Any more thoughts about econometric theory?
yeah, don't do it
Serious advice. Don't do theory if you are outside of top 10.
-
The distribution of the quality of theory tends to have a heavy right tail. Most papers have little value, but a few of them are super. Landing in the right tail requires more raw talent than anything else. If you did not get into top ten, it is very very likely that you do not have the talent; even if you get into the top ten, it is still very likely that you do not have the talent. Of course, you can still do theory, but you need expect a low probability of "success" by the usual measure.
The distribution of applied work is more concentrated "at the center" in comparison. If you work hard enough, you can probably get quite a few pretty good papers.
Theorist and Empiricist are really two kinds of jobs. The former is "lottery-like," the latter has a more moderate return-risk trade-off. The danger of choosing theory outside top 10 is that you may think you are talented (relative to your classmate), but it is just because you are using the wrong benchmark.
-
I don't think it holds for macro theory.
For a while, macro theory was a nice way for theorists to sneak into a nice job market.
Not so much anymore. The market for straight-up macro theory on the job market has become pretty small, verging on nonexistent. You need to be able to show some quantitative/empirical chops.
-
Most ignorant post of all time. Let me put this through a translator. Judging good theory research is almost entirely subjective. Therefore, people rely almost totally on signals to judge who is "good" at theory. A blunt signal is where you went to school and who your advisor was. It's generally a decent signal, even if imperfect. But it will determine your life.
A similar story is with Pro-Bowl lineman and linebackers. It's subjective which linebacker is the best, so the Pro-Bowl linebackers are often first round draft choices. At Quarterback and Wide Receiver, you can have 6th round draft picks who win player of the year.
The distribution of the quality of theory tends to have a heavy right tail. Most papers have little value, but a few of them are super. Landing in the right tail requires more raw talent than anything else. If you did not get into top ten, it is very very likely that you do not have the talent; even if you get into the top ten, it is still very likely that you do not have the talent. Of course, you can still do theory, but you need expect a low probability of "success" by the usual measure.
The distribution of applied work is more concentrated "at the center" in comparison. If you work hard enough, you can probably get quite a few pretty good papers.
Theorist and Empiricist are really two kinds of jobs. The former is "lottery-like," the latter has a more moderate return-risk trade-off. The danger of choosing theory outside top 10 is that you may think you are talented (relative to your classmate), but it is just because you are using the wrong benchmark. -
So you can't find a job and it is the market fault, not yours? You sound like a sociologist.
Wrong again. You're officially dumb.
The whole point of joining acaddemia is to do research on topics you find interesting. Doing reg monkey stuff signals you had no other options as an undergrad. Might as well go to industry and do reg monkey stuff for twice the money.
You must be a crappy academic then. The point of academia is not to what you like, but what matters. And take the market signal: if there are no theory jobs, theorist must be doing something wrong.
-
Theory still on the downturn, but I don’t understand why so many people want an empirical job in academia when you could go to industry.
there are probably more opportunities in industry for theorists these days and more opportunities for reg monekeys in academia. I'm not in academia anymore and would much rather hire a theorist than a reg moneky.
-
Theory still on the downturn, but I don’t understand why so many people want an empirical job in academia when you could go to industry.
there are probably more opportunities in industry for theorists these days and more opportunities for reg monekeys in academia. I'm not in academia anymore and would much rather hire a theorist than a reg moneky.
Is your claim based on actual data, or did you just pull out out of your tard.anis because that's what you would "much rather" do?
-
Types of (applied) theory papers I currently see:
- Show that known result holds when you make less restrictive assumptions
- Consider real-world phenomenon and try to explain it with an obscure mechanism. Completely ignore the mechanism that everyone thinks is important because there's already a paper on it.
- Make one crazy assumption that does not fit any real world setting and 10 very general assumptions and show that you can get a counterintuitive result (and claim result is "very general")
- Claim to want to answer a policy question in a specific setting. Write down a model that looks nothing like the setting in question and focus on one technical aspect. -
- Claim to want to answer a policy question in a specific setting. Write down a model that looks nothing like the setting in question and focus on one technical aspect.
We had a theory flyout with the candidate's JMP being exactly this. Moreover, the model he had written down wasn't even describing the thing he set out to do in his introduction but for whatever reasons (trying very hard not to be cynical here) he was apparently oblivious to this, even after a couple not-so-friendly comments at his talk.
-
- Claim to want to answer a policy question in a specific setting. Write down a model that looks nothing like the setting in question and focus on one technical aspect.
We had a theory flyout with the candidate's JMP being exactly this. Moreover, the model he had written down wasn't even describing the thing he set out to do in his introduction but for whatever reasons (trying very hard not to be cynical here) he was apparently oblivious to this, even after a couple not-so-friendly comments at his talk.
this year?