Dude show me at least 2 or 3 guys with 2 years or less after PhD with a JEEM or more... Please.
In general, 2 year post doc and no pubs in top field journal = bad signal!!!!
Best environmental candidates this year?
-
Dude, look at recent hires in any decent department.
Dude show me at least 2 or 3 guys with 2 years or less after PhD with a JEEM or more... Please.
In general, 2 year post doc and no pubs in top field journal = bad signal!!!!My dept has a young AP who has not published shit since being hired. Has been more than 2 years.
-
^ df13, then you would have passed on Michael Greenstone. That = bad decision rule!!!!! Much better to evaluate the quality of someone's work, even if unpublished as yet, because quality publications take serious time.
I would agree but people don't make decisions that way. They make decisions based on results, when good results are delayed they gamble on being able to reverse what with hindsight might have been a bad decision.
-
The listings were not up the other day. Out of the 4, van Benthem looks real good, the rest don't stand out but I'm sure they'll get the Stanford bump.
http://economics.stanford.edu/graduate/job-market-candidatesStanford looks like they have several people in environmental this year... I would argue the strongest group anywhere.
-
^ df13, then you would have passed on Michael Greenstone. That = bad decision rule!!!!! Much better to evaluate the quality of someone's work, even if unpublished as yet, because quality publications take serious time.
Greenstone has been really successful, but people are really starting to wonder about the quality of his work. For two of his major papers, other researchers have found big errors (cases where the paper is clearly wrong, and where if you correct the error, all of the important results go away). Everyone makes an occasional mistake, so having a mistake in one paper isn't a big deal. But having big mistakes in two papers is really making people worry about whether any of his work can be trusted.
-
Name an important paper that calls into question his major results. I'm not being facetious, just curious.
^ df13, then you would have passed on Michael Greenstone. That = bad decision rule!!!!! Much better to evaluate the quality of someone's work, even if unpublished as yet, because quality publications take serious time.
Greenstone has been really successful, but people are really starting to wonder about the quality of his work. For two of his major papers, other researchers have found big errors (cases where the paper is clearly wrong, and where if you correct the error, all of the important results go away). Everyone makes an occasional mistake, so having a mistake in one paper isn't a big deal. But having big mistakes in two papers is really making people worry about whether any of his work can be trusted. -
can you give a link?
Forthcoming comment in AER
http://www.columbia.edu/~ws2162/agClimateChange.pdf
In a series of studies employing a variety of approaches we have found that the potential impact of climate change on US agriculture is likely negative. Deschenes and Greenstone (2007) report dramatically different results based on regressions of agricultural profits and yields on weather variables. The divergence is explained by (1) missing and incorrect weather and climate data in their study; (2) their use of older climate change projections rather than the more recent and less optimistic projections from the Fourth Assessment Report; and (3) difficulties in their profit measure due to the confounding effects of storage.
-
Well done, thanks. But again, I don't see why this has turned into a "Greenstone thread".
Forthcoming comment in AER
http://www.columbia.edu/~ws2162/agClimateChange.pdf
In a series of studies employing a variety of approaches we have found that the potential impact of climate change on US agriculture is likely negative. Deschenes and Greenstone (2007) report dramatically different results based on regressions of agricultural profits and yields on weather variables. The divergence is explained by (1) missing and incorrect weather and climate data in their study; (2) their use of older climate change projections rather than the more recent and less optimistic projections from the Fourth Assessment Report; and (3) difficulties in their profit measure due to the confounding effects of storage.