Are Professors Self-Selected to be Poor Managers?

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who is in a doctoral program for chemical engineering at Iowa State University. In the course of the conversation I asked him if he had a thesis adviser yet, and if so, whether he was pleased with his adviser. He voiced approval of his adviser, specifically because they get along. From talking with other friends at graduate school, I know that getting an adviser whose well-connected and has research interests that you share is important, so I found his comment a little puzzling (I should mention that they do also share research interests).

He told me that he's talked with other friends in graduate engineering programs and many of them aren't happy with their adviser because:

1. They are far too hard on them, or
2. They leave them on a long leash and then come down hard on them

I pointed out that those problems were due to poor managerial skills, not the technical skills one needs to attain the positions the advisers hold. My friend then reminded me that academia appealed to him going into graduate school precisely because he doesn't need to have managerial skills to function in the field.

That left me wondering if professors self-select themselves to be poor managers, despite the fact that they will likely be managing people their entire careers. Have you noticed a lack of managerial skills in the advisers in your graduate studies? Perhaps the selection is field specific, as chemical engineers require chemicals, not people. Is there some other causal factor underlying this imagined correlation that I could be missing?

A Capitalistic Christmas

There’s a board at the Star Gospel Mission with pictures on it, and every day there’s less and less. Because, you see, there’s less days to work around the holidays for day laborers. It’s cold outside. It rains a lot. Many employers take time off—lots of it. So while Christmas carolers, donated food, hand knitted scarves and warm clothes pile into the Star Gospel, the men who can’t pay their rent anymore pass them on their way out.

This is a capitalistic Christmas, based on supply and demand. There’s less demand for laborers, and ironically more supply of needless crap (Forgive me for playing the role of God. It’s possible hearing “Silent Night” could inspire anyone to create a sequel to "The Pursuit of Happyness." We just can’t say for sure. And I really do like my scarf—it’s blue and green, and warm.).

There are a lot of loopholes to be sure (cigarettes, booze, drugs, prostitutes, completely unnecessary spending on a license to carry a concealed weapon), but if we could compartmentalize capitalism into claiming its own responsibility, could you make an argument that it lets these guys down? At any point? Man shows up to work every day, gets picked some days but not others, makes $48 a day on the days he does, uses this to pay for food and shelter and anything else. Then one week doesn’t get picked enough days to pay for both food and shelter, so picks one.

Is this some sort of manipulated capitalism? After all, employers do pay anywhere from $13-$20 an hour for day laborers, but the laborers lack the resources and organization to collect that wage themselves, and so instead they make minimum wage. Is it only capitalism if the pure supply and pure demand are exchanged fairly? What constitutes fair? Who decides?

Opportunity Costs & Wedding Planning

I am a (relatively) newly engaged man and engagement is about planning a wedding and preparing for marriage. I have to say that I have never understood the concept of opportunity costs more clearly than in the course of evaluating decisions for the wedding. Would we rather invite 50 more people or keep our guest list constant but increase the quality of the food? Would we rather have the wedding on a Sunday at our ideal location or on a Saturday at our second choice? Would we rather have a band to increase the probability of dancing and thereby increase the probability of a more enjoyable wedding or would the cost saved by using a DJ compensate us properly for the lower probability of dancing?

There have been a few times where I've been tempted to draw indifference curves for our various options, overlay the budget, and see what maximizes our utility. That would truly make me homo economicus (assuming I could accurately draw the indifference curves, which is especially difficult given that there are multiple parties involved).