IMO a good economist must have a real world experience or at least same more detailed knowledge about areas outside pure economics. Good candidates are management, politics, engineering or anything that can confront you with the realities outside your cabinet, which are pretty messy as a general rule.

This helps not to take yourself and the economic theories much too seriously. Yes, there is a whole lot of truth in them, but the slippery part of the economic theories is that in some circumstances they are 100% valid, in some are 50% valid and in others may even produce disasters if applied.

That's why a feel a little bit uncomfortable with the term "economist" (I have also graduated economics). Besides the fact that there is no such profession it somehow detaches the set of problems they solve from reality (ok, may be it is my perception only). It puts it in line with other pretty much detached terms like "The Economy", "The Market", "The Invisible Hand" etc. etc.

I agree completely, especially with the part about the need for real world experience.  I've worked as a programmer and software designer, technical writer, computer consultant, woodworker (running my own business), and porn star.  (OK, not so much on that last one.)  And those experiences really have done a lot to shape my views of which parts of economic theory hold water and which ones leak like a sieve.

I'm convinced that many of the Evil Economists we see making absurd "don't worry, be happy" claims about the magic of the market are the ones who've never held a job where economics was a contact sport and not a pleasant, easily graphed and analyzed abstraction.