Close

Complete Captcha

• 4 months - 208 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 539 Goods vs 353 No Goods

1. Economist
   1851
   

   1. We are told that not all JMCs signed the letter. Did the better students on the job market not sign the letter? Is there a lot of ex post regret?

   2. Is Macro and International field in trouble? Is Wisconsin forced to only hire women in these fields by the Dean's office? Obviously this is illegal.

   3. Do faculty continue to interact with all of you even after the letter? Do you feel a difference?

   Honest responses welcome. I am a prospective student. In fairness, my outside options are limited but conversations with my mentors swayed me away from UWM to worse options. I could frankly care less about wokeness (if someone wants me to put my pronouns, I will) but I want to be well trained before entering the JM.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 3 Vlad !

2. Economist
   231d
   

   What letter?

   4 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

3. Economist
   04b3
   

   Was the cave warm and comfortable?

   What letter?

   4 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   1851
   

   What letter?

   There was a letter signed by a majority of the PhD students where they claimed that there were credible allegations on sexual misconduct against multiple faculty. And two PhD students decided to let the press investigate four faculty.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 1 Vlad !

5. Economist
   e10d
   

   What letter?

   There was a letter signed by a majority of the PhD students where they claimed that there were credible allegations on sexual misconduct against multiple faculty. And two PhD students decided to let the press investigate four faculty.

   Any consequences?

   4 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   4fcf
   

   We ignored the application for two UW JMCs.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   c2f0
   

   It’s funny, I’m at a government agency that has hired a couple of Wisconsin grads and they are pretty chill bros and do not strike me as the type to sign letters like that. Mind you we don’t talk about politics at all so IDK

   4 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   46d1
   

   Decided not to interview UW students

   4 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   3bd0
   

   1. No idea

   2. No

   3. No difference at all

   Training was never that great, the letter isn't at fault for that. I don't know if JMCs are really being passed because of the letter or not like people claim here. If true, then I'll be very upset that a couple of "overenthusiastic" students destroyed my chances in the JM. Anyway, don't come if you have similarly ranked options.

   4 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 2 Vlad !

10. Economist
    c2f0
    

    I find the IO folks I work with to be very well trained, as a counterpoint. Can’t speak to other fields.

    1. No idea
    2. No
    3. No difference at all
    Training was never that great, the letter isn't at fault for that. I don't know if JMCs are really being passed because of the letter or not like people claim here. If true, then I'll be very upset that a couple of "overenthusiastic" students destroyed my chances in the JM. Anyway, don't come if you have similarly ranked options.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 2 Vlad !

11. Economist
    dd6f
    

    I'm an insider who signed the letter.

    1. I didn't exactly take mental notes on all of the JMCs who signed the letter, but plenty did. I haven't heard any ex-post regret voiced. I know of at least a couple of JMCs who signed anonymously because they were worried about consequences.

    2. No clue, I'm not in macro or international. I've heard from a couple of macro students that the faculty treat them better than they used to. No clue about international. That field is tiny

    3. All of the faculty I interact with haven't changed at all. A couple reached out to all of the students they knew well to ask them if there was anything the students wanted them to know or do differently. In general, the response was positive.

    I'm almost certain that the people posting that they chose not to interview UW students are lying. Once you go to grad school, you'll learn that EJMR trolls not at all representative of econ faculty, especially in the top 20-30 departments. They tend to be either apolitical or vaguely center-left with views that are mainstream among educated people. Hiring decisions are made over research quality, presentation skills, and whether they would fit well in the department. The EJMR delusions of blackballing students that organized the letter presume an anti-meritocracy that doesn't exist in this field.

    Go to the visit day of every school that accepts you. Talk to the students and faculty. An obvious choice will probably jump out at you. Take everything you read on this website with a hefty dose of skepticism.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 5 Vlad !

12. Economist
    1851
    

    Thanks. This all seems inconsistent with what I've heard.

    1. I am told that the majority of the top tier students on the market this year did NOT sign the letter. Is that incorrect?

    2. The macro and International lunch student series is apparently not the same as before.

    3. Informal interactions have apparently been minimized. I can see why faculty would want to do that for fear of being unfairly maligned.

    Reactions?

    4 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 2 Vlad !

13. Economist
    c2f0
    

    Hm the bot got my post. I would have reservations about hiring someone who signed the letter, as I know people who would use the letter as pretext to attack departmental enemies- and I’ve seen it happen. Not enough to rule you out but it’s not a good signal. I left a place that was intensely political, and wouldn’t hire someone who I thought was willing to start fights.

    I'm an insider who signed the letter.
    1. I didn't exactly take mental notes on all of the JMCs who signed the letter, but plenty did. I haven't heard any ex-post regret voiced. I know of at least a couple of JMCs who signed anonymously because they were worried about consequences.
    2. No clue, I'm not in macro or international. I've heard from a couple of macro students that the faculty treat them better than they used to. No clue about international. That field is tiny
    3. All of the faculty I interact with haven't changed at all. A couple reached out to all of the students they knew well to ask them if there was anything the students wanted them to know or do differently. In general, the response was positive.
    I'm almost certain that the people posting that they chose not to interview UW students are lying. Once you go to grad school, you'll learn that EJMR trolls not at all representative of econ faculty, especially in the top 20-30 departments. They tend to be either apolitical or vaguely center-left with views that are mainstream among educated people. Hiring decisions are made over research quality, presentation skills, and whether they would fit well in the department. The EJMR delusions of blackballing students that organized the letter presume an anti-meritocracy that doesn't exist in this field.
    Go to the visit day of every school that accepts you. Talk to the students and faculty. An obvious choice will probably jump out at you. Take everything you read on this website with a hefty dose of skepticism.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    1851
    

    I'm an insider who signed the letter...

