Did you just gave an example of an XL and MA paper?
I want to see the code and the data of that paper. I do not believe it at all.You don’t believe that as a train gets more crowded people are more likely to look at their phones?
Hahaha funny.. XL is just too bad..
So you didn’t read the paper, huh?
But make sure your JMP/ talk is relevant to CB and Strategy folks.What does that mean in practice? Examples of quant research that would also appeal to CB and Strategy folks?
Example: Her JMP
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/phd-cv/jessica-yu/jessicayu_cv.pdf
Example:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.299.1105&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Example:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4f7/3fc3987fa6ba15a1577b7470e85ef63e659a.pdf
what a random list
Also why do CB get paid as much as quants if the outside options are worse?
They do not - better paying, top schools are more heavy on the quant side, lower tier schools are heavier on the CB side. If you take the market average, you should find a difference because of this.
But... you are ignoring productivity when you make the outside options argument. Marketing professors are getting paid to do research + teach. CB candidates publish 4 papers a year - quants, perhaps one. CB gets 10 times the citations as quants. They write books, write newspaper columns.. More people buy them, more people read them. Companies hire them to give talks. CB faculty are also better presenters, and more engaging MBA teachers.
So I wonder why quant faculty gets the same salary sometimes, despite these factors.
Also why do CB get paid as much as quants if the outside options are worse?They do not - better paying, top schools are more heavy on the quant side, lower tier schools are heavier on the CB side. If you take the market average, you should find a difference because of this.
But... you are ignoring productivity when you make the outside options argument. Marketing professors are getting paid to do research + teach. CB candidates publish 4 papers a year - quants, perhaps one. CB gets 10 times the citations as quants. They write books, write newspaper columns.. More people buy them, more people read them. Companies hire them to give talks. CB faculty are also better presenters, and more engaging MBA teachers.
So I wonder why quant faculty gets the same salary sometimes, despite these factors.
BSing your way to top journals is easier for CB, so yeah... of course they publish more. If your measure of productivity is number of pubs then CBs are probably more productive, but I don't see why this would be a good measure especially for comparing different fields.
BSing your way to top journals is easier for CB, so yeah... of course they publish more. If your measure of productivity is number of pubs then CBs are probably more productive, but I don't see why this would be a good measure especially for comparing different fields.
It is not what you see and why - it is how it is. Schools count the number of publications, that matters for rankings. They do not count Marketing Science more than JCR.
What makes a quant publication better than a CB pub?
BSing your way to top journals is easier for CB, so yeah... of course they publish more. If your measure of productivity is number of pubs then CBs are probably more productive, but I don't see why this would be a good measure especially for comparing different fields.It is not what you see and why - it is how it is. Schools count the number of publications, that matters for rankings. They do not count Marketing Science more than JCR.
What makes a quant publication better than a CB pub?
I think quant research can have more impact on real businesses, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think good schools simply count the number of publications. Also doesn't make much sense to me to think that the number of pubs doesn't depend on the field, and I'm pretty sure this is reflected on tenure requirements
I think quant research can have more impact on real businesses, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think good schools simply count the number of publications. Also doesn't make much sense to me to think that the number of pubs doesn't depend on the field, and I'm pretty sure this is reflected on tenure requirements
Oh you think? Great. If you think so. Go tell Dan Ariely that his work does not matter to businesses.
CB researchers appeal to the broad public - and it is hard to belittle their contribution for that reason.
You are extremely naive with this attitude.
I think quant research can have more impact on real businesses, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think good schools simply count the number of publications. Also doesn't make much sense to me to think that the number of pubs doesn't depend on the field, and I'm pretty sure this is reflected on tenure requirementsOh you think? Great. If you think so. Go tell Dan Ariely that his work does not matter to businesses.
CB researchers appeal to the broad public - and it is hard to belittle their contribution for that reason.
You are extremely naive with this attitude.
Umm no need to get so defensive buddy. I just think that with the emergence of tech firms and more data being generated than can be handled, quants and data analytics skills in general are in high demand. "Let's use machine learning to make smart decisions" sounds nicer than "let's make our app orange to make more people download it" these days.
You still need to strike the right balance between between psychological insights and technical skills. Can't do it well only with one thing. If we only needed technical skills then we should close all Marketing departments and just stick to Engineering and Computer Science, as you will never beat those in that dimension.
I think quant research can have more impact on real businesses, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think good schools simply count the number of publications. Also doesn't make much sense to me to think that the number of pubs doesn't depend on the field, and I'm pretty sure this is reflected on tenure requirementsOh you think? Great. If you think so. Go tell Dan Ariely that his work does not matter to businesses.
CB researchers appeal to the broad public - and it is hard to belittle their contribution for that reason.
You are extremely naive with this attitude.Umm no need to get so defensive buddy. I just think that with the emergence of tech firms and more data being generated than can be handled, quants and data analytics skills in general are in high demand. "Let's use machine learning to make smart decisions" sounds nicer than "let's make our app orange to make more people download it" these days.
You still need to strike the right balance between between psychological insights and technical skills. Can't do it well only with one thing. If we only needed technical skills then we should close all Marketing departments and just stick to Engineering and Computer Science, as you will never beat those in that dimension.
I think quant research can have more impact on real businesses, but maybe I'm wrong. And I don't think good schools simply count the number of publications. Also doesn't make much sense to me to think that the number of pubs doesn't depend on the field, and I'm pretty sure this is reflected on tenure requirements
Oh you think? Great. If you think so. Go tell Dan Ariely that his work does not matter to businesses.
CB researchers appeal to the broad public - and it is hard to belittle their contribution for that reason.
You are extremely naive with this attitude.Umm no need to get so defensive buddy. I just think that with the emergence of tech firms and more data being generated than can be handled, quants and data analytics skills in general are in high demand. "Let's use machine learning to make smart decisions" sounds nicer than "let's make our app orange to make more people download it" these days.
Wrong. We may never beat the engineering and CS folk in terms of the algorithms and efficiency but they're quite awful at thinking about econ/ marketing aspects of the technical skills. And forget about the psychological skills, it's nowhere on their radar. There is definitely a place for all three in the current marketing landscape. But my point is that Quant marketing is not equal to CS.