I cannot believe you are also here
I cannot believe you post here.
Kasy UCSB is fake news. Spoke with him today, and he hasn't committed.
Econometrics JMC stars
-
Gao also got into the 2019 Restud Tour. He is the only econometrician selected. Semerova (MIT) and Tabord-Meehan (NW) deserved it more in my opinion.
From another thread: Gao selected? Unbelievable....his talk was the worse I saw this season.
Very weird. After all this is the state of econometrics.
-
Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I don't know if any of the three would really become a world-leading econometrician. That said, the one with better placement should perhaps go to the Restud Tour. Like it or not but it is Tabord-Meehan.
Sorry if Tabord-Meehan "only" got Chicago man!
Btw semenova also had JHU. She is following Chernozhukov and Newey? Well, at least you know that is going to be good work. Cannot say the same about Gao's work so far.
Anyway, I don't find any of them impressive. Thus, best placement should go to the tour.
Yes, Gao got many fly-outs and offers. But remember if he was really that good he would have also got offers from the top-3, 5. There must be a reason he didn't land there, no?
-
He sure rushed to go to the market as he went in his 5th year, and he only converted to metrics very recently. There is no discussion on this.
Mimicking Victor and Newey does imply you will be sucessfull - at one point, people get bored of seeing the same papers refreshed.
Max is also great, no discussion about it. But his mkt was much more restrict than Gao.
Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I don't know if any of the three would really become a world-leading econometrician. That said, the one with better placement should perhaps go to the Restud Tour. Like it or not but it is Tabord-Meehan.
Sorry if Tabord-Meehan "only" got Chicago man!
Btw semenova also had JHU. She is following Chernozhukov and Newey? Well, at least you know that is going to be good work. Cannot say the same about Gao's work so far.
Anyway, I don't find any of them impressive. Thus, best placement should go to the tour.
Yes, Gao got many fly-outs and offers. But remember if he was really that good he would have also got offers from the top-3, 5. There must be a reason he didn't land there, no? -
He sure rushed to go to the market as he went in his 5th year, and he only converted to metrics very recently. There is no discussion on this.
Mimicking Victor and Newey does imply you will be sucessfull - at one point, people get bored of seeing the same papers refreshed.
Max is also great, no discussion about it. But his mkt was much more restrict than Gao.Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I don't know if any of the three would really become a world-leading econometrician. That said, the one with better placement should perhaps go to the Restud Tour. Like it or not but it is Tabord-Meehan.
Sorry if Tabord-Meehan "only" got Chicago man!
Btw semenova also had JHU. She is following Chernozhukov and Newey? Well, at least you know that is going to be good work. Cannot say the same about Gao's work so far.
Anyway, I don't find any of them impressive. Thus, best placement should go to the tour.
Yes, Gao got many fly-outs and offers. But remember if he was really that good he would have also got offers from the top-3, 5. There must be a reason he didn't land there, no?
Completely agree with what you say. However, If Gao had such high potential, the top-5 would have noticed it. This is my prior.
-
What a stupid a jealous comment. You should grow up and understand how science works and what is the role of the individual contribution. I never saw anything worthy produced by job market candidates even if it land Econometrica (give me a counterexample). Most of the research these days boils down to recycling old ideas. It's not just the metrics, you can see it everywhere else (chemistry, biology, math, particle physics, etc.). There are just too many people doing science who need papers to be published and to get promoted. Either we'll have new technologies helping our way out, or we are before the next Renaissance (my rant for today).
It's pretty clear what every job market candidate is worth - just look at the efforts put in the job market paper. You don't have to be econometrician to see who did the job right. Now for the rest of the jealous crowd, put more effort into your research instead of trying to trash others or alternatively, tell your students that they should fight for themselves instead of writing papers for you. It's pretty clear who is the glorified RA and who can produce independent ideas.
Btw, Semenova combined ideas from several fields on her own, ideas that do not have any connections to Chernozhukov's or Newey's work. But haters gonna hate...
Btw, Newey is not the top econometrician, like most of you think (sounds shocking, right?). Yes, he managed to become famous and to publish well. But most of the ideas from his famous papers come from somewhere else. His students give him credit for ideas that he clearly did not produce, like series estimators, HAC estimator, GMM asymptotics, semiparametric efficiency bounds, control functions, etc... Grow up and learn to be an independent thinker.
Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
-
What a stupid a jealous comment. You should grow up and understand how science works and what is the role of the individual contribution. I never saw anything worthy produced by job market candidates even if it land Econometrica (give me a counterexample). Most of the research these days boils down to recycling old ideas. It's not just the metrics, you can see it everywhere else (chemistry, biology, math, particle physics, etc.). There are just too many people doing science who need papers to be published and to get promoted. Either we'll have new technologies helping our way out, or we are before the next Renaissance (my rant for today).
It's pretty clear what every job market candidate is worth - just look at the efforts put in the job market paper. You don't have to be econometrician to see who did the job right. Now for the rest of the jealous crowd, put more effort into your research instead of trying to trash others or alternatively, tell your students that they should fight for themselves instead of writing papers for you. It's pretty clear who is the glorified RA and who can produce independent ideas.
Btw, Semenova combined ideas from several fields on her own, ideas that do not have any connections to Chernozhukov's or Newey's work. But haters gonna hate...
Btw, Newey is not the top econometrician, like most of you think (sounds shocking, right?). Yes, he managed to become famous and to publish well. But most of the ideas from his famous papers come from somewhere else. His students give him credit for ideas that he clearly did not produce, like series estimators, HAC estimator, GMM asymptotics, semiparametric efficiency bounds, control functions, etc... Grow up and learn to be an independent thinker.Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I do not think that Semerova's work is copy-paste from Chernozhokov or Newey but I do think that her research has strong connections with Chernozhukov's at least.
Also, if Newey is not top econometrician, who is top econometrician then?
I think he did fundamental work in econometrics. We should not be too obsessed with new "ideas". To be an important contribution does not need to be a new "idea". Take Bollerslev's GARCH model. Published in JoE and has about 25,000 cites to date. Yes, it's not a new idea because it is related to an infinite order ARCH model of Engle (his advisor). You can generate GARCH dynamics by using an ARCH model with many terms. However, computation may become cumbersome. To conclude, I think Bollerslev's GARCH model constitutes an important contribution even if it is not a new "idea".I agree that it is now rare to see JM papers that produces holistic contribution in econometrics. Let's be honest. Doing econometrics nowadays is much more difficult than it was in the 80s and 90s when the field was just born. More difficult in the sense that getting visibility and cites now is harder than in those years. Yet, I think there are JM papers that make important contribution. Also this year there were.
-
What a stupid a jealous comment. You should grow up and understand how science works and what is the role of the individual contribution. I never saw anything worthy produced by job market candidates even if it land Econometrica (give me a counterexample). Most of the research these days boils down to recycling old ideas. It's not just the metrics, you can see it everywhere else (chemistry, biology, math, particle physics, etc.). There are just too many people doing science who need papers to be published and to get promoted. Either we'll have new technologies helping our way out, or we are before the next Renaissance (my rant for today).
It's pretty clear what every job market candidate is worth - just look at the efforts put in the job market paper. You don't have to be econometrician to see who did the job right. Now for the rest of the jealous crowd, put more effort into your research instead of trying to trash others or alternatively, tell your students that they should fight for themselves instead of writing papers for you. It's pretty clear who is the glorified RA and who can produce independent ideas.
Btw, Semenova combined ideas from several fields on her own, ideas that do not have any connections to Chernozhukov's or Newey's work. But haters gonna hate...
Btw, Newey is not the top econometrician, like most of you think (sounds shocking, right?). Yes, he managed to become famous and to publish well. But most of the ideas from his famous papers come from somewhere else. His students give him credit for ideas that he clearly did not produce, like series estimators, HAC estimator, GMM asymptotics, semiparametric efficiency bounds, control functions, etc... Grow up and learn to be an independent thinker.Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I do not think that Semerova's work is copy-paste from Chernozhokov or Newey but I do think that her research has strong connections with Chernozhukov's at least.
Also, if Newey is not top econometrician, who is top econometrician then?
