Post <blockquote>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. <blockquote>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). <blockquote>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. <blockquote>Chicago-Stanford placements don't count. They are pseudo-econ departments. <blockquote>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 </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.