Close

Complete Captcha

• 10 years - 41714 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 66437 Goods vs 49954 No Goods

1. Economist
   de99
   

   This basically shows how clueless you guys are. People hired from the US take on massive nominal wage cuts. No German president will even attempt to match these no matter the exchange rate you apply. They will argue: pension, tenure protection is tighter, cheaper health care and kids education, etc.
   The big wigs at Mannheim, Bonn and Frankfurt make 140-150 k tops.
   This excludes of course consulting money and institute directors money. Achim Wambach, completely German guy, never even set foot in the US, makes more than Tertilt or Krebs, because he double dips.

   not true. 200k is quite common.

   Name one.

   People hired from the US are probably in that ballpark. So you will find people with that salary in Mannheim, Bonn, Frankfurt. But it is certainly not "common".
   

   How much are you willing to bet on this

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   5fb0
   

   Stupid discussion... ypu cannot compare a head of ifo, ZEW with a regular professor. The former are more a management position with >100 employees..

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   39c7
   

   Stupid discussion... ypu cannot compare a head of ifo, ZEW with a regular professor. The former are more a management position with >100 employees..

   Exactly, you do have to show up at the office with these jobs. Not worth it imo even for 2xW3.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   61ae
   

   Stupid discussion... ypu cannot compare a head of ifo, ZEW with a regular professor. The former are more a management position with >100 employees..

   Exactly, you do have to show up at the office with these jobs. Not worth it imo even for 2xW3.

   Lot at expecting that the head of a research unit is regularly at his/her office. They only come DiMiDo, if even that.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

5. Economist
   1586
   

   ^ This is about the presidency. Head of units are not so well paid.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   1586
   

   I don't see why you should not be able to get a job in Germany or Europe. You just need to convince the department that you have a serious interest, that you are a friendly colleague and you have more in the pipline to come.

   ok so a failed AP from the us like me with a restat, an economic journal and a few decent field journal pubs wont find a job in germany right?

   Nope
   

   Trying to bully me?

   Rudi

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   400c
   

   the binding constraint is that there are no jobs. conditional on there being a job, who gets it is still pretty random most of the time and what you describe can definitely be sufficient

   The new push for gender diversity means that there are no jobs for men... if you have lady bits (or identify as having one), then you are golden.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 3 No Jab !

8. Economist
   665e
   

   False. Publicationwise it is sufficient for an LRM. That was the question.

   There are other criteria that matter apart from publications.

   Rudi, when you were hired for your W3 in Aachen, how many A publications did you have?

   Now your case is...special.

   W2/W3 LRM Three A publications (top field level) plus several publications in B/B+ journals.

   Not sufficient.
   Rudi

   1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 1 No Jab !

9. Economist
   9a93
   

   I am in favor of the HB ranking. It is an impact ranking - a really good one - and yeah, theory paper have little impact on average.
   It appears that many here confuse impact with importance.
   Non-econ journals like Marketing Science should not count towards an Econ Professorship (as in my opinion Science, Nature and the like) and it is puzzling why HB includes it. But it is usually also irrelevant because no one on the list has them.
   I guess the problem is that professorships are more and more open field and not specific for e.g. theory. Comparing across subfields in economics is hard, within field I think impact factor rankings are a good guidance.

   It says AEJ:M = China Quarterly. Great guidance, danke.

   Ähm. China Quarterly is a C. All AEJ's are A. And yes, that sounds like solid guidance - if I evaluate someone working on Political Economy in China.
   China Quarterly is the journal of SOAS. Never read it, but is certainly solid - in its field of whatever that is.

   It is a recent update? Here's the 2015 version: https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/d/economics/Department_of_Economics/Leistungspr%C3%A4mien/Handelsblatt-Liste_2015.pdf

   American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics*° 0.2
   China Quarterly*° 0.2

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

10. Economist
    1f1e
    

    Who is this Rudi and why is everyone here talking about him?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

11. Economist
    61ae
    

    I am in favor of the HB ranking. It is an impact ranking - a really good one - and yeah, theory paper have little impact on average.
    It appears that many here confuse impact with importance.
    Non-econ journals like Marketing Science should not count towards an Econ Professorship (as in my opinion Science, Nature and the like) and it is puzzling why HB includes it. But it is usually also irrelevant because no one on the list has them.
    I guess the problem is that professorships are more and more open field and not specific for e.g. theory. Comparing across subfields in economics is hard, within field I think impact factor rankings are a good guidance.

    It says AEJ:M = China Quarterly. Great guidance, danke.

    Ähm. China Quarterly is a C. All AEJ's are A. And yes, that sounds like solid guidance - if I evaluate someone working on Political Economy in China.
    China Quarterly is the journal of SOAS. Never read it, but is certainly solid - in its field of whatever that is.

    It is a recent update? Here's the 2015 version: https://www.wu.ac.at/fileadmin/wu/d/economics/Department_of_Economics/Leistungspr%C3%A4mien/Handelsblatt-Liste_2015.pdf
    American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics*° 0.2
    China Quarterly*° 0.2

    According to the newest HB:
    AEJ: Macro === 0.60 (A)
    China Q === 0.15 (C)

    Seems alright to me.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    aeea
    

    China q should count for zero

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

13. Economist
    8156
    

    You should always look at only A and A+ publications, weighing option 12 in the drop-down menu. They should make that the default. The "A" category is quite large and goes down to OK journals. I mean it is not only top field and above, it is much larger.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

14. Economist
    f5e1
    

    Aber auch nicht

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

15. Economist
    80bc
    

    Any news in Frankfurt?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    2e7c
    

    ^Adam negotiating.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

17. Economist
    c491
    

    https://m.faz.net/aktuell/karriere-hochschule/nachwuchs-in-der-spitzenforschung-promotion-als-selektion-16431235.html

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

18. Economist
    3859
    

    https://m.faz.net/aktuell/karriere-hochschule/nachwuchs-in-der-spitzenforschung-promotion-als-selektion-16431235.html

    Stopped reading at "Kaderschmiede in Berlin"...

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    6794
    

    https://m.faz.net/aktuell/karriere-hochschule/nachwuchs-in-der-spitzenforschung-promotion-als-selektion-16431235.html

    Stopped reading at "Kaderschmiede in Berlin"...

    Me too. Damn paywall...

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

20. Economist
    9ddb
    

    Any news on Regensburg/Leibniz IOS?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply »