Newey no good, not in the sake league with Don.
I may agree that Donald Andrews had done more. But I cannot agree that Newey is not good. He did many important contributions.
Econometrics JMC stars
-
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".And I also enjoyed MA (Michigan)'s JM talk. So I can't believe that his presentation penalized him.
-
Ma has a cool JMP. No doubt. Practically relevant topic. Good presenter as wel.
Issue:JMP should have given credit to research done before. Konstanz had two JM candidates who have results somehow related and they must be credit. Results in S & U are way too related as well.
Dont take me wrong: I really like MA’s paper but I have a strong feeling that these issues affected him
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".And I also enjoyed MA (Michigan)'s JM talk. So I can't believe that his presentation penalized him.
-
No jealous. Just my opinion.
Plus, if you want to be take serious in a machine learning application, you must not have an empirical application with 7 covariates or alike.
Partial identification with convex support restriction is conceptually way too similar for the point identification, so I stand from what I said.
I am sure she will do well in the future, but I dont find her research agenda so exciting.
No hate involved - just taste. That is why the labor mkt works, right?!!
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....
-
Max (Northwestern) is the most complete JMC this season, IMO.
I didn't know about other works related to Ma's.
There are rumors (I heard it from multiple sources) that also Max's (Northwestern) work is very similar to prior work in Stats. But I didn't check this so I cannot speak.
-
I didnt know that! It is hard to say anything then...
Max (Northwestern) is the most complete JMC this season, IMO.
I didn't know about other works related to Ma's.
There are rumors (I heard it from multiple sources) that also Max's (Northwestern) work is very similar to prior work in Stats. But I didn't check this so I cannot speak. -
Only star I see is the yale candidate - WG. His JMP is fully independent of all his advisor, and he also has proven record in both metrics and network theory. In 5 years from now, he is the only one I can see publishing consistently at the top!!
Unfortunately it is coauthored with another student. Who should we hire? And most importantly, the paper is not that impressive at all. The fact that it is independent it doesn't mean that the paper is good. He has good record in metrics? I remind you that J. of Multivariate Analysis does not even enter the rankings in stats and a star is not one who publishes in JoE....
-
Only star I see is the yale candidate - WG. His JMP is fully independent of all his advisor, and he also has proven record in both metrics and network theory. In 5 years from now, he is the only one I can see publishing consistently at the top!!
Unfortunately it is coauthored with another student. Who should we hire? And most importantly, the paper is not that impressive at all. The fact that it is independent it doesn't mean that the paper is good. He has good record in metrics? I remind you that J. of Multivariate Analysis does not even enter the rankings in stats and a star is not one who publishes in JoE....
If the first quote was true, top-5 would have noticed that.
If you want me to say that Gao is the best econometrician ever, we can say Gao is the best econometrician ever. So now you are happy.
I simply expressed my opinion. I think he is highly skilled but not a star--at least so far he hasn't shown that. He had a very good placement though you may agree it is not a top-5 school where usually stars go.
-
I kind of agree with that! He has a lot of potential, sure, but not a star.
Only star I see is the yale candidate - WG. His JMP is fully independent of all his advisor, and he also has proven record in both metrics and network theory. In 5 years from now, he is the only one I can see publishing consistently at the top!!
Unfortunately it is coauthored with another student. Who should we hire? And most importantly, the paper is not that impressive at all. The fact that it is independent it doesn't mean that the paper is good. He has good record in metrics? I remind you that J. of Multivariate Analysis does not even enter the rankings in stats and a star is not one who publishes in JoE....
If the first quote was true, top-5 would have noticed that.
If you want me to say that Gao is the best econometrician ever, we can say Gao is the best econometrician ever. So now you are happy.
I simply expressed my opinion. I think he is highly skilled but not a star--at least so far he hasn't shown that. He had a very good placement though you may agree it is not a top-5 school where usually stars go. -
The JMVA comment above is dumb. This is the equivalent of a top field journal pub for statisticians. JMVA routinely publishes papers by top notch statisticians and probabilists. Admittedly, it also publishes a lot of weaker papers. So, similar to JEconometrics.
I totally agree. JMVA part of the message was supposed to be humoristic. The main message is not about JMVA; it's about that JMVA does not make him a star. Again, he is surely very good. However, many people don't think he is a star. In terms of placement, other candidates did much better than him.
-
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
-
I do not understand what you meant here. This year was good because good people who graduated 6-7 years ago are struggling to find jobs?! I do not see the logic....
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
-
I do not understand what you meant here. This year was good because good people who graduated 6-7 years ago are struggling to find jobs?! I do not see the logic....
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
He missed the point. The direction of causality goes the other way around. This year there were such good JM candidates that advanced AP struggled to find any job in the US.
-
Usually seasoned ap are more competitive. Go ask theory candidates
I do not understand what you meant here. This year was good because good people who graduated 6-7 years ago are struggling to find jobs?! I do not see the logic....
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
-
Not what you wrote before... The causality I see is the reverse: JMC this year were sufficiently good that seasoned AP had troubles replacing...
Usually seasoned ap are more competitive. Go ask theory candidates
I do not understand what you meant here. This year was good because good people who graduated 6-7 years ago are struggling to find jobs?! I do not see the logic....
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
-
Not applicable to metrics market.
Usually seasoned ap are more competitive. Go ask theory candidates
I do not understand what you meant here. This year was good because good people who graduated 6-7 years ago are struggling to find jobs?! I do not see the logic....
fact: many really good econometricians graduated 6 or seven years ago are still struggling for moving downwards or even out of US, this is why this year the market for rookies are so good.
Regardless of this “taste” discussion, this year was remarkably good for metrics. More than 6-7 candidates got really good placements and this is not usually the case.
-
Give me one his important contribution and I’ll explain you who was the real guy inventing it.
Newey no good, not in the sake league with Don.
I may agree that Donald Andrews had done more. But I cannot agree that Newey is not good. He did many important contributions.