Today, Elinor Ostrom was the first woman to win the Novel Prize in Economics, together with Oliver Williamson, both Americans. She never even got a Ph.D. in Economics. This, combined with her picture, above, make me feel great, for two reasons.
Disciplines are merging
Ostrom won for her work with common-pool resources, which are basically public goods like the atmosphere or forests, but with the caveat that they are subtractable, meaning they can be used up, whereas purely public goods, such as roads, cannot. She found that,
those with a vested interest in the resources they manage are frequently better at regulating those resources than publicly-appointed management bodies would be.
Despite her work in this field, a problem economists commonly deal with (resource constraints), she is not at all an economist, but got her PhD in Political Science. This confirms my belief that it is now easier than ever to transition between disciplines in the workplace, with the exception of hard-boiled sciences, which is totally a relief, because what if I want to become a political scientists someday? Studies have been saying as much for the past twenty years (read this PDF, and see, alarmingly , how similar the world environment is today), and even more recently.
This is great news. Career flexibility is of utmost importance to my generation, and I used to think this was pretty much crap, until I decided I liked options. What if I want to, at some point, go into marketing? Or finance? Or even owning my own dog paint studio (a girl can dream, can’t she?) Or becoming a stay-at-home-overnight-success-economics-novelist? I can do any of those things, as long as I use my previous experience to spin my qualifications the right way, as the Nobel Committee did to Ostrom. What’s even more exciting is how many possibilities the field of economics has, leading me to believe that I picked the right major all along, because there are so many different directions I can go in Economics.
It’s always had a deep overlap with politics, with game theory, but now economics overlaps even with things like neuroscience (although the connection is pretty tenuous right now.)
Which brings me to my second observation:
Women don’t have to be supermodels or housewives
I don’t know about you, but for me it is such a relief to see a successful woman who doesn’t look like this:
Or like this:
But that actually is successful because she is smart and worked damn hard to get it. And that, to recieve her prize, she doesn’t have to dress like a piece of toilet paper:
I am so grateful that role models like still exist and are not relegated to the past like pre-Botox smiles and pictures without Photoshop filters. Thank you, Dr. Ostrom. You rock.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Hurray for another woman Nobel winner! I agree with you about being able to be successful without the clothing requirements of the successful ladies in the pictures.
Here’s another source of pride for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Yonath
And, by the way, these days I tend to vote in favor of being a houswife/artist. But that’s just me.
Hurrah for Ada, too! And, there’s nothing wrong with being a housewife, but sometimes society tells us it’s our only option. I’ve been getting that vibe lately, not sure why.
When I started college in the OLD days (as my smarty pants teenager likes to point out) in 1983 there were conversations about girls who went to college to get an Mrs. degree… They were looked down on because the society was pushing girls into careers to compete with males. I was an Electrical Engineering major and clearly a masochistic. I think the girls with Mrs. degrees, unlike me and a number of my friends, were on to something… They ENJOYED their college years. They truly knew what they wanted and spent their college tuition on classes that I would have loved but because of academic overload in my major, could not afford the time to take. In the end I can not say that I am better off than they are. In fact, in some cases I am absolutely not better off, having taken on all too much in life. Those girls, on the other hand, seem to have known early in life what was for them and what was to be left for their future partners. I now know that balance is the name of the game and overachievers as well as attempted overachievers while recognize the need for it, seem to have no way to achieve it.
In my efforts to apply what I have learned, I tell my daughter that the choices are hers to make while giving her as much information as possible and forcing her (yes, forcing) to excel in ALL subjects…vs. pushing her into one direction in particular. By the way, in high school I was voted the one most likely to succeed in science.
Wow. This is such a great comment. Thank you.
I think there are still conversations about the Mrs. degree-I know a couple girls that, like you said, went just to enjoy and then find a husband and major in what they loved while I, like you, and many other women toiled away (though not in anything nearly as admirable as EE.) Was I right? I certainly felt haughtier than those who were in college to just screw around, as I thought they were doing. But working and living alone for a year before I got married has been one of the best things I’ve ever done, because I would be way too scared to depend on my husband for our entire livelihood (and also I don’t think it’s fair for one partner to have all the financial pressure, but I’m sure it’s another discussion to have whether raising kids balances that out.)
So, I don’t know. You may be right in that they enjoyed college and went about it better than we did, slaving away at the library. But you are right that balance is the key to everything, and that you are instilling it in your daughter.
Thanks again. A lot to think about.
That is indeed a recipient worthy of Alfred Nobel’s intent, who established the foundation to award “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” I hope that schools and parents play this one up to their young daughters. I know I will.
I agree. I don’t remember females succeeding in certain fields being emphasized too much in school and hope more school do this now.
Thanks for writing about this! I’m thrilled about her win too…in particular because of the quote you posted. I believe strongly in the concept of private property rights as a means to protect rare resources.
Thanks for stopping by! Private property rights have certainly been proven to be more efficient than group ownership in econ, and it’s something that is sorely missing from the debate in politics these days.
Vicki:
“Disciplines are merging and are being awarded the Nobel” was also my first thought as I mentioned to someone on Twitter (see: http://bit.ly/1FA1rL). In real life these trajectories are exceptions rather than the rule. Many career academics believe that you cannot specialise in something you did not study at your undergraduate (which qualifies me for only digital electronics, telecomms and robotics but let’s leave that aside for now). I had a full-blown argument with a member of my faculty degree committee over this and some told me they’d make sure I failed the PhD. Which didn’t happen
Studying a new discipline at a graduate level – unless it is an amalgam discipline such as management – is quite a lot of work. I studied biochemistry and political science like that to make the doctoral work worth something. So while the lesson is a celebration, a cause for joy, it needs to be applied with caution. (Exceptional polymaths in our lifetime include Peter Drucker, Amartya Sen and Charles Handy. Handy does not have a PhD. I think Drucker did and Sen has a Nobel, for good measure).
On the second one, I am with you. But then look around you. Do you see any different? Sallie Krawcheck is an exception I think. Most others are well-presented but ordinary looking women. More Meg Whitman than Meg Ryan. Those caricatures of women appear in a certain kind of press, don’t they? The kind few smart women have time for. In the midst of their work, intellectual advancement, hobbies, and personal life.
I agree about academia being more walled than corporate life (of which the Nobel is an exemption). I think that, in Corporatia, it’s much easier to go from an engineering major to an economist (I actually work with a couple.)
Vicki:
Also Sallie Krawcheck, who achieved much careerwise and is very pretty to boot, suggests that choosing the right husband is very important. She was married twice. Our friend PT had blogged an interview of Ms Krawcheck which you may want to read. I’d paraphrase that old adage as “behind every unsuccessful woman is a husband who tramples on her motivation, self-confidence and ambition with the blunt instruments of neglect, guilt and housework”. Anyone can get a Mrs degree but only a few get it with honours
Sallie Krawcheck-will have to google. As always, great food for thought