But having a pub doesn't guarantee good placement, right? Song Lin (HKUST) already had a Marketing Science went he was on the market.
In an average year, only 5-10 CB candidates can have a first author JCR or JMR and 0-3 quant/strategy candidates have a fMkt Science/Man Science/JMR
He is an ivory scholar. He don't have any work experience and this puts him at disadvantage for marketing/business intuition.
Btw, hkust is a good placement.
But having a pub doesn't guarantee good placement, right? Song Lin (HKUST) already had a Marketing Science went he was on the market.
In an average year, only 5-10 CB candidates can have a first author JCR or JMR and 0-3 quant/strategy candidates have a fMkt Science/Man Science/JMR
It guarantees top 50 (maybe even 30) placement and at least interviews with all top schools on the market remotely interested in your area.
From there it is up to you to prove you're a good colleague and can survive in a classroom. Once again, there is a lot of value placed on someone who can teach MBA students (how business schools make money to fund your salary and research). Also, you can't come off as full of yourself.
And HKUST is a great placement in marketing. It will be even better in a few years as business schools become more international. Hong Kong schools pay very well (oftentimes better than US schools). And you never know if someone values the move closer to family.
But having a pub doesn't guarantee good placement, right? Song Lin (HKUST) already had a Marketing Science went he was on the market.
In an average year, only 5-10 CB candidates can have a first author JCR or JMR and 0-3 quant/strategy candidates have a fMkt Science/Man Science/JMR
He is a China dude without any work experience. This puts him at a disadvantage in terms of marketing intuition. So he may be doing some research he don't really know. It's just like you do management research in an ivory tower without any management experience. It's like trying to imagine a space that you never live before. It's like entering a mba program without any job experience.
Usually when someone does not get a decent US offer despite publications, it means they are bad at presenting, or they lack social skills, or that they were RAs on their pubs. No one really good falls through the cracks in the long term...
Chicago-Stanford placements don't count. They are pseudo-econ departments.
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing market
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing market
Great bunch - at least one of them already left academia.
Nosko?
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing marketGreat bunch - at least one of them already left academia.
That's silly. Which economists who went to marketing didn't go to Chicago or Stanford?
Catherine Tucker- MIT
Avi Goldfarb - Toronto
Andrew Ching - Toronto
Hui Li - CMU
Brett Hollenbeck - UCLA
Paul Ellickson - Rochester
Przemyslaw Jeziorski - Berkeley
Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none. The idea that an economist gets a marketing job by having a marketing pub is silly.
The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers. So stop spreading mis-information about this.
Chicago-Stanford placements don't count. They are pseudo-econ departments.
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing market
You do realize that hitting the market 5+ years ago without a pub or revision was a lot more normal than it is today?
Nobody said an economist without a marketing pub couldn't get a good job. But it's an extra hurdle that needs to be overcome by the candidate and they should seriously consider addressing that issue as early in their PhD career as possible (add a marketing advisor, prep a marketing paper for the job market, etc).
That's silly. Which economists who went to marketing didn't go to Chicago or Stanford?
Catherine Tucker- MIT
Avi Goldfarb - Toronto
Andrew Ching - Toronto
Hui Li - CMU
Brett Hollenbeck - UCLA
Paul Ellickson - Rochester
Przemyslaw Jeziorski - Berkeley
Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none. The idea that an economist gets a marketing job by having a marketing pub is silly.
The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers. So stop spreading mis-information about this.Chicago-Stanford placements don't count. They are pseudo-econ departments.
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing market
Why all the hate towards Yanhao Wei? Sure, he is socially awkward, but his paper is not bad if you believe it is actually identified.
"Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none."
"The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers."
Clearly you do not have enough information about the market.
You've given no supporting evidence for your claim. I claim a marketing pub is neither necessary nor sufficient. Refute me with data rather than just repeating this over and over.
You do realize that hitting the market 5+ years ago without a pub or revision was a lot more normal than it is today?
Nobody said an economist without a marketing pub couldn't get a good job. But it's an extra hurdle that needs to be overcome by the candidate and they should seriously consider addressing that issue as early in their PhD career as possible (add a marketing advisor, prep a marketing paper for the job market, etc).That's silly. Which economists who went to marketing didn't go to Chicago or Stanford?
Catherine Tucker- MIT
Avi Goldfarb - Toronto
Andrew Ching - Toronto
Hui Li - CMU
Brett Hollenbeck - UCLA
Paul Ellickson - Rochester
Przemyslaw Jeziorski - Berkeley
Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none. The idea that an economist gets a marketing job by having a marketing pub is silly.
The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers. So stop spreading mis-information about this.Chicago-Stanford placements don't count. They are pseudo-econ departments.
Shapiro, Nosko, Seller, Gordon, Hirsch, Dube- None had pubs on the market, all did very well. Penn guy had only one offer, not HRM, even with pubs and R&Rs. Pubs are neither necessary nor sufficient for success on marketing market
Why all the hate towards Yanhao Wei? Sure, he is socially awkward, but his paper is not bad if you believe it is actually identified.
"Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none."
"The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers."
Clearly you do not have enough information about the market.
Too much envy from those who can't get a single pub out. Pure idiots.
No, this is what I heard from people who interviewed him at AMA
Why all the hate towards Yanhao Wei? Sure, he is socially awkward, but his paper is not bad if you believe it is actually identified."Which of those had marketing pubs when went on market? I'd say none."
"The only example anyone is giving is the Penn guy, and he didn't get any top offers."
Clearly you do not have enough information about the market.
Too much envy from those who can't get a single pub out. Pure idiots.
Aren't marketing research questions equivalent to IO ones?
PhD Econ >>> PhD Marketing
Better trainingDoing IO in phd Econ vs doing phd marketing
Maybe we can open a new thread for this lol!
I'm not so sure about this. While classwork in the econ. department will likely be more rigorous and better prepare a student for technical research, marketing phds usually come into the phd program in small cohorts of 2-4 students. They then start immediately working on research with their advisors. Econ phds are likely better technically, but marketing phds may be better researchers (who can ask relevant questions in the field of marketing).
this statement just shows how IO is so unpopular as a field .... lol and no, IO questions and marketing questions are very different. IO cares more about strategic interactions between firms.
There is some overlapping in the questions and that's why crossing from IO to Marketing is not uncommon. A good friend of mine is actually going to the Marketing JM instead of the econ one. He's very good and I think would've placed above the median had he chose Econ. By what he tells me, Marketing is also competitive, but it's a smaller market, so luck plays a bigger role (that is probability of match is spikier) and school brand is somewhat more important than in econ. Pay is better and co-authorship is more important.