VLRM, perhaps MRM in China. They don’t have any academic achievements. I heard that many Chinese companies spend money to introduce Nobel Prize winners but they don’t participate in any research.What does LA do?
Think Tank
Luohan Academy info?
-
Can someone please share what the work is like? Some people on Linkedin start working there before they graduate from PhD. How is it possible?
they are visiting and writing thesis there, probably with a title like visiting fellow, not as a full-time job
Agree. And it seems most of them come from top5.
-
VLRM, perhaps MRM in China. They don’t have any academic achievements. I heard that many Chinese companies spend money to introduce Nobel Prize winners but they don’t participate in any research.
The Nobel prize winners are there in name only. They don't contribute new ideas or anything substantial because they're all retired old deadwood.
They pay so much money for these old deadwood to be useless. At least Tsinghua paid the same amount on Birkar who continues to do research, so he is not useless.
-
VLRM, perhaps MRM in China. They don’t have any academic achievements. I heard that many Chinese companies spend money to introduce Nobel Prize winners but they don’t participate in any research.
The Nobel prize winners are there in name only. They don't contribute new ideas or anything substantial because they're all retired old deadwood.
They pay so much money for these old deadwood to be useless. At least Tsinghua paid the same amount on Birkar who continues to do research, so he is not useless.The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand
Look at their recent working with big name, bro. Interesting topic, solid empirical, high potential to top journal
-
VLRM, perhaps MRM in China. They don’t have any academic achievements. I heard that many Chinese companies spend money to introduce Nobel Prize winners but they don’t participate in any research.
The Nobel prize winners are there in name only. They don't contribute new ideas or anything substantial because they're all retired old deadwood.
They pay so much money for these old deadwood to be useless. At least Tsinghua paid the same amount on Birkar who continues to do research, so he is not useless.https://www.nber.org/papers/w28854#:~:text=This%20positive%20relationship%20between%20privacy,because%20such%20concerns%20are%20innate.
The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand
Look at their recent working with big name, bro. Interesting topic, solid empirical, high potential to top journalhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3791018
Also, their high-quality report with Nobel Prizes winners. High influential and interesting. You need to comment after learn it more.
-
VLRM, perhaps MRM in China. They don’t have any academic achievements. I heard that many Chinese companies spend money to introduce Nobel Prize winners but they don’t participate in any research.
The Nobel prize winners are there in name only. They don't contribute new ideas or anything substantial because they're all retired old deadwood.
They pay so much money for these old deadwood to be useless. At least Tsinghua paid the same amount on Birkar who continues to do research, so he is not useless.https://www.nber.org/papers/w28854#:~:text=This%20positive%20relationship%20between%20privacy,because%20such%20concerns%20are%20innate.
The Data Privacy Paradox and Digital Demand
Look at their recent working with big name, bro. Interesting topic, solid empirical, high potential to top journalhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3791018
Also, their high-quality report with Nobel Prizes winners. High influential and interesting. You need to comment after learn it more.Understanding Big Data: Data Calculus in the Digital Era
-
First paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w28854#:~:text=This%20positive%20relationship%20between%20privacy,because%20such%20concerns%20are%20innate.
The only big name is Wei Xiong. It is also empirical, and not much different from what Amazon's in house research team works on. Can you explain what makes it great and memorable? Although we all know it's harder for empirical papers to be considered "great", as compared to theory ones.Second paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3791018
All right, there are a lot of big names like Pissarides, Maskin, Spence, Holmstrom. But the only part of the abstract that matters is this part
We focus on analyzing concrete evidence about "big data" to draw conclusions on its impact. As Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase (1994) suggested, it is important to step away from pure "blackboard economics" that tends to only live in [a theoretician's] mind: "what we need is more empirical work ... An inspired theoretician might do as well without such empirical work, but ... the inspiration is most likely to come through the stimulus provided by the patterns, puzzles, and anomalies revealed by the systematic gathering of data, particularly when the prime need is to break our existing habits of thought."
Overall it doesn't even seem like a research paper. More like a blueprint where they discuss future ideas and directions. So that isn't research either.
That is the definition of deadwood. You cannot go even more deadwood than that.
-
First paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w28854#:~:text=This%20positive%20relationship%20between%20privacy,because%20such%20concerns%20are%20innate.
