal. And no one would do business with them unless they had one of the institutions plastered all over their stationary etc.

It is one of the discussion topics in accounting regulation in this country - "accountant" is not a regulated term.

The accounting bodies are torn between asking the government to protect it but then having to operate under government regulation / supervision and continuing as things are now.

There are certain roles like auditing companies accounts where you need to be fully qualified and paid up members of particular bodies.

You could set up an office tomorrow and say:
BESman, Accountant
on your stationary.

You could not say:
BESman, ACA, Registered Auditor

BESman

Deleted User wrote: »

It is one of the discussion topics in accounting regulation in this country - "accountant" is not a regulated term.

The accounting bodies are torn between asking the government to protect it but then having to operate under government regulation / supervision and continuing as things are now.

There are certain roles like auditing companies accounts where you need to be fully qualified and paid up members of particular bodies.

You could set up an office tomorrow and say:
BESman, Accountant
on your stationary.

You could not say:
BESman, ACA, Registered Auditor

Strange loophole alright. Can see why the institutes are anxious to have the use of "accountant" regulated even though effectively it has little meaning without ACA or ACCA after it. Can I similarly put up a gold plate on my pillar saying I'm a doctor without M.D. after it?

Stabshauptmann

This is actually a very funny one, because most "doctors" are not doctors.

http://www.tcd.ie/courses/undergradu...rse.php?id=187

We have feck all MDs in Ireland, or the UK for that matter.
[edit]In medicine, doctor is a courtesy term. In Ireland your GP most likely only has a bachelor degree. There are advertising standards, and medical council etc rules that prevent Joe Soap from claiming to be a licensed physician; but strictly speaking a GP does not need to hold a doctorate[/edit]

There was some discussion in the House of Lords a few years ago about dentists calling themselves doctors, and the conclusion that was arrived at was, sure if your GP can call himself a doctor, without actually being a doctor of anything, then so too can your dentist.

For the record, the requirements to act as an auditor are set out in the companies acts.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/...zza33y1963s162
(the '63 act has been amended, please refer to the consolidated version if you wish to rely on it)

Who may practicing medicine, and law (and some other profession as well I presume) is proscribed by law

BESman

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

This is actually a very funny one, because most "doctors" are not doctors.

TRUST NO ONE

Not sure about that one - I think terms in medicine are actually regulated.

I know you can't call yourself a dietitian unless you have a recognised qualification but there is no restriction on the term nutritionist.

I think that regulation is driven from the UK.

I guess there is nothing stopping you doing a Gillian McKeith on it and getting a Ph.D. from some random foreign college. As long as you are careful how you describe yourself you could probably get away with it.

Ostrom

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

This is actually a very funny one, because most "doctors" are not doctors.

http://www.tcd.ie/courses/undergradu...rse.php?id=187

We have feck all MDs in Ireland, or the UK for that matter.
[edit]In medicine, doctor is a courtesy term. In Ireland your GP most likely only has a bachelor degree. There are advertising standards, and medical council etc rules that prevent Joe Soap from claiming to be a licensed physician; but strictly speaking a GP does not need to hold a doctorate[/edit]

There was some discussion in the House of Lords a few years ago about dentists calling themselves doctors, and the conclusion that was arrived at was, sure if your GP can call himself a doctor, without actually being a doctor of anything, then so too can your dentist.

For the record, the requirements to act as an auditor are set out in the companies acts.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/...zza33y1963s162
(the '63 act has been amended, please refer to the consolidated version if you wish to rely on it)

Who may practicing medicine, and law (and some other profession as well I presume) is proscribed by law

But the doctor is a 'doctor' of something - the title of the award is a technicality. In the US, the Doctor of Medicine degree is awarded after completion of undergraduate* training, which afaik averages around the same time/level. If you want to be really pedantic about it, only PhD's should be using the title.

Althought with pre-med requirements, most medical degrees could be referred to as post-graduate, without specialist training.

Anonymous1987

Anyone reckon economics could do with a professional organisation or is it too diverse?

noodler

Time Magazine wrote: »

PhD imho.

Time Magazine wrote: »

I disagree. I wouldn't call a monkey who does forecasts/spreadsheet-analysis for some investment firm an economist.

Alot of the Economists we hear about in the media don't have PHDs (certain spokesmen of certain companies).

It is a strange one, what about Colm McCarthy? No PHD but who could argue with his practical experience?

Maybe the angle you are going at is contributions? I mean that the individual ontributes something unique to the field? Hence PHD?

Stabshauptmann

efla wrote: »

But the doctor is a 'doctor' of something

No, thats the point, they're not.

- the title of the award is a technicality.

True, but that was the point of the post, technically they are not doctors.
Its a vestigial misnomer, now accepted as a curtesy title.

Im not saything they are not highly qualified, I just think its an interesting (possibly humourous) tibit.

In the US, the Doctor of Medicine degree is awarded after completion of undergraduate* training, which afaik averages around the same time/level. If you want to be really pedantic about it, only PhD's should be using the title.

No, the MD is not an undergraduate course. In the USA you will obtain an MD from a graduate school, after obtaining a bachelor of between 90 - 120 credit hours.

