And comment two: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20181101
Official Marketing JM 2020 Thread
-
Pretty bold claims here. Someone seems a little...off-kilter.
There are many other women that Wharton could have hired and they offered Cait because she was qualified. Wharton didn't have a blanket offer out for the first woman to accept. Are there no women in the field that have good papers and can give a good research talk that Wharton could have considered?
See how silly/biased/unintelligent you are...?
There are plenty of talented female quants that exist so if Raluca Ursu gets outside offers its probably because she's talented rather than just being a female.
It is not she won a best paper award that a committee of PC students decide. It is that every school is under the pressure of hiring females, esp on the quant side, and Columbia has none. They have very few females altogether, despite just hiring VM.
Wharton hired Cait L because she is a female. It is known very publicly that it was the only reason. Her papers are all pretty poor and she cannot give a proper research talk.
So suspect DA and TL will do very well. -
Thanks for your opinion, RU!
Pretty bold claims here. Someone seems a little...off-kilter.
There are many other women that Wharton could have hired and they offered Cait because she was qualified. Wharton didn't have a blanket offer out for the first woman to accept. Are there no women in the field that have good papers and can give a good research talk that Wharton could have considered?
See how silly/biased/unintelligent you are...?
There are plenty of talented female quants that exist so if Raluca Ursu gets outside offers its probably because she's talented rather than just being a female.It is not she won a best paper award that a committee of PC students decide. It is that every school is under the pressure of hiring females, esp on the quant side, and Columbia has none. They have very few females altogether, despite just hiring VM.
Wharton hired Cait L because she is a female. It is known very publicly that it was the only reason. Her papers are all pretty poor and she cannot give a proper research talk.
So suspect DA and TL will do very well.
-
Second. It's not about being female.
Pretty bold claims here. Someone seems a little...off-kilter.
There are many other women that Wharton could have hired and they offered Cait because she was qualified. Wharton didn't have a blanket offer out for the first woman to accept. Are there no women in the field that have good papers and can give a good research talk that Wharton could have considered?
See how silly/biased/unintelligent you are...?
There are plenty of talented female quants that exist so if Raluca Ursu gets outside offers its probably because she's talented rather than just being a female.It is not she won a best paper award that a committee of PC students decide. It is that every school is under the pressure of hiring females, esp on the quant side, and Columbia has none. They have very few females altogether, despite just hiring VM.
Wharton hired Cait L because she is a female. It is known very publicly that it was the only reason. Her papers are all pretty poor and she cannot give a proper research talk.
So suspect DA and TL will do very well.
-
Pretty bold claims here. Someone seems a little...off-kilter.
There are many other women that Wharton could have hired and they offered Cait because she was qualified. Wharton didn't have a blanket offer out for the first woman to accept. Are there no women in the field that have good papers and can give a good research talk that Wharton could have considered?
See how silly/biased/unintelligent you are...?
There are plenty of talented female quants that exist so if Raluca Ursu gets outside offers its probably because she's talented rather than just being a female.I suppose you are not in the right circles. This is pretty public info.
Name a woman that Wharton could have hired, if they wanted to. Give a reason for CL to be preferred over others, aside from the fact that she was a female looking to move after divorce. Tell me for ex an area in CB that she has developed, or a paper that is so groundbreaking that she wrote that makes her better than others in the pool. I am ready to be convinced otherwise if the conference circles of tenured faculty in top schools are all gossip and you know better.
-
She won a best paper award a couple months ago, so probably lots of market interest.
Columbia list is out
RU from NYU is also on the market??? Maybe not a job talk..?
It is not she won a best paper award that a committee of PC students decide. It is that every school is under the pressure of hiring females, esp on the quant side, and Columbia has none. They have very few females altogether, despite just hiring VM.
Wharton hired Cait L because she is a female. It is known very publicly that it was the only reason. Her papers are all pretty poor and she cannot give a proper research talk.
So suspect DA and TL will do very well.Seriously, read what you write one time before posting it. It sounds petty and bitter. Why Wharton, of all places, should hire a female CB professor who is that poor? Even if they were looking for a female professor, there are plenty of great ones in CB who would join Wharton in a heartbeat. Why would they hire someone they think of as weak?
-
1. Haws, Kelly and Cait Poynor (2008)*, “Seize the Day! Encouraging Indulgence for the Hyperopic Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, December, 680-691.
2. Poynor, Cait and Kelly Haws (2009)*, “Lines in the Sand: Implementation Intentions, Categorization, and Choice in Pursuit of Self-Control Goals,” Journal of Consumer Research, February, 772-787.
3. Diehl, Kristin and Cait Poynor (2010)*, “Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, April.
4. Poynor, Cait and Stacy L. Wood (2010), “Smart Subcategories: How Assortment Formats Influence Consumer Learning and Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer Research, June, 159- 175.
5. Naylor, Rebecca Walker, Cait Poynor Lamberton and David Norton* (2011), “Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, August, 617-631.
6. Lamberton, Cait Poynor and Randy Rose (2012), “Yours, Mine and Ours: An Investigation of Consumers’ Propensity to Participate in Commercial Sharing Systems,” Journal of Marketing, July, 109-125.
7. Naylor, Rebecca, Cait Poynor Lamberton and Patricia West* (2012), “Beyond the ‘Like Button’ – The Effect of Resolving Ambiguity in Social Media,” Journal of Marketing, November, 105-120.