The only big name is Wei Xiong. It is also empirical, and not much different from what Amazon's in house research team works on. Can you explain what makes it great and memorable? Although we all know it's harder for empirical papers to be considered "great", as compared to theory ones.
Second paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3791018
All right, there are a lot of big names like Pissarides, Maskin, Spence, Holmstrom. But the only part of the abstract that matters is this partWe focus on analyzing concrete evidence about "big data" to draw conclusions on its impact. As Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase (1994) suggested, it is important to step away from pure "blackboard economics" that tends to only live in [a theoretician's] mind: "what we need is more empirical work ... An inspired theoretician might do as well without such empirical work, but ... the inspiration is most likely to come through the stimulus provided by the patterns, puzzles, and anomalies revealed by the systematic gathering of data, particularly when the prime need is to break our existing habits of thought."
Overall it doesn't even seem like a research paper. More like a blueprint where they discuss future ideas and directions. So that isn't research either.
That is the definition of deadwood. You cannot go even more deadwood than that.First paper is empirical one. It frames a good story, contributes to real world, solid empirical methods. Besides, their leader Long chen is also famous in finance area.
Second paper is policy report.It's a think tank. I think they do a good job to trigger the reflections among scholars and practitioners.
Please do not compare it with pure academia. It's a place for thinkings and discussions, which shapes its uniqueness.
-
Let’s not exaggerate the facts. They arguably has paper and reports with interesting topic, but it is hard to say highly influential or high quality.
It has absolutely zero influence regardless the quality of their research. In China, no one values the opinions or advocacies coming out of a non-government research institute (for good reasons tho), even if it belongs to Alibaba or Tencent. If you want influence, work for a government affiliated research institute. The salaries are very low, but you get way better outside options in long run.
-
First paper: https://www.nber.org/papers/w28854#:~:text=This%20positive%20relationship%20between%20privacy,because%20such%20concerns%20are%20innate.
The only big name is Wei Xiong. It is also empirical, and not much different from what Amazon's in house research team works on. Can you explain what makes it great and memorable? Although we all know it's harder for empirical papers to be considered "great", as compared to theory ones.
Second paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3791018
All right, there are a lot of big names like Pissarides, Maskin, Spence, Holmstrom. But the only part of the abstract that matters is this partWe focus on analyzing concrete evidence about "big data" to draw conclusions on its impact. As Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase (1994) suggested, it is important to step away from pure "blackboard economics" that tends to only live in [a theoretician's] mind: "what we need is more empirical work ... An inspired theoretician might do as well without such empirical work, but ... the inspiration is most likely to come through the stimulus provided by the patterns, puzzles, and anomalies revealed by the systematic gathering of data, particularly when the prime need is to break our existing habits of thought."
Overall it doesn't even seem like a research paper. More like a blueprint where they discuss future ideas and directions. So that isn't research either.
That is the definition of deadwood. You cannot go even more deadwood than that.Please do not use deadwood to describe these big scholars. You'd better show the respect. People do not have to be paper machine after got tenured. They can contribute more to reflections and big pictures. It's not a pure academia with paper machines. Again, it's a open think tank for discussion, debate and reflections.
-
Is Luohan the only think tank in China? What other think tanks are there? There are so many think tanks in the US and UK but it is rare to find think tanks in China.
It may be only think tank sponsored by the private company in China. Most the think thanks in China sponsored by the government.
-
Is Luohan the only think tank in China? What other think tanks are there? There are so many think tanks in the US and UK but it is rare to find think tanks in China.
It may be only think tank sponsored by the private company in China. Most the think thanks in China sponsored by the government.
So that means that it is hard to find a job at a Chinese think tank if you are not Chinese?
-
Is Luohan the only think tank in China? What other think tanks are there? There are so many think tanks in the US and UK but it is rare to find think tanks in China.
There are many in China, but only the ones under the auspices of the state are taken seriously. By the way they are not interested in hiring econ PhDs from the US or Europe.
-
Is Luohan the only think tank in China? What other think tanks are there? There are so many think tanks in the US and UK but it is rare to find think tanks in China.
It may be only think tank sponsored by the private company in China. Most the think thanks in China sponsored by the government.
So that means that it is hard to find a job at a Chinese think tank if you are not Chinese?
UT-Austin Placed a non-chinese to Luohan. You still has the chance.https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/economics/phd/Graduate-Placement.php