America’s universities are producing an awful lot of economists these days. Too many? Well, if Levitt is successful in getting rid of tenure (don’t bet on it), there will certainly be some teaching openings. Otherwise, newly minted economists may wish to consider the career path of David Teece.
Teece is a 58-year-old Berkeley professor who, noting that the legal system was becoming heavily dependent on economic arguments, has become a prolific and well-remunerated expert witness. He has built a 1300-person research shop, LECG, to feed information to him and other economist expert witnesses. Teece has personally testified in cases concerning Napster, Oracle, and Philip Morris, and in 2005 earned nearly $3 million for his legal work.
“I won’t get many thank-you notes for this,” Teece told the Wall Street Journal, “but we’ve given economists the chance to earn investment bankers’ incomes. If you’re successful with us, it isn’t hard to make half a million dollars a year.” About 60 LECG experts, Teece said, earned at least that much last year.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Thanks for pointing out yet another profession I should have chosen on career day.
Thanks for pointing out yet another profession I should have chosen on career day.
This seems to work in line perfectly with the demand for free market capital and talent. It provides talented professors a great opportunity to make extra income on demand.
It seems like there are more organizations today that care about acadamia prestige over the glossy prestige of industry and media exposure. In my opinion, it is a good thing. I much rather have a society that values intelligence over media exposure.
bunnyblaster
This seems to work in line perfectly with the demand for free market capital and talent. It provides talented professors a great opportunity to make extra income on demand.
It seems like there are more organizations today that care about acadamia prestige over the glossy prestige of industry and media exposure. In my opinion, it is a good thing. I much rather have a society that values intelligence over media exposure.
bunnyblaster
I wonder how much integrity is in this line of work, how robust is the research, etc. What happens when his firm can’t tease the right results from the data–at least in the eyes of the client? Do they go to Philip Morris and say “sorry, your product kills people, that’ll be $20M” or do they employ statistical trickery? I may be off-base but I’d bank on the latter.
BTW, I’d be happy to get into this line of work.
I wonder how much integrity is in this line of work, how robust is the research, etc. What happens when his firm can’t tease the right results from the data–at least in the eyes of the client? Do they go to Philip Morris and say “sorry, your product kills people, that’ll be $20M” or do they employ statistical trickery? I may be off-base but I’d bank on the latter.
BTW, I’d be happy to get into this line of work.
I do not doubt the integrety as much as I doubt the defence against them. Suppose you pit an Phd applied economist who is well versed in research against an Industry Analyst who has 2 years of MBA and 4 years of undergrad, who do you think will offer more insightful and detailed analysis. As an impartial judge, who is often overwhelmed and can only consider the evidence at hand, it comes as no surprise that these academics are doing so well.
The real test of the robustness of their research is called into question when you pit them against an individual of similar credentials or capabilities.
I want to clarify one thing. One assumption I am making here is that the academics who reach Phd level are all intelligent individuals who backs up their credentials with solid research and performance.
bunnyblaster
I do not doubt the integrety as much as I doubt the defence against them. Suppose you pit an Phd applied economist who is well versed in research against an Industry Analyst who has 2 years of MBA and 4 years of undergrad, who do you think will offer more insightful and detailed analysis. As an impartial judge, who is often overwhelmed and can only consider the evidence at hand, it comes as no surprise that these academics are doing so well.
The real test of the robustness of their research is called into question when you pit them against an individual of similar credentials or capabilities.
I want to clarify one thing. One assumption I am making here is that the academics who reach Phd level are all intelligent individuals who backs up their credentials with solid research and performance.
bunnyblaster