Althought with pre-med requirements, most medical degrees could be referred to as post-graduate, without specialist training.

No, they could not. Because you do not graduate from pre-med with a university qualification afaik.

You have totally missed the point of my post. It was just a bit of trivia in the style of QI.
You also have attempted to be anal, but been wrong about all your facts

Time Magazine

noodler wrote: »

Alot of the Economists we hear about in the media don't have PHDs (certain spokesmen of certain companies).

I don't consider David McWilliams/Jim Power/other media commentators to be economists.

It is a strange one, what about Colm McCarthy? No PHD but who could argue with his practical experience?

There can be exceptions to the rule. Mike Harrison doesn't have a PhD either but has publications in JASA.

Maybe the angle you are going at is contributions? I mean that the individual ontributes something unique to the field? Hence PHD?

I was referring more to the technical training and immersion in the field moreso than the generic research contribution. Perhaps a better description of my criterion is "Not just a degree or masters."

noodler

Time Magazine wrote: »

I don't consider David McWilliams/Jim Power/other media commentators to be economists.

Fair enough

Time Magazine wrote: »

I was referring more to the technical training and immersion in the field moreso than the generic research contribution. Perhaps a better description of my criterion is "Not just a degree or masters."

Not a PHD candidate are you by any chance?:P

That being said, I generally agree bar the odd exception.

BESman

Think this post is getting a little off topic. The basic point is that in my opinion there is no standard requirement or regulation of the economic profession. From what I can make out, there are academic economists where clearly a phd would be a requirement. But then you have professional/consultant type economists like Colm McCarthy or Peter Bacon where the former does not have a phd and the latter does.

Both categories of economists are of value and contribute to the field but I just think its absurd that there is no standard requirement or regulation that would need to be met by all economists before they can call themselves economists regardless of the field they end up working in. Until a professional body or something similar is established I think the profession will suffer from skepticism and lack of trust from the public and related professions.

One suggestion would be that economists engaged in a professional capacity (i.e. as consultants, civil servants, financial institutions, etc) should be obliged to complete a professional training period in a fashion similar to accountants, lawyers and others before they can call themselves professional economists and be admitted to a professional economic association. Academic economists on the other hand should be allowed pursue their research interests and will naturally be considered economists in their academic circles but if they were to take up a professional position outside academia they should be required to take the appropriate professional training outlined above. Does this seem like a reasonable idea or is it unworkable?

noodler

BESman wrote: »

One suggestion would be that economists engaged in a professional capacity (i.e. as consultants, civil servants, financial institutions, etc) should be obliged to complete a professional training period in a fashion similar to accountants, lawyers and others before they can call themselves professional economists and be admitted to a professional economic association. Academic economists on the other hand should be allowed pursue their research interests and will naturally be considered economists in their academic circles but if they were to take up a professional position outside academia they should be required to take the appropriate professional training outlined above. Does this seem like a reasonable idea or is it unworkable?

All I would say is that certain people arguably learn an awful lot more practical information during their professional careers in consultancy or whatever than they would in a PHD.

At the very least they surely get a broader experience of different fields in action I would argue.

The only problem I have with your qualification idea is the unrealistic expectations it may hold. The dramatic failures (bar the odd few) to really forecast the international crisis one way or another only highlights the limitations of the (human) science in some of the more practical applications. Is there a fear that with such a qualification you would be expected to analyse without fault? What message exactly would you want such a qualification to send to the public / potential empoyers?

Time Magazine

noodler wrote: »

Not a PHD candidate are you by any chance?:P

No

BESman wrote: »

Does this seem like a reasonable idea or is it unworkable?

I doubt it'd be much use rather than unworkable. Professional bodies are important in areas such as medicine and law, because of the informational problems facing Joe Public. Joe Public generally does not hire an economist. As far as I see it we have three roles: academic research, government analysis, and consultancy. Our job as academic researchers cannot be regulated. I don't think a bit of a professional affiliation test would much improve our job as policy analysts (and we're ignored anyway). With regards to consultancy, I don't think there's that much value to regulation when Dr Bacon (PhD and all) still gets consultancy nixers. People are essentially paying for elaborate lies and that's hard to counteract in an inexact 'science' like economics.

I think the issue here is media coverage. The media are crap at reporting about economics (some evidence) and regularly give column inches to absolute fucktards. (Aside: I can only speak on their economics coverage, but I despair if their coverage of other fields is as weak. At least it's not restricted to Ireland: Brad DeLong seems to have blogged about poor media coverage over 9000 times.)

If the Irish Times and RTÉ hired one person with a masters in economics who knows: (i) the difference between levels and rates; (ii) budget constraints exist; (iii) that we're running one of the largest fiscal deficits in the developed world and thus cutbacks are not some form of neo-liberal front; and (iv) that you should generally not trust people employed by <insert industry representative group here> to tell you how healthy the <insert industry here> is, then we'd eradicate many of the problems stated in this thread. I think the appointment of people like Patrick Honohan, the emergence of irisheconomy.ie, and the regular appearance of Whelan/Lucey et al in Montrose indicates that a shift away from the Jim Powers of this world has already begun.

