Quite the polarizing chap apparently. I haven’t heard of anyone that’s bringing him in yet.
How is JG doing? He definitely has an amazing CV!
Official Marketing JM 2020 Thread
-
I believe it’s important for marketing to address it’s gender problem: hire female candidates, they are just as good if not better.
and I believe people who hire based on gender and assume some candidates are better than others based on their gender alone are part of the problem
-
I believe it’s important for marketing to address it’s gender problem: hire female candidates, they are just as good if not better.
and I believe people who hire based on gender and assume some candidates are better than others based on their gender alone are part of the problem
It's about correcting historical wrongs; it's important we address gender disparity in marketing departments/business school.
-
I believe it’s important for marketing to address it’s gender problem: hire female candidates, they are just as good if not better.
and I believe people who hire based on gender and assume some candidates are better than others based on their gender alone are part of the problem
It's about correcting historical wrongs; it's important we address gender disparity in marketing departments/business school.
First, you can't know whether women weren't hired just because they were women. You are just saying that based on the false assumption that we should have 50-50. Second, even if that was true, it's not right to make men today pay for what others did in the past. That kind of policy only generates resentment and aggravates sexism. It actually gives people a reason to start discriminating based on gender since they now know some people are getting advantages just because of gender.
-
I believe it’s important for marketing to address it’s gender problem: hire female candidates, they are just as good if not better.
and I believe people who hire based on gender and assume some candidates are better than others based on their gender alone are part of the problem
It's about correcting historical wrongs; it's important we address gender disparity in marketing departments/business school.
First, you can't know whether women weren't hired just because they were women. You are just saying that based on the false assumption that we should have 50-50. Second, even if that was true, it's not right to make men today pay for what others did in the past. That kind of policy only generates resentment and aggravates sexism. It actually gives people a reason to start discriminating based on gender since they now know some people are getting advantages just because of gender.
You sound so intelligent! So you think sexism only impacts hiring decisions and it is a thing of the past? What rock have you been living under?
-
The level of sexism in the Marketing community on this forum is unbelievable.
CL definitely got the job because of gender. This is publicly known. When you give someone the job because of gender, people lose respect for other females too because it is not clear why they are hired in the first place. So hiring women because of gender is not helping them in the long term.
Someone may look productive but there is something unfair on the CB side. CB advisors put their names on their students' JMP. (And on any other paper someone else is writing and they are editing!) On the quant side, you are expected to send your students with solo authored papers. So the quant advisor does not get an extra paper out by having a student. CL and other CB researchers, ZT, SH, AF, you name it, keep putting their name on their students' papers. I will respect them more when they do not do that. If you take 5 students' JMPs over 5 years off their CV, those CVs are significantly shorter. And if these advisors were doing the majority work in those JMPs, the papers should not become someone's JMP.
-
FOH. GTFO.
There are only a handful of people in the field who are as productive as CL. Check the numbers.
Most are not movable, unless you’re backing up a huge money truck. VK is already making at least a million a year. CJ is already making .5 mil in one of the cheapest places in America.
Wharton hired CL because she is productive, the physical move is short, and they could incentivize her to move (and if we’re being real she was probably being underpaid before BECAUSE she’s a woman). The fact that she is a woman is a nice diversity bonus for the dean (because Wharton is clearly lacking in women across the entire school), but it’s not at all the reason they hired her.
Your logic is flawed. If you are a quant, I really want you to post your code when (if) you ever publish a paper, because if you can’t think clearly about simple things, I’m betting your more complex models are trash. Who took your GMAT for you? Do you even counterfactual, bro?
Finally, please show me all these solo authored publications in Marketing Science from JMPs (I’ll wait).
And almost every advisor “puts their name” on student papers BECAUSE they are a coauthor. Part of being productive is being a good advisor and check where CL’s students ended up. She is a great advisor. Which is another reason (not gender) that Wharton hired her.And before you say something stupid like, “calm down CL”. Note, I am a male doctoral student. I’m bigger than you. And I don’t stand for this trash online or IRL. You sound like you’re one rejection away from posting a woman-hate manifesto on one of those chan-boards and going on a spree. You have school shooter energy. I really want you to go get some help. But in the mean time, as long as you’re posting here, I’m smacking you. Clown.
Smack.
Now go away. No one likes you here.
The level of sexism in the Marketing community on this forum is unbelievable.
CL definitely got the job because of gender. This is publicly known. When you give someone the job because of gender, people lose respect for other females too because it is not clear why they are hired in the first place. So hiring women because of gender is not helping them in the long term.
Someone may look productive but there is something unfair on the CB side. CB advisors put their names on their students' JMP. (And on any other paper someone else is writing and they are editing!) On the quant side, you are expected to send your students with solo authored papers. So the quant advisor does not get an extra paper out by having a student. CL and other CB researchers, ZT, SH, AF, you name it, keep putting their name on their students' papers. I will respect them more when they do not do that. If you take 5 students' JMPs over 5 years off their CV, those CVs are significantly shorter. And if these advisors were doing the majority work in those JMPs, the papers should not become someone's JMP. -
FOH. GTFO.
There are only a handful of people in the field who are as productive as CL. Check the numbers.
https://www.ama.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Author-Resesarch-Productivity-Report-Premier-Journals-2018.pdf
Most are not movable, unless you’re backing up a huge money truck. VK is already making at least a million a year. CJ is already making .5 mil in one of the cheapest places in America.
Wharton hired CL because she is productive, the physical move is short, and they could incentivize her to move (and if we’re being real she was probably being underpaid before BECAUSE she’s a woman). The fact that she is a woman is a nice diversity bonus for the dean (because Wharton is clearly lacking in women across the entire school), but it’s not at all the reason they hired her.
Your logic is flawed. If you are a quant, I really want you to post your code when (if) you ever publish a paper, because if you can’t think clearly about simple things, I’m betting your more complex models are trash. Who took your GMAT for you? Do you even counterfactual, bro?
Finally, please show me all these solo authored publications in Marketing Science from JMPs (I’ll wait).
And almost every advisor “puts their name” on student papers BECAUSE they are a coauthor. Part of being productive is being a good advisor and check where CL’s students ended up. She is a great advisor. Which is another reason (not gender) that Wharton hired her.
And before you say something stupid like, “calm down CL”. Note, I am a male doctoral student. I’m bigger than you. And I don’t stand for this trash online or IRL. You sound like you’re one rejection away from posting a woman-hate manifesto on one of those chan-boards and going on a spree. You have school shooter energy. I really want you to go get some help. But in the mean time, as long as you’re posting here, I’m smacking you. Clown.
Smack.
Now go away. No one likes you here.The level of sexism in the Marketing community on this forum is unbelievable.
CL definitely got the job because of gender. This is publicly known. When you give someone the job because of gender, people lose respect for other females too because it is not clear why they are hired in the first place. So hiring women because of gender is not helping them in the long term.
Someone may look productive but there is something unfair on the CB side. CB advisors put their names on their students' JMP. (And on any other paper someone else is writing and they are editing!) On the quant side, you are expected to send your students with solo authored papers. So the quant advisor does not get an extra paper out by having a student. CL and other CB researchers, ZT, SH, AF, you name it, keep putting their name on their students' papers. I will respect them more when they do not do that. If you take 5 students' JMPs over 5 years off their CV, those CVs are significantly shorter. And if these advisors were doing the majority work in those JMPs, the papers should not become someone's JMP.
Well said.
I am a woman and I am against favoring females in the hiring process in academia. I find it against what I stand for in terms of equality and as a woman, I am offended to know that I am ever getting any advantages in academia for being a woman. I believe female researchers in my field are strong and capable enough (judging by the quality of their work and contribution to the field) that they don't need any "favor". And Cait is one of those capable women; she deserves the job she got.
-
Gladstone. He’s an advanced prof from UCL
Quite the polarizing chap apparently. I haven’t heard of anyone that’s bringing him in yet.
How is JG doing? He definitely has an amazing CV!
Who is JG? Which school?
He is productive, but primarily in psych. That is a red flag for most deans in a business school.
-
Makes sense given his research domain. Best of luck to him.
Gladstone. He’s an advanced prof from UCL
How is JG doing? He definitely has an amazing CV!
He is productive, but primarily in psych. That is a red flag for most deans in a business school.
I heard Boulder flying him out.
-
Gladstone. He’s an advanced prof from UCL
How is JG doing? He definitely has an amazing CV!
He is productive, but primarily in psych. That is a red flag for most deans in a business school.
I heard Boulder flying him out.
Calm down JG.
Moving from this obvious joke, though, good luck to everyone for flyouts!