I think he did fundamental work in econometrics. We should not be too obsessed with new "ideas". To be an important contribution does not need to be a new "idea". Take Bollerslev's GARCH model. Published in JoE and has about 25,000 cites to date. Yes, it's not a new idea because it is related to an infinite order ARCH model of Engle (his advisor). You can generate GARCH dynamics by using an ARCH model with many terms. However, computation may become cumbersome. To conclude, I think Bollerslev's GARCH model constitutes an important contribution even if it is not a new "idea".
I agree that it is now rare to see JM papers that produces holistic contribution in econometrics. Let's be honest. Doing econometrics nowadays is much more difficult than it was in the 80s and 90s when the field was just born. More difficult in the sense that getting visibility and cites now is harder than in those years. Yet, I think there are JM papers that make important contribution. Also this year there were.Which ones stand out?
-
What a stupid a jealous comment. You should grow up and understand how science works and what is the role of the individual contribution. I never saw anything worthy produced by job market candidates even if it land Econometrica (give me a counterexample). Most of the research these days boils down to recycling old ideas. It's not just the metrics, you can see it everywhere else (chemistry, biology, math, particle physics, etc.). There are just too many people doing science who need papers to be published and to get promoted. Either we'll have new technologies helping our way out, or we are before the next Renaissance (my rant for today).
It's pretty clear what every job market candidate is worth - just look at the efforts put in the job market paper. You don't have to be econometrician to see who did the job right. Now for the rest of the jealous crowd, put more effort into your research instead of trying to trash others or alternatively, tell your students that they should fight for themselves instead of writing papers for you. It's pretty clear who is the glorified RA and who can produce independent ideas.
Btw, Semenova combined ideas from several fields on her own, ideas that do not have any connections to Chernozhukov's or Newey's work. But haters gonna hate...
Btw, Newey is not the top econometrician, like most of you think (sounds shocking, right?). Yes, he managed to become famous and to publish well. But most of the ideas from his famous papers come from somewhere else. His students give him credit for ideas that he clearly did not produce, like series estimators, HAC estimator, GMM asymptotics, semiparametric efficiency bounds, control functions, etc... Grow up and learn to be an independent thinker.Plus, Semenova work is “copy-paste” from Victor and Whitney....
I do not think that Semerova's work is copy-paste from Chernozhokov or Newey but I do think that her research has strong connections with Chernozhukov's at least.
Also, if Newey is not top econometrician, who is top econometrician then?
I think he did fundamental work in econometrics. We should not be too obsessed with new "ideas". To be an important contribution does not need to be a new "idea". Take Bollerslev's GARCH model. Published in JoE and has about 25,000 cites to date. Yes, it's not a new idea because it is related to an infinite order ARCH model of Engle (his advisor). You can generate GARCH dynamics by using an ARCH model with many terms. However, computation may become cumbersome. To conclude, I think Bollerslev's GARCH model constitutes an important contribution even if it is not a new "idea".
I agree that it is now rare to see JM papers that produces holistic contribution in econometrics. Let's be honest. Doing econometrics nowadays is much more difficult than it was in the 80s and 90s when the field was just born. More difficult in the sense that getting visibility and cites now is harder than in those years. Yet, I think there are JM papers that make important contribution. Also this year there were.Which ones stand out?
The issue is just that. They do not stand out. Two JM papers come two my mind. However, neither of them uses machine learning or big data. So their authors had a restricted market relative to other people. These two papers involve commonly used econometric tools in applied work and make contributions that can turn out to be highly empirically relevant. I don't want to reveal them. Otherwise I would get tons of "no good" by people who follow the fads and fashions or who think that you need to have machine learning, big data or networks in the title to make an impact.
-
let me guess. FG(brown) and AC(BU)
Very close. However, I liked a lot MA's (Michigan) paper. There is lots of arbitrariness in applied work when it comes to computing treatment effects because of the trimming. At least he/they provide a solution for such issue. And clarify many things. The paper also has a nice theory behind it. He had a somehow restricted market relative to others. Nonetheless he managed to get UCSD. That's very good.
These candidates above have shown that you can do good work without the desperate need to come up with a new "idea" within Machine Learning/Big Data/Network.
Now you can start with "no good".