The first round of 200 Future Fellowships has been announced (full list here), for funding starting in 2009. One thing that struck me was the paucity of economists, with just two making the cut (congratulations to health economist Anthony Scott and Bayesian econometrician Gael Martin).* Here are the stats by discipline (more breakdowns here):

While the overall acceptance rate was 20.5%, the rate in economics was just 10%. The best theory I can come up with is that the FF salaries look differentially attractive depending on your discipline. For example, Step 3 researchers are expected to have 10-15 years’ research experience, be recognised internationally, and make outstanding contributions to research. Yet at $135k, the FF amount is below the bottom rung of professorial salaries at many universities. Thus the fellowships look most attractive to disciplines where promotion rates are slow, because outside options are poor (eg. philosophy, anthropology), and less attractive in disciplines where the promotion rates are more rapid (eg. accounting, finance).

Still, this theory doesn’t explain why medicine did so well… so perhaps I need some alternatives. Any suggestions?

xposted @ andrewleigh.com

* In case you’re thinking sour grapes, I was ineligible to apply for the FFs, since you needed to have received a PhD between 1993 and 2003.

One thought on “F-F-Funding”

  1. I thought that the k$135 for the FF comes to the institution so it should not be compared with the salary. In addition, some universities are reimburding the department for the loss of teaching (when the FF is an internal appointment) so potentially nearly all ot the k$135 could end up in the Future fellow’s pocket as a salary loading.


Comments are closed.