Haha
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
Tks god i switched to fenance
↧
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
I just switched, what are the hot topics?
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
I just switched, what are the hot topics?
Now that you switched to fenance, YOU are da hot topic.
↧
Economist on "Uri Gneezy"
A big asshole. Dishonest about research and as a person. You must be careful about this guy. Also heard that MS became corrupt mainly because of him. Check the recently published papers. Lots of the authors are in close relation with this ass.
↧
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
#blessed
I know who you are. Glad you switched too, good choice.
↧
Economist on "Thanks god I switched to fenance"
Haven't you heard about CEO d*ck size and innovation? It has been mentioned here many times already
Yeah but I can now
Reg innov value of women and instrument with dick size.
↧
Economist on "Official ranking of PhD programs according to recent placement"
UCL should be top 10 easily
OP is a clueless Minnesota/Penn redneck who thinks the US is the centre of the universe. With this mindset, they'll keep on having postdocs as their best placements.
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
Yes i forgot to talk about that, it's relative numbers
Chicago and Upenn should have their points divided by half, to control for murder
What should be 6, 5, 4, 3 ? What about 2 ?
Don't you think a MIT placement being better than, let's say three SUNY placement, isn't a good ranking for risk-avert people?shoud be
6 pts
5 pts
4 pts
3 pts
1 pts - industry (related to policy or investments, not starbucks economists)
0 pts - other industries, unemployed, basement-dwellers, etcFirst, any jerb is better than no jerb so only zero should be unemployed, basement-dwellers, etc by July for those who went on the job market AND completed their PhD
Next, it cannot be an absolute number of placements - it has to be relative to those who tried. Another way to sort this is negative points for unemployed etc
↧
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
Three things.
First, you should ranked them by median placement, not points for all placements. By adding points for each placement, you immediately penalize schools with smaller cohorts or with a lot of students going to industry.
Second, you should add a measure of value added. For example, say Yale is ranked 8th according to Tilburg, but it's ranked 4th in your ranking. That's a better result than a department that is ranked 6th in both rankings.
Third, if you want to produce a really good ranking based on placements, it's not good enough to simply check the lists in each school. That would fail to account those that get jobs after a postdoc. If you don't account for that, then your ranking would be based only on initial placements.
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
What should be 6, 5, 4, 3 ? What about 2 ?
Don't you think a MIT placement being better than, let's say three SUNY placement, isn't a good ranking for risk-avert people?shoud be
6 pts
5 pts
4 pts
3 pts
1 pts - industry (related to policy or investments, not starbucks economists)
0 pts - other industries, unemployed, basement-dwellers, etc
No because MIT churns out too many candidates, way more than SUNY
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
Three things.
First, you should ranked them by median placement, not points for all placements. By adding points for each placement, you immediately penalize schools with smaller cohorts or with a lot of students going to industry.
Second, you should add a measure of value added. For example, say Yale is ranked 8th according to Tilburg, but it's ranked 4th in your ranking. That's a better result than a department that is ranked 6th in both rankings.
Third, if you want to produce a really good ranking based on placements, it's not good enough to simply check the lists in each school. That would fail to account those that get jobs after a postdoc. If you don't account for that, then your ranking would be based only on initial placements.
I would do mean rather than median. I would like to see separate rankings for initial placements vs several years out.
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
Creating a ranking system based on the ranking system itself will cause endogenous problem.
↧
↧
Economist on "Uri Gneezy"
An asshole is an asshole no matter what. Professionalism should ban this kind of asshole behavior regardless of whether you are in his gang or not. This is academia not Mafia.
His consulting service sounds like a joke. Our company wasted tons of money before we realized he had literally stolen money from us.
From what I've understood, he has his own gang, not difficult to figure out, who those people are. Uri is very smart, very intuitive, and his ego is quite visible. If you are not on his gang, it is not impossible for him to be an asshole to you. If you are in his gang, you would love him.
↧
Economist on "Uri Gneezy"
I do not understand what your point is. If your company was stupid enough to pour money without good reasons, it is on your company. Also, if you have a backbone, get off EJMR anonymity and make sure the bad people/ jerks get the bad reputation they deserve.
No one will believe you as long as you stick to EJMR.
An asshole is an asshole no matter what. Professionalism should ban this kind of asshole behavior regardless of whether you are in his gang or not. This is academia not Mafia.
His consulting service sounds like a joke. Our company wasted tons of money before we realized he had literally stolen money from us.From what I've understood, he has his own gang, not difficult to figure out, who those people are. Uri is very smart, very intuitive, and his ego is quite visible. If you are not on his gang, it is not impossible for him to be an asshole to you. If you are in his gang, you would love him.
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
But tilburg ranking is based on publications, so it's ok
Creating a ranking system based on the ranking system itself will cause endogenous problem.
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
So, placing a student at MIT is worth 3 points and placing a student at Gothenburg is worth 2?
Also, the Tilburg ranking is absurd. Princeton and Duke are equal placements? Texas A&M and Wisconsin are equal placements?
This ranking is going to suck.
↧
↧
Economist on "Rate my methodology to create placement-based ranking of PhD programs"
Need something to differentiate VLRM non TT placements vs industry. Maybe make 4 points the highest, 1 point for TT Academic placement, 0 points for industry/postdoc.
↧
Economist on "Some truthful facts about The University of Chicago"
it can't be denied that Chicago is on a slow and steady decline when it comes to Econ. Rankings, placement and the general feeling in the phd market point to that. Personally there is no way in hell I would choose Chicago over H,M,S,P, Y. For Northwestern I would still think of it very hard and I am inclined to say NW.
The only top 10 schools I would turn down for Chicago would be Penn and Columbia.
Chicago definitely doesn't deserve to be part of CHYMPS at this point.
↧
Economist on "Anybody stay in academia because of dreading having a boss/bosses?"
Everyone always has a boss, for example:
Academics have to deal with annoying administrators and journal referees to succeed..
Oh cry me a river. Clearly you have never had a real job.
↧