Not related but does anyone have an opinion on the Quant Marketing market in Asia? 4th year MRM asianbro looking for backup plan here.
Official Marketing JM 2020 Thread
-
Not related but does anyone have an opinion on the Quant Marketing market in Asia? 4th year MRM asianbro looking for backup plan here.
If you can publish 2-3 UTD journals and UTD only, you can get a job in China. But if you can, you will probably be able to get a job in a decent research school in the US.
BTW, the salary is around 35w to 60w and the mid-review is REAL. You will be kicked out if you don't have one UTD published (60w school) or in RR (35w school). And no such thing called real tenure.Even s**ty school, like Shenzhen U or Shanghai Tech, it expects you to have 2 UTD. They are not even 211.
-
Not related but does anyone have an opinion on the Quant Marketing market in Asia? 4th year MRM asianbro looking for backup plan here.
If you can publish 2-3 UTD journals and UTD only, you can get a job in China. But if you can, you will probably be able to get a job in a decent research school in the US.
BTW, the salary is around 35w to 60w and the mid-review is REAL. You will be kicked out if you don't have one UTD published (60w school) or in RR (35w school). And no such thing called real tenure.
Even s**ty school, like Shenzhen U or Shanghai Tech, it expects you to have 2 UTD. They are not even 211.Rat race mentality will never change.
-
Not related but does anyone have an opinion on the Quant Marketing market in Asia? 4th year MRM asianbro looking for backup plan here.
If you can publish 2-3 UTD journals and UTD only, you can get a job in China. But if you can, you will probably be able to get a job in a decent research school in the US.
BTW, the salary is around 35w to 60w and the mid-review is REAL. You will be kicked out if you don't have one UTD published (60w school) or in RR (35w school). And no such thing called real tenure.
Even s**ty school, like Shenzhen U or Shanghai Tech, it expects you to have 2 UTD. They are not even 211.How about Southeast Asia? I'm not Chinese. I also rarely find any mainland-based author in Marketing Science, so how come the requirement is that hìgh.
-
Not related but does anyone have an opinion on the Quant Marketing market in Asia? 4th year MRM asianbro looking for backup plan here.
If you can publish 2-3 UTD journals and UTD only, you can get a job in China. But if you can, you will probably be able to get a job in a decent research school in the US.
BTW, the salary is around 35w to 60w and the mid-review is REAL. You will be kicked out if you don't have one UTD published (60w school) or in RR (35w school). And no such thing called real tenure.
Even s**ty school, like Shenzhen U or Shanghai Tech, it expects you to have 2 UTD. They are not even 211.How about Southeast Asia? I'm not Chinese. I also rarely find any mainland-based author in Marketing Science, so how come the requirement is that hìgh.
No idea about Southeast. You should check again. More JMCs find home appealing than US cities in the middle of nowhere. Professors are well respected and if they survive, life is easy.
The high requirement is due to oversupplies of econs. Two or three years ago, standards are much lower. Many econ students who can't find a job in US and go back to business schools, they have serious inflated the market. The salary econs can get in China is definitely very nice for them.
-
They are qualified to do research (and questionably for JCR, better elsewhere) but not editorship. Really weak track record based on public evidence. Must be a weak year for competition (esp both teams having to resort to Assoc profs), or nobody wants to take on the JCR while it is sinking.
blockquote>are any of them qualified?
-
One of the issues before the policy board was prior editorial experience, especially being AEs. Both teams had a considerable amount. Do keep in mind that the teams are formed by the teams themselves; if they included mid-career people, they must have had a lot of faith in them.
They are qualified to do research (and questionably for JCR, better elsewhere) but not editorship. Really weak track record based on public evidence. Must be a weak year for competition (esp both teams having to resort to Assoc profs), or nobody wants to take on the JCR while it is sinking.
blockquote>are any of them qualified? -
^ The JCR editorial is not the honor that it used to be. No one wants it. There were only two teams that pitched, and the team that lost was more alarming than the one that won. The winning team is indication of JCR's slow push towards irrelevance. The tokenism that is placed on rotating in anyone (and everyone) to represent the declining CCT cohort is shameful. Expect the next team to have an assistant professor, or maybe a post doc to represent that side.
-
Come on. CCT is sh*t.
If you connect the dots, it is not hard to figure out how the new team is formed.
BS and AS are connected to columbia. AS is also JI’s protege from his former job. Alternative was CL at Wharton. She was told not to do it.
There is the idiocy that there will be all kinds of new research on CB/tech interface and that is probably why MG is there. What is the alternative? Donna Huffman?
SW and JC represent who knows what.
CB faculty in marketing are turning more into Beh Econ departments, in top places. Traditional marketing people do not want that - how would they publish stuff with SURPRISING results then? Surprising = made up, of course. So this field is highly fragmented, JCR is becoming the outlet for sht research.
-
Come on. CCT is sh*t.
If you connect the dots, it is not hard to figure out how the new team is formed.
BS and AS are connected to columbia. AS is also JI’s protege from his former job. Alternative was CL at Wharton. She was told not to do it.
There is the idiocy that there will be all kinds of new research on CB/tech interface and that is probably why MG is there. What is the alternative? Donna Huffman?
