Where did JL (Penn) accept? The google doc indicates two different places...
Official Marketing JM 2020 Thread
-
I’m curious how powerful a potential “advisor effect” is. For example, would a student with a very prolific (top 10 in the world) advisor with no current top-4 R&Rs be more attractive on the job market than a student with a top-4 R&R and a middle-of-the-road advisor?
A student with a top advisor may not have anything currently, but based on the advisor’s history, they’re likely to have more overall in the future when the dissertation essays are finished. Conversely, the student with the average advisor already has an R&R, but it may be a one time thing.
What are your thoughts? Does it matter more Pre-AMA v flyouts?
-
unlikely the person complaining about Stanford and Chicago actually is a tenured professor in a top 5 school.
as for mr. or mz. stolen statistical analysis, unless the contribution of a paper is novel statistical analysis, there is no such thing as "stolen statistical analysis."
I agree the review process in marketing is notoriously endless and nitpicky. Some unlikely papers do make it as there is variance in reviewer quality. They don't spend time or aren't trained to think about whether the claim is a good one or obvious. Some AEs also don't check validity of reviewer claims but clerically include all points, correct or incorrect, resulting in rejection of some good papers or pass through of some bad ones. But that is unlikely to vary based on whether the author is in a top school or not.
For a tenured prof in a top-5 department, you sure make a lot of basic writing errors.
Anyway, I'm actually what you claim to be, and haven't seen this at all. The review process in marketing is notoriously endless and nitpicky. Which people and papers in your judgment are so lacking?You want to publish in marketing?
A few tips. Find a shallow shallow topic, that sounds unbelievable when the results show support. Or find a story where marketing Is the hero to save the day.
Write bunch of theory and bunch of junk! Write half-baked statements under what they call theory.
Pretend to do some fancy statistical analysis that is stolen from some other paper, do a tiny change, sell it.
Then watch it take off.I am a tenure professor at top-5 (marketing department). Sadly, that's true. Even people at Chicago and Stanford .. the so called top departments...do the same.
-
R&R holds little weight as it can get rejected. schools look at what accounts for the difference, for example, is one paper addressing a better question, how well do the rookies think and understand what they are doing, can they address questions and so on.
I’m curious how powerful a potential “advisor effect” is. For example, would a student with a very prolific (top 10 in the world) advisor with no current top-4 R&Rs be more attractive on the job market than a student with a top-4 R&R and a middle-of-the-road advisor?
A student with a top advisor may not have anything currently, but based on the advisor’s history, they’re likely to have more overall in the future when the dissertation essays are finished. Conversely, the student with the average advisor already has an R&R, but it may be a one time thing.
What are your thoughts? Does it matter more Pre-AMA v flyouts? -
It used to be that to get a good job all one needed was a strong jmp and a good advisor.
At that point people were staying for four years.
Then the market decided you need a strong jmp, a good advisor and a publication (or two) to get a good job.
At that point people were staying for five years.
Now, you need a strong jmp, a good advisor, an entire stream of research, charisma, teaching experience with good ratings, and some outside funding to get a good job.
And hiring faculty are suggesting that people stay six years and / or do post docs and prove themselves to be qualified BEFORE getting a rookie job.
The standards for what it takes to get hired as a rookie professor seem to be higher than the tenure standards from 20 years ago.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that there are still people on the job market who have not been hired and schools who have decided that no one was good enough or qualified enough.
How? Aren’t these students better now than you were at the start of your career? Why are you putting all the risk on the jmc and not deciding to hire and mentor? Didn’t someone mentor you? Didn’t someone give you a chance? Why do we have to keep proving ourselves while you get fat from our labor?
I think doing a phd has made me a communist.
-
It used to be that to get a good job all one needed was a strong jmp and a good advisor.
At that point people were staying for four years.
Then the market decided you need a strong jmp, a good advisor and a publication (or two) to get a good job.
At that point people were staying for five years.
Now, you need a strong jmp, a good advisor, an entire stream of research, charisma, teaching experience with good ratings, and some outside funding to get a good job.
And hiring faculty are suggesting that people stay six years and / or do post docs and prove themselves to be qualified BEFORE getting a rookie job.
The standards for what it takes to get hired as a rookie professor seem to be higher than the tenure standards from 20 years ago.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that there are still people on the job market who have not been hired and schools who have decided that no one was good enough or qualified enough.
How? Aren’t these students better now than you were at the start of your career? Why are you putting all the risk on the jmc and not deciding to hire and mentor? Didn’t someone mentor you? Didn’t someone give you a chance? Why do we have to keep proving ourselves while you get fat from our labor?
I think doing a phd has made me a communist.So what explains this trend of increasing standards over time?
-
H1: Increasing gender and ethnic diversity leads to more stringent standards.
It used to be that to get a good job all one needed was a strong jmp and a good advisor.
At that point people were staying for four years.
Then the market decided you need a strong jmp, a good advisor and a publication (or two) to get a good job.
At that point people were staying for five years.
Now, you need a strong jmp, a good advisor, an entire stream of research, charisma, teaching experience with good ratings, and some outside funding to get a good job.
And hiring faculty are suggesting that people stay six years and / or do post docs and prove themselves to be qualified BEFORE getting a rookie job.
The standards for what it takes to get hired as a rookie professor seem to be higher than the tenure standards from 20 years ago.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that there are still people on the job market who have not been hired and schools who have decided that no one was good enough or qualified enough.
How? Aren’t these students better now than you were at the start of your career? Why are you putting all the risk on the jmc and not deciding to hire and mentor? Didn’t someone mentor you? Didn’t someone give you a chance? Why do we have to keep proving ourselves while you get fat from our labor?
I think doing a phd has made me a communist.So what explains this trend of increasing standards over time?
-
H1: Increasing gender and ethnic diversity leads to more stringent standards.
This implies plenty of people got jobs in the past without deserving itDing. Ding.
Or at the very least, the hiring committees that claim there are no good candidates this year were much, much worse when they were on the market.