BESman

Time Magazine wrote: »

Our job as academic researchers cannot be regulated. I don't think a bit of a professional affiliation test would much improve our job as policy analysts (and we're ignored anyway).

I agree and I did mention in my post that academic economists would not be subject to the kind of professional affiliation I am talking about as they largely serve a different (and in some cases more beneficial) service than the economists I feel that should be subject to some kind of regulation and professional affiliation.

Time Magazine wrote: »

I think the issue here is media coverage. The media are crap at reporting about economics (some evidence) and regularly give column inches to absolute fucktards. (Aside: I can only speak on their economics coverage, but I despair if their coverage of other fields is as weak. At least it's not restricted to Ireland: Brad DeLong seems to have blogged about poor media coverage over 9000 times.)

If the Irish Times and RTÉ hired one person with a masters in economics who knows: (i) the difference between levels and rates; (ii) budget constraints exist; (iii) that we're running one of the largest fiscal deficits in the developed world and thus cutbacks are not some form of neo-liberal front; and (iv) that you should generally not trust people employed by <insert industry representative group here> to tell you how healthy the <insert industry here> is, then we'd eradicate many of the problems stated in this thread. I think the appointment of people like Patrick Honohan, the emergence of irisheconomy.ie, and the regular appearance of Whelan/Lucey et al in Montrose indicates that a shift away from the Jim Powers of this world has already begun.

Again, I totally agree with this opinion. The Irish media have butchered economics as a science by oversimplification, too much emphasis on forecasts and over reliance on two or three "economic" commentators (Jim Power, David McWilliams, Muir McDowell to name a few). It really bugs me when friends of mine make economic comments based on sh1tty opinion pieces from newspapers when they have no fundamental understanding of even the basic concepts of the science.

I have always enjoyed writing, I may begin lobbying the Irish Times for this economics journalist position you have suggested....

Ostrom

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

No, the MD is not an undergraduate course. In the USA you will obtain an MD from a graduate school, after obtaining a bachelor of between 90 - 120 credit hours.

Hence my qualifier in the footnote

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

You also have attempted to be anal, but been wrong about all your facts

Lovely. Pre-med is but one route to the MD degree, many students join with undergraduate degrees in cognate disciplines. My point was that given the time and intensity of training, the address of doctor is entirely appropraite in a manner similar to the granting of masters-in-passing to PhD students.

On topic - Is there a professional body like the PSI, or IEI for economics graduates?

IEA. But its not really a professional body.
The subject is too broad and lacks a core consensus for it be a 'regulated' body.

Anonymous1987

Time Magazine wrote: »

No

I doubt it'd be much use rather than unworkable. Professional bodies are important in areas such as medicine and law, because of the informational problems facing Joe Public. Joe Public generally does not hire an economist.

What about Joe Business? Interesting you should mention informational problems in the legal profession as economists also exercise their economic knowledge in court cases such as Morgan Kelly and ACC bank.

Time Magazine wrote: »

As far as I see it we have three roles: academic research, government analysis, and consultancy. Our job as academic researchers cannot be regulated.

Agree.

Time Magazine wrote: »

I don't think a bit of a professional affiliation test would much improve our job as policy analysts (and we're ignored anyway). With regards to consultancy, I don't think there's that much value to regulation when Dr Bacon (PhD and all) still gets consultancy nixers. People are essentially paying for elaborate lies and that's hard to counteract in an inexact 'science' like economics.

Consultant economists representing industry or other interest groups are like lawyers, they plead your case and as such I would think that some sort of body that holds economic consultants to account would be a good thing. It wouldn't solve the problem but it might reduce it. I can see where you're coming from though, if economic consultants become regulated then it might kill off new areas of economic thought, even in academia.

Time Magazine wrote: »

I think the issue here is media coverage.

I agree that the media does a poor job but it seems more across the board than anything. High quality news and journalism is a niche market, even the Economist seems to be slipping.

Bob the Builder

I'm in Leaving Cert now, so my knowledge wouldn't be by any means expansive. But Adam Smith didn't have a Phd in Economics, and neither did the likes of Karl Marx. Whilst they both had formal education of one kind or another, neither had a Phd in economics, perhaps primarily because such a "course" didn't exist at the time. But they both specialised in economics and by such have both made huge contributions to modern economics in each of their own ways.

By that conclusion, I would imagine an economist to be someone who specialises in economics. Whether that by way of understanding the theory of economics, practising the theory of economics or indeed contributing to the theory of economics.

And I would imagine a doctor to be the same. I think education gives you a title, but unless you are going to merit that title, then it means nothing. Dr. James O'Reilly is qualified to be a doctor, and owns his own practise, but Dr. O'Reilly is not currently specialising in that, and for that reason I don't believe he should be referred to as Dr O'Reilly. He is a politician now, not a doctor.

That would be my attitude towards it anyway. I hope I don't sound long-winded.

Donegalguy2

I think you can call yourself an economist if you have more of an idea what is going on in the world of finance then farmer Joe. Ie the same way you dont call someone with a field a farmer! All the professions rely on the same insider club to keep others out most are as thick as **** and keep proving it.