SW and JC represent who knows what.
CB faculty in marketing are turning more into Beh Econ departments, in top places. Traditional marketing people do not want that - how would they publish stuff with SURPRISING results then? Surprising = made up, of course. So this field is highly fragmented, JCR is becoming the outlet for sht research.Exactly
-
One no-giod? Must be for diversity. Just like...
Come on. CCT is sh*t.
If you connect the dots, it is not hard to figure out how the new team is formed.
BS and AS are connected to columbia. AS is also JI’s protege from his former job. Alternative was CL at Wharton. She was told not to do it.
There is the idiocy that there will be all kinds of new research on CB/tech interface and that is probably why MG is there. What is the alternative? Donna Huffman?
SW and JC represent who knows what.
CB faculty in marketing are turning more into Beh Econ departments, in top places. Traditional marketing people do not want that - how would they publish stuff with SURPRISING results then? Surprising = made up, of course. So this field is highly fragmented, JCR is becoming the outlet for sht research. -
"The Journal of Consumer Research and the Association for Consumer Research initiated a new discipline, intended to embrace divergent topics, methods, concepts, data, motives, partners, and ideas. Over the years, that vision has faded. Now the discipline faces inward, toward a narrower range of issues, and away from the real world. Five guidelines seek to redirect the discipline toward its original goals. These guidelines advocate wider horizons, a larger audience, a different talent mix, more emphasis on discovery, more attention to consumers, and more single-minded dedication to meaningful results."
Wells (1993). Still highly relevant today. Read the vision for JCR before complaining about the editors and putting in BS about Diversity.One no-giod? Must be for diversity. Just like...
Come on. CCT is sh*t.
If you connect the dots, it is not hard to figure out how the new team is formed.
BS and AS are connected to columbia. AS is also JI’s protege from his former job. Alternative was CL at Wharton. She was told not to do it.
There is the idiocy that there will be all kinds of new research on CB/tech interface and that is probably why MG is there. What is the alternative? Donna Huffman?
SW and JC represent who knows what.
CB faculty in marketing are turning more into Beh Econ departments, in top places. Traditional marketing people do not want that - how would they publish stuff with SURPRISING results then? Surprising = made up, of course. So this field is highly fragmented, JCR is becoming the outlet for sht research.
-
Calm down AS.
"The Journal of Consumer Research and the Association for Consumer Research initiated a new discipline, intended to embrace divergent topics, methods, concepts, data, motives, partners, and ideas. Over the years, that vision has faded. Now the discipline faces inward, toward a narrower range of issues, and away from the real world. Five guidelines seek to redirect the discipline toward its original goals. These guidelines advocate wider horizons, a larger audience, a different talent mix, more emphasis on discovery, more attention to consumers, and more single-minded dedication to meaningful results."
Wells (1993). Still highly relevant today. Read the vision for JCR before complaining about the editors and putting in BS about Diversity.One no-giod? Must be for diversity. Just like...
Come on. CCT is sh*t.
If you connect the dots, it is not hard to figure out how the new team is formed.
BS and AS are connected to columbia. AS is also JI’s protege from his former job. Alternative was CL at Wharton. She was told not to do it.
There is the idiocy that there will be all kinds of new research on CB/tech interface and that is probably why MG is there. What is the alternative? Donna Huffman?
SW and JC represent who knows what.
CB faculty in marketing are turning more into Beh Econ departments, in top places. Traditional marketing people do not want that - how would they publish stuff with SURPRISING results then? Surprising = made up, of course. So this field is highly fragmented, JCR is becoming the outlet for sht research.
-
OK OK everyone in both teams suck. Lets get back to the job market
I am a 3rd year student and struggling with my papers right now due to JCRs sudden twist.
Those in the job market and trying to get their papers out, how are you trying to navigate editorial changes? JM seems OK but not my papers fill in that zone, I don't know what JCR wants from me, and JMR is now pure non-behavioural. I need a job and I need an A-pub strategy. What will JCR publish given these odd editorial picks in the last few years>?
-
OK OK everyone in both teams suck. Lets get back to the job market
I am a 3rd year student and struggling with my papers right now due to JCRs sudden twist.
Those in the job market and trying to get their papers out, how are you trying to navigate editorial changes? JM seems OK but not my papers fill in that zone, I don't know what JCR wants from me, and JMR is now pure non-behavioural. I need a job and I need an A-pub strategy. What will JCR publish given these odd editorial picks in the last few years>?"struggling with my papers right now due to JCRs sudden twist."
stop writing papers based on who the editor is and you will be fine.
-
I am not CCT but a CCT friend told me the rumor is that most senior people are seen as too toxic and political to be editors. They eat their own, and many teams do not want that kind of a person. Frankly not sure if this is exclusive for CCT (looking at you JI and AK) but at least they are trying
^ The JCR editorial is not the honor that it used to be. No one wants it. There were only two teams that pitched, and the team that lost was more alarming than the one that won. The winning team is indication of JCR's slow push towards irrelevance. The tokenism that is placed on rotating in anyone (and everyone) to represent the declining CCT cohort is shameful. Expect the next team to have an assistant professor, or maybe a post doc to represent that side.