Economics Job Market Rumors

Economics Job Market Rumors » Micro Job Rumors

1. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   It is very disappointing to hear many of you focusing on research as a macho "publication game" exclusively. Isn't it time to consider ourselves real scientists, focus on the social impact of our research, and derive most of our utility from the relevance of our research to peoples' lives? As in more established sciences, shouldn't we perceive research as a collective undertaking where our small contribution will somehow advance collective knowledge in a meaningful way (e.g. cancer research)?... as opposed to considering publications as an status symbol, much like the Ralph Lauren stupid polo logo on a shirt?

   Andrew Oswald makes this point beautifully in a recent paper:

   "it has become common, in my 30-year professional lifetime, to hear people focus on a tiny number of journal ‘labels’ per se, and even sometimes to speak as though a publication in a place like the American Economic Review is an end in itself rather than mattering for its content or its contribution to human welfare"

   http://ftp.iza.org/dp4313.pdf

   Posted 12 months ago #

2. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   And maybe I'll care about that when I can use the 'social contribution' of my research at my tenure hearings.

   Posted 12 months ago #

3. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   I think it's because none of our research has much social contribution.

   If we stopped to think about it for a minute, we'd realize that there are way too many economists relative to what would be socially optimal. I mean seriously, why do the regional Feds pay $120,000+ to new PhDs? You get paid to do whatever the hell you want, periodically participating in an FOMC forecast. Your social contribution is way less than your salary.

   We designed the publication culture so that we can convince ourselves that what we do is important, thereby raising our salaries.

   Posted 12 months ago #

4. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Established economists (those that landed their AERs and tenure) do worry about how many citations their papers get. If that is because they worry about impact or if they are in a "macho citation game", I don't know.

   A weird thing is, those economist who go for having are not seen so well here: those that spend time writing best-sellers, op-ed newspaper pieces or publishing in the scientific journals (Science, Nature, etc.) are not seem as "true academics".

   Posted 12 months ago #

5. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   The sad thing is that MOST OF THE PAPERS ARE NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON.

   Its a device for vanity and we chase this vanity in an illusory manner. But this is unfortunately the case in every human profession.

   I know a bunch of really well-known economists who asked me (who is nothing compared to them in the league) whether I cited them in my papers. Jerks!

   Moreover, more I came to know "big name" economists, the more I started suspecting the sanctity of academics, if there is any.

   Posted 12 months ago #

6. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   First, "real scientists" don't necessarily care about "social impact" of their research. Call Grigori Perelman and ask him if he does. It's OK to care about social impact. It's also OK not to care.

   Second, much of scientific progress is driven by vanity and ego. Go read up on Newton and on how much he cared about getting credit for calculus. You can also read up on Einstein and how he rushed some of his research to beat Hilbert to it. If he only cared about advancing knowledge, he'd simply collaborate with Hilbert to solve the problem, wouldn't he? You should read "The Double Helix", too -- it's probably the best illustration of my point.

   So real scientists (i.e., those in the real world, not in some imaginary perfect world) are vain, care about credit a whole deal, care about status, etc. Actually, I wonder if there is an example of a top scientist (any field) who genuinely did not care about ego and getting credit and simply wanted to advance knowledge. Maybe Erdos? Perelman? Anyone sane?

   Posted 12 months ago #

7. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   To the last poster:

   While you have quite made your point by mentioning these big big names, still there is a clear scope for a philosophical debate here.Had Einstein collaborated with Hilbert, the gain in knowledge would have been exactly the same (though that is a counterfactual statement). And, by no means, this defies the logic of previous posters.

   Moreover, vanity or status can also have some real adverse effects. For example, Bruno Frey has written a lot on this issue.

   Posted 12 months ago #

8. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   There are quite a few economists who care for the public good. In fact, with the advent of the Internet and the working paper culture, journals are not the best way to disseminate research anymore, and some do not bother to publish their work once it has been well disseminated as a working paper.

   Posted 12 months ago #

9. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   I know, for a fact, that Selten does not care much about where his papers get published.

   Posted 12 months ago #

10. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    I know, for a fact, that Selten does not care much about where his papers get published.
    =========
    I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. He invented Subgame Perfection, got the Nobel prize 15 years ago and has nothing to prove. But I bet he did care when he was 30-40 years old.

    Posted 12 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »