10 year clock if you want it. COVID has made things wonky
How about AR? Did she make it?Seems from Twitter that AS at Booth made tenure. Good for her. That CB group has really come back from the dead.Heard BS from Chicago is also up?
I do not think she is going up this year. At Booth tenure means being a Full professor, and they go up somewhere between 7-9 years. She might have taken extra time for covid or a kid. So who knows, may not even be up next year.
Heard AR is leaving Chicago and got some tenured associated offers. I think she is better than BS, but BS is white male…
10 year clock if you want it. COVID has made things wonky
How about AR? Did she make it?
please, kindly F00K OFF with this "white male" whining cr.ap
I like AR and her papers. But she is dominated by BS in all aspects. She is two years more senior than BS; she cannot win the bean-counting given the two top 5s by BS; the JPE of BS is probably more impactful than the sum of all of her works; BS is highly regarded among IO economists as well and it means something to a place like Booth. You must be blind if you blame everything on BS being a white male.
Heard AR is leaving Chicago and got some tenured associated offers. I think she is better than BS, but BS is white male…
10 year clock if you want it. COVID has made things wonky
How about AR? Did she make it?
Heard AR is leaving Chicago and got some tenured associated offers. I think she is better than BS, but BS is white male…
10 year clock if you want it. COVID has made things wonky
How about AR? Did she make it?
AR's job market paper (online content pricing) was good. However, her recent papers (fake news advertising & made in US claims) were average at best. To be honest, I found her recent papers trivial and offer little insights.
Research taste is subjective but I think BS is in a different league.
I don’t think it should be either BS or AR. It doesn’t work like that.
In addition to all the below, BS is also a really nice guy- good colleague and a good teacher. That helps. That’s not to say AR isn’t nice- I don’t know her well. But BS is, on top of being a good researcher, a really nice guy.
I like AR and her papers. But she is dominated by BS in all aspects. She is two years more senior than BS; she cannot win the bean-counting given the two top 5s by BS; the JPE of BS is probably more impactful than the sum of all of her works; BS is highly regarded among IO economists as well and it means something to a place like Booth. You must be blind if you blame everything on BS being a white male. >
All these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
This is well said. BS’ papers are either copycat from other economists or same repeated piece (or so-callled econometrica IV crappy with inside help). AR is more original. I agree being white male really helps, as otherwise (powerful) people would just say “oh, this is not good for an Asian female, blabla)..
All these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
This is not a particularly accurate understanding of Chicago’s tenure process
All these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
This is not a particularly accurate understanding of Chicago’s tenure process
All these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
Enlighten us
“Economists” outside the marketing department or outside letters have little impact on tenure decisions at Chicago. I acknowledge that may not always have been the case, but it hasn’t been the case since the earliest case I know anything about (OU).
This is not a particularly accurate understanding of Chicago’s tenure processAll these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
Enlighten us
OU you mean Oleg? Isn't he a behavioral person? And even within Booth marketing, many are good economists as well.
“Economists” outside the marketing department or outside letters have little impact on tenure decisions at Chicago. I acknowledge that may not always have been the case, but it hasn’t been the case since the earliest case I know anything about (OU).
This is not a particularly accurate understanding of Chicago’s tenure processAll these comparisons are silly. They should both make it ideally, they are above the marketing bar. But decisions in Chicago are made by a committee of high level economists. They may or may not like their work. Both have very few citations for a full prof, which may be a problem.
Economists can tell a good econ paper from a bad one. But they don’t know what to think about a Marketing Science paper. They know that BS’s identification idea is not novel, it is from another econ paper. So he will get less credit for it. He published multiple papers with the same idea and same data, which does not help. Wish he had more broad work to show. On surface AR has more original ideas and work. She should get credit for it.
Enlighten us
Any news? Market cleared?
KNOWN
Austin: GY(Erasmus, B - Accepted), AR (Chicago, B - Accepted), RC(S)
BC: MS (Stan, Q - Accepted)
Berkeley: SG(NW, Q)
Bocconi: IS (LBS, Q - Accepted)
Chicago: SG(NW, Q - Rejected), KD(UCB, B - Accepted), SS(UCLA, B - Accepted)
Columbia: HF(Yale, Q), DD(UPF, Q)
Cornell: ST(Wisc, Q - Rejected), YD(Col, B), RF(CMU, Q - Rejected)
Darden: HF(Yale, Q), ZZ (Berkeley, B - Accepted), SH (Harvard, B - Accepted)
Duke: ST(Wisc, Q - Accepted)
Florida: HF(Yale, Q), YD(Col, B), IS(Wharton, B)
Georgetown: ZC(HKUST, Q - accepted)
HBS: HF(Yale, Q), IT(USC, Q)
Kellogg: ST(Wisc, Q), IS(Wharton, B - Accepted)
Minnesota: BK(Harvard, Q - accepted)
NUS: YZ(Q - accepted), HF(Yale, Q), MP (Erasmus, Q - accepted)
NYU: RF(CMU, Q - accepted)
Purdue: WJ(Emory, Q - accepted)
Stanford: SG(NW, Q - rejected), HF(Yale, Q), YD(Col, B - accepted)
Toronto: CL(BU, B)
UBC: HF(Yale, Q), YD(Col, B - rejected), JP (Stan, B - accepted)
UNC: HF(Yale, Q), IK(Wisc/NUS, Q)
USCarolina: HVS (ASU, B - Accepted)
UTD: ST(Wisc, Q), HF(Yale, Q)
WashU: RF(CMU, Q - Rejected)
Wisconsin: YL (Wharton, Q - Accepted)
McGill: CZ (Toronto, Q - Accepted)
NOT HIRING
UCLA
Michigan
MIT
Wharton
LBS
UNKNOWN
Yale:
Dartmouth:
BU:
USC:
UW:
UMD:
UCSD:
CUHK:
HKUST:
SMU:
Cambridge:
Indiana:
Tulane:
Heard AR is leaving Chicago and got some tenured associated offers. I think she is better than BS, but BS is white male…
10 year clock if you want it. COVID has made things wonky
How about AR? Did she make it?
Michigan? Seems to be the place for most former Chicago faculty. Hope she is happy with whatever decision she makes.