Complete Captcha
Loading..
Economist 0360
Comparing with VF is an insult to FZ.
Economist 45cc
And the VF craziness began
Economist 31f2
Ask VF who is posting about her here. She will tell you. The guy is psychotic.
And the VF craziness began Comparing with VF is an insult to FZ.
Post It’s very simple. Schools have a limited number of lines. Some schools might choose to hire two in one year and zero the next. This often happens when the current cohort is perceived to be stronger than the upcoming one (as happened last year). Many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now. Why would the star group last year affect hiring at the top level this year? You're right, your answer is very simple. It's actually too simple to be right because it's based on a very narrow partial equilibrium. Like I said, every year, there are seasoned people moving for a variety of reasons alongside rookies. Seasoned people who leave can be replaced through the hiring process. So when you say that "many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now," you're assuming that at many schools, there were zero seasoned departures last year and thus no vacancies at those schools this year. Similarly, you're also assuming that there's no top school out there that (1) didn't hire last year, but (2) is hiring this year. So going beyond a very narrow partial equilibrium analysis should make it clear that it isn't so obvious that the star group last year affects hiring at the top level this year. Holy s**t this is some bad thinking lol
It’s very simple. Schools have a limited number of lines. Some schools might choose to hire two in one year and zero the next. This often happens when the current cohort is perceived to be stronger than the upcoming one (as happened last year). Many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now. Why would the star group last year affect hiring at the top level this year? You're right, your answer is very simple. It's actually too simple to be right because it's based on a very narrow partial equilibrium. Like I said, every year, there are seasoned people moving for a variety of reasons alongside rookies. Seasoned people who leave can be replaced through the hiring process. So when you say that "many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now," you're assuming that at many schools, there were zero seasoned departures last year and thus no vacancies at those schools this year. Similarly, you're also assuming that there's no top school out there that (1) didn't hire last year, but (2) is hiring this year. So going beyond a very narrow partial equilibrium analysis should make it clear that it isn't so obvious that the star group last year affects hiring at the top level this year. Holy s**t this is some bad thinking lol
It’s very simple. Schools have a limited number of lines. Some schools might choose to hire two in one year and zero the next. This often happens when the current cohort is perceived to be stronger than the upcoming one (as happened last year). Many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now. Why would the star group last year affect hiring at the top level this year? You're right, your answer is very simple. It's actually too simple to be right because it's based on a very narrow partial equilibrium. Like I said, every year, there are seasoned people moving for a variety of reasons alongside rookies. Seasoned people who leave can be replaced through the hiring process. So when you say that "many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now," you're assuming that at many schools, there were zero seasoned departures last year and thus no vacancies at those schools this year. Similarly, you're also assuming that there's no top school out there that (1) didn't hire last year, but (2) is hiring this year. So going beyond a very narrow partial equilibrium analysis should make it clear that it isn't so obvious that the star group last year affects hiring at the top level this year.
It’s very simple. Schools have a limited number of lines. Some schools might choose to hire two in one year and zero the next. This often happens when the current cohort is perceived to be stronger than the upcoming one (as happened last year). Many schools decided to do their hiring during the strong market, and don’t have much appetite now. Why would the star group last year affect hiring at the top level this year?
Why would the star group last year affect hiring at the top level this year?
Send Post »
Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.
a blockquote code em strong ul ol li