    Why did you sign the letter? RW - I get. Who else is credibly accused of misconduct? Were you presented evidence? Or did a few attention mongers rush you all to sign? Based on no action taken so far, I must say that your decision to sign the letter not just seems preposterous but also reflective of a severe breakdown in trust with the department.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 2 Vlad !

15. Economist
    fb4d
    

    Thanks. This all seems inconsistent with what I've heard.
    1. I am told that the majority of the top tier students on the market this year did NOT sign the letter. Is that incorrect?
    2. The macro and International lunch student series is apparently not the same as before.
    3. Informal interactions have apparently been minimized. I can see why faculty would want to do that for fear of being unfairly maligned.
    Reactions?

    This sounds plausible.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    dd6f
    

    Thanks. This all seems inconsistent with what I've heard.
    1. I am told that the majority of the top tier students on the market this year did NOT sign the letter. Is that incorrect?
    2. The macro and International lunch student series is apparently not the same as before.
    3. Informal interactions have apparently been minimized. I can see why faculty would want to do that for fear of being unfairly maligned.
    Reactions?

    1. Don't know. Like I said, I didn't take note of the specific JMCs who signed. I could dig through my email and find the letter to see who signed publicly, but I don't care enough. Even if they didn't sign publicly, I wouldn't know if they signed anonymously or not.

    2. I've heard that, too, but framed positively.

    3. That is not my experience. I've also heard anecdotes that is isn't anybody else's, either. JH and DC took their computational course to brunch at the end of the semester, which is more than they did when I took that course (drinks at the terrace after the final lecture).

    4 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    1851
    

    ^Thanks. I really appreciate all this concrete info. 1 and 2 sound negative. My advisor tells me that the best students (based on UWM's rankings) did not sign the letter. And I heard that it used to be a late evening party turned into a brunch. If so, that would suggest a change in faculty perception of interactions with students and a breach of trust.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 2 Vlad !

18. Economist
    dd6f
    

    ^Thanks. I really appreciate all this concrete info. 1 and 2 sound negative. My advisor tells me that the best students (based on UWM's rankings) did not sign the letter. And I heard that it used to be a late evening party turned into a brunch. If so, that would suggest a change in faculty perception of interactions with students and a breach of trust.

    It sounds like you're motivated to interpret any of this negatively. I encourage you to take more seriously how insiders have expressed their experience. Students and faculty are very close in this department, and students are very close with each other, both within and across cohorts. I get the impression that macro was pretty shaken, but it had a notoriously intense seminar culture that turned a lot of students off (I personally know a few macro labor students who would prefer to be in macro but chose labor for the better atmosphere). The fields I know well, including my own, have had no perceptible change. They all had good seminar environments since I started attending them.

    I don't want to get specific about my knowledge of the macro culture because it's not that big of a field and a lot of the students are scared of blowback from a few faculty members, but I know more than one student who told me directly that they felt more heard and taken more seriously than ever before in the weeks after the letter came out. I don't know about the other students, but multiple were very happy with the impact that the letter had on the macro faculty.

    4 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 2 Vlad !

19. Economist
    1851
    

    I am puzzled by such a strong response to signing the letter. Two thirds is a big #. Were you all convinced that there were credible allegations against multiple faculty members? And aren’t you all surprised or shocked that no action has been taken by the University? Or is the view that you all want to campaign against federal law (title 9)?

    4 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

20. Economist
    1851
    

    ^Thanks. I really appreciate all this concrete info. 1 and 2 sound negative. My advisor tells me that the best students (based on UWM's rankings) did not sign the letter. And I heard that it used to be a late evening party turned into a brunch. If so, that would suggest a change in faculty perception of interactions with students and a breach of trust.

    It sounds like you're motivated to interpret any of this negatively. I encourage you to take more seriously how insiders have expressed their experience. Students and faculty are very close in this department, and students are very close with each other, both within and across cohorts. I get the impression that macro was pretty shaken, but it had a notoriously intense seminar culture that turned a lot of students off (I personally know a few macro labor students who would prefer to be in macro but chose labor for the better atmosphere). The fields I know well, including my own, have had no perceptible change. They all had good seminar environments since I started attending them.
    I don't want to get specific about my knowledge of the macro culture because it's not that big of a field and a lot of the students are scared of blowback from a few faculty members, but I know more than one student who told me directly that they felt more heard and taken more seriously than ever before in the weeks after the letter came out. I don't know about the other students, but multiple were very happy with the impact that the letter had on the macro faculty.

    Thanks. Can you elaborate more on the "intense seminar culture" in macro? Were the faculty giving unfair comments prior to the letter? And after the letter came out, they are all quiet?

    4 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 1 Vlad !

Reply »