8. Lamberton, Cait Poynor, Rebecca Naylor and Kelly Haws (2013), “My Reasons are Not Your Reasons: The Influence of Divergent Reasoning on the Persuasive Effects of Others,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, January, 74-89.
9. Norton, David A., Cait Lamberton and Rebecca Naylor (2013)*, “The Devil you (Don’t) Know: The Effects of Interpersonal Ambiguity in Competitive Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Research, August.
10. Lamberton, Cait (2013), “A Spoonful of Choice: How Allocation can Increase Satisfaction with Tax Payments,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.
11. Lamberton, Cait and Kristin Diehl (2013) “Retail Choice Architecture: The Effect of Benefit and Attribute-Based Assortment Organization on Similarity Perceptions and Strength of Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (3), 393-411. (Lead article)
12. Lamberton, Cait, Carrie Leana and John Williams (2014), “Measuring Empathetic Care: Development and Validation of a Self-Report Scale,” The Journal of Applied Gerontology.
13. Dzoghleva, Hristina and Cait Lamberton (2014), “Should Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Understanding Self-Control Decisions in Dyads,” November, Journal of Consumer Research.
14. Diehl, Kristin, Erica van Herpen and Cait Lamberton* (2015), “Organizing Products with Complements versus Substitutes: Effects on Store Preferences as a Function of Effort and Assortment Perceptions,” Journal of Retailing, 91, (1), 1-18. (Lead article)
15. Liu, Peggy, Kelly L. Haws, Cait Lamberton, Troy Campbell and Gavan Fitzimons (2015), “Virtue-Vice Bundles,” Management Science, 61 (1), 204-228.
16. Liu, Peggy, Cait Lamberton and Kelly L. Haws (2015), “Trivializing Compensation and Muddy Linings: When Firm Expenditures to Acknowledge Backfire,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (May), 74-90.
17. Dzoghleva, Hristina, Cait Lamberton and Kelly L. Haws (2015), “Helps or Haunts from the Past? The Effect of Recalled Success and Failure on Present Self-Regulation,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (2).
18. Lamberton, Cait (2016), “Collaborative Consumption: A Goal-Based Framework,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 55-59.
19. Lamberton, Cait, Paula Fitzgerald and Mike Walsh* (2016), “Perceived Negative Externalities and Consumer Responses to Pigovian Taxes,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 1 (3), 355-377.
20. Nikolova, Hristina and Cait Lamberton (2016), “Men and the Middle: Male Decision- Makers and the Compromise Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, October.
21. Block, Lauren, Mir...See full post -
Seems like you skipped even this basic step. But clearly the misogyny is rotting your brain.
There are other forums where you would be more welcome. Go there.
Glad you can do what a lazy person who does not read any research can do, copy paste. What a lesson!
-
Seems like you skipped even this basic step. But clearly the misogyny is rotting your brain.
There are other forums where you would be more welcome. Go there.Glad you can do what a lazy person who does not read any research can do, copy paste. What a lesson!
Relax, CL.
-
Seems like you skipped even this basic step. But clearly the misogyny is rotting your brain.
There are other forums where you would be more welcome. Go there.Glad you can do what a lazy person who does not read any research can do, copy paste. What a lesson!
Relax, CL.
This is such an immature way of handling criticism. People other than CL have the right, and the responsibility, to point out when an observation seems to be sexist. And it indeed seems this way. To think a school like Wharton will simply give away jobs to the first female candidate that comes by, and not do their due diligence, is an irrational accusation. The truth is, we never know what criteria is considered when hiring— but if it is based on productivity, she seems to have it.
-
Seems like you skipped even this basic step. But clearly the misogyny is rotting your brain.
There are other forums where you would be more welcome. Go there.Glad you can do what a lazy person who does not read any research can do, copy paste. What a lesson!
Relax, CL.
This is such an immature way of handling criticism. People other than CL have the right, and the responsibility, to point out when an observation seems to be sexist. And it indeed seems this way. To think a school like Wharton will simply give away jobs to the first female candidate that comes by, and not do their due diligence, is an irrational accusation. The truth is, we never know what criteria is considered when hiring— but if it is based on productivity, she seems to have it.
Exactly. I have immense respect for Cait, met her a few times, read and cited her works. I understand there are fewer female professors in Quant, but CB has plenty of excellent female researchers who would have joined Wharton had Wharton wanted to bring them.
-
Seems like you skipped even this basic step. But clearly the misogyny is rotting your brain.
There are other forums where you would be more welcome. Go there.Glad you can do what a lazy person who does not read any research can do, copy paste. What a lesson!
Relax, CL.
If this is the level of your thinking I bet your research sucks, bro.
-
Exactly. I have immense respect for Cait, met her a few times, read and cited her works. I understand there are fewer female professors in Quant, but CB has plenty of excellent female researchers who would have joined Wharton had Wharton wanted to bring them.
Plus she's one of the most thoughtful reviewers / AEs active today.
-
How do you think she became an AE?
Exactly. I have immense respect for Cait, met her a few times, read and cited her works. I understand there are fewer female professors in Quant, but CB has plenty of excellent female researchers who would have joined Wharton had Wharton wanted to bring them.
Plus she's one of the most thoughtful reviewers / AEs active today.