Ah ok. I only knew they have collaborations with PC. What a good year of Chicago Quant.
No. They were SM students.
Both seem to be good hires. Were TL and YK also PC's students that year? PC so effing strong
It’s a little weird that Washington offered both, not weird that they accepted.
Hahaha it's funny because a few pages back someone insisted that no one at Chicago deserved to get tenure at a top place- that it was all just cronyism tenuring their buddies and denying everyone else. Definitely seems like a recipe to have perhaps the most successful PhD program year after year.
Ah ok. I only knew they have collaborations with PC. What a good year of Chicago Quant.
No. They were SM students.
Both seem to be good hires. Were TL and YK also PC's students that year? PC so effing strong
It’s a little weird that Washington offered both, not weird that they accepted.
He writes a ton of papers with a ton of people. Those people trust his judgement, presumably?
The flip side of this is if PC thinks you're not that great as a student, then you're completely toast.
Sure - It's PC's contacts - One of them had zero flyouts and the other had CUHK, UCL, UW, and U of Delaware. Successful Ph.D. program...PC has good contacts - that's the success recipe.Somewhat puzzled by his success. Whats the secret recipe?
He writes a ton of papers with a ton of people. Those people trust his judgement, presumably?
The flip side of this is if PC thinks you're not that great as a student, then you're completely toast.Sure - It's PC's contacts - One of them had zero flyouts and the other had CUHK, UCL, UW, and U of Delaware. Successful Ph.D. program...PC has good contacts - that's the success recipe.Somewhat puzzled by his success. Whats the secret recipe?
Does he actually write those papers?
You should ask one of his co-authors. If you're faculty or phd student in marketing at a university, chances are you have one as a colleague.
He writes a ton of papers with a ton of people. Those people trust his judgement, presumably?
The flip side of this is if PC thinks you're not that great as a student, then you're completely toast.Sure - It's PC's contacts - One of them had zero flyouts and the other had CUHK, UCL, UW, and U of Delaware. Successful Ph.D. program...PC has good contacts - that's the success recipe.Somewhat puzzled by his success. Whats the secret recipe?
Does he actually write those papers?
UT was 220 12 month 4 years ago, btw
Rookie? Wow.
Actually for 12m Ok I guess
What does it mean having 220k 12 month contract? Is it like 18k per month? This is a lot
Pretty low, most good privates are paying at least 250k for 9 months (plus 2/9) for marketing associate level.
Austin is as productive or more productive as Houston. This is more a lateral move.
Selection bias and all, but senior hires from top schools to lower ranked schools tend to be really disruptive. It’s frequently (always?) an invitation to totally reshape the department. It’s gone well (Oklahoma state) and it’s gone really poorly (UNC, which ok opinions vary). I dunno if Texas wants or needs that.
Do you know a reference in quant who is on the market and will move to Austin given its salary and rank? Your references in quant are all playing in a different salary and prestige. Nothing wrong with ambition but it has to be tempered with institutional realities.Nothing wrong with RD's research but let's be real if Austin wants to become a reference in quant they should be trying to poach a real quant senior not someone who hasn't hit JMR in 6 years and who has only 1 marketing science from 15 years ago.
Many would. It is Austin, a great city. They hired DC didn't they?
This is a huge step up for RD. Houston has a great marketing department but overall it’s not a great school