Details please
I have nothing against EO, but I do hope this decision reflects a skepticism about the referee practices of top journals. More and more I see papers in a top journal that a good field journal would reject, simply because the referees for the field journal would know it is wrong. (In the past year, the AER has published 3 papers that I know rely on made up characterizations of data etc).
I find the vast majority of the posts on this thread to be reprehensible, as well as the general EO bashing on this board. The fact is that all of us with any reasonably high level of ambition will experience significant failure in our lives. None of us would want that failure to be broadcast to the world and then compounded with misogynistic, ad hominem smears on an anonymous Internet board. If you would be ashamed to say something to EO in person, then that's a pretty good signal that you should be ashamed to write it anonymously.
If criticizing a female researcher's questionable topics and the impact of her popular books is misogynistic and ad hominem...
Wait it's not.
I find the vast majority of the posts on this thread to be reprehensible, as well as the general EO bashing on this board. The fact is that all of us with any reasonably high level of ambition will experience significant failure in our lives. None of us would want that failure to be broadcast to the world and then compounded with misogynistic, ad hominem smears on an anonymous Internet board. If you would be ashamed to say something to EO in person, then that's a pretty good signal that you should be ashamed to write it anonymously.
^look at that username. douchenozzle alert.
You're new here, I see.
In the early days of EJMR, when it was still run by Tatonnement, the signal-to-noise ratio of this forum was higher, so I contributed to some threads under the Top10Bschool username where there was demand for the perspective of a faculty member at my school's particular place in the academic pecking order. As the quality of discussion on this board devolved, I stopped contributing, but I grabbed this username when Kirk took over so that nobody else could start posting under it. I'm posting under this username now to again provide a faculty opinion on this EO discussion.
^look at that username. douchenozzle alert.
You're new here, I see.
In the early days of EJMR, when it was still run by Tatonnement, the signal-to-noise ratio of this forum was higher, so I contributed to some threads under the Top10Bschool username where there was demand for the perspective of a faculty member at my school's particular place in the academic pecking order. As the quality of discussion on this board devolved, I stopped contributing, but I grabbed this username when Kirk took over so that nobody else could start posting under it. I'm posting under this username now to again provide a faculty opinion on this EO discussion.
Well, all this makes me happy I missed out on all the sweet grapes by going to a VLR school. Maybe you'd find things less vicious and petty there. Most of us recognize that life is pretty good, even if we don't make tenure at Booth. Our grapes are just as sweet.
If criticizing a female researcher's questionable topics and the impact of her popular books is misogynistic and ad hominem...
Wait it's not.
There are ways to criticize somebody's research in ways that are not misogynistic and ad hominem. I've written over a hundred referee reports and been a conference discussant for many papers, so I'm no stranger to being critical.
If you think the way EO has been discussed on EJMR has not had strong elements of misogyny and personal attacks, then either you are being deliberately obtuse or you are socially stunted.
I would gladly take a junior job at Booth if failing to make tenure meant some anonymous web forum would have schadenfreude at my loss. Bummer for EO, but give me a break, winding up at some top 25 department instead of a top B-school is the most first world of problems. I've met people whose tenure denial meant exile to adjunct hell. Now THAT is a tough blow.
Attacks on EO are for the same reason krugman is a dirty word: high end researcher who elected to focus on a pop media personality and water cooler friendly research topics instead of nuts and bolts research. There's dozens of people who will fail HRM tenure and never get a whisper here.
Don't forget the L-word too.
(Levitt)
I would gladly take a junior job at Booth if failing to make tenure meant some anonymous web forum would have schadenfreude at my loss. Bummer for EO, but give me a break, winding up at some top 25 department instead of a top B-school is the most first world of problems. I've met people whose tenure denial meant exile to adjunct hell. Now THAT is a tough blow.
Not to mention people who lose visa status and have to leave the country.
economists should strive to use insights from other fields to answer important and interesting questions. there is no doubt that eo is trying to make significant contributions. i don't feel any joy in this tenure decision.
I agree with this statement. Perhaps that is what EO is doing. But I see a lot of something else: IGNORING insights from other fields and writing papers that claim to do something new (like better identification) that are just wrong because of the failure to read other literatures.
I would gladly take a junior job at Booth if failing to make tenure meant some anonymous web forum would have schadenfreude at my loss. Bummer for EO, but give me a break, winding up at some top 25 department instead of a top B-school is the most first world of problems. I've met people whose tenure denial meant exile to adjunct hell. Now THAT is a tough blow.Not to mention people who lose visa status and have to leave the country.
Are you the same people who defend sending the rich abroad to improve our income distribution measures?
Details please
I have nothing against EO, but I do hope this decision reflects a skepticism about the referee practices of top journals. More and more I see papers in a top journal that a good field journal would reject, simply because the referees for the field journal would know it is wrong. (In the past year, the AER has published 3 papers that I know rely on made up characterizations of data etc).
I have a different username now, on a different link. But I wrote the comment about the AER. It is not just the AER; the QJE might be worse in this respect. I am not willing to provide details because they might self-identify.
The problem is this: someone writes a paper claiming to identify something for the first time, or perhaps they have a model of something. To make things right, the author has to make claims about what we know about the topic. It is very, very easy to misrepresent earlier work to a general journal, because the editor is unlikely to know enough to get the right referees. So we end up with papers that say "the literature says the world is flat" when that is simply not true. The AER papers I am thinking of do just that. They either cite a paper as saying "x" when the paper does not mention x, or they conveniently leave out the key and most recent publication so they can persist with their view.
This is why the idea of replication (as good as it is) is limited. Yes, I can download someone's data and run their regressions. But that is not really the point in the cases I am thinking of.
If you think the way EO has been discussed on EJMR has not had strong elements of misogyny and personal attacks, then either you are being deliberately obtuse or you are socially stunted.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Is there also a strong element of white hate in the criticisms? It sounds more like you are trying to derail the topic for whatever agenda you have. The mods warned about this yesterday.
There is a lot of revisionism in this thread about the HEP-b paper. Yes, she ultimately did admit she was wrong. But she did this only after exhausting every other option and trashing those who disagreed with her (and who turned out to be right). And she never asked JPE to formally retract the paper.
hbs
and harvard public health
QED
Wow, I'm surprised by this tenure decision, but it seems like the right outcome. She's pretty quick on her feet, has better verbal skills than the average economist, and has a good (educational and familial) pedigree, so a lot of people gave her more credit than they extended to others doing pretty much the same work. But she always seemed to me to be kind of superficial in her knowledge of both econometrics and health and a little mean and vindictive if you didn't buy everything she was selling about herself and her work. All of this means she'll have a fine career post-Chicago, perhaps in an area (law? media? and I would have thought business but maybe not) that values that kind of package.
That actually will be a great fit for both - Jesse to HBS and Emily to HSPH given their research agendas and the economists who are already there working on very related issues.