Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 months - 94 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 226 Goods vs 147 No Goods

1. Economist
   8337
   

   Agree and this is what’s funny about those who try to defend the WD case. Why compare her to other juniors at Booth? We only care for one question here: does she meet the bar for tenure at Booth? Does she meet the bar for a Sloan grant? No and no. That’s it. She got Sloan because they decided to give it to her awesome coauthor JS, who also has tons of important papers with others, and somebody in the committee said then we also give it to the woman or it will appear as if we don’t value female contributions. She only got tenure at Booth because they and accounting were pressured hard for not having a single female tenured faculty.

   Please stop being hypocritical and take responsibility for your actions. You got her those outcomes (and now tenure at Columbia) exclusively because of DEI. Fine. You choose what you do in your department. If booth has decided that they don’t care about merit anymore that’s their legitimate choice, but at least have the b**la to state the truth instead of babbling pathetic excuses

   WD’s coauthors we’re doing that before her. If it is such an important field that WD “defined”, why is her citations magnitudes smaller than MW’s? Not saying others are better, but she is below tenure bar and Sloan.

   Per usual, people here just look at pub count and don’t understand impact and attribute her tenure over other Chicago juniors as a sign of DEI. She’s done more to define an important field than any of the Chicago juniors ever will despite others having large numbers of publications. The Chicago juniors barely have to teach and have unlimited resources at their disposal, so anything less than an A per year would be massive underperforming. MW on pricing frictions, his advisor YG has already done that, Chicago should hire Yuri. SH writes the Nth cheap shot against market efficiency, with his tenured advisor DS that was already passed on by top schools. CY, does he even know what’s in his papers?
   

   2 months ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   9aee
   

   Roses are red, violets are blue,
   She got tenure at Booth, you shoud S/T/F\U.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 5 Vlad !

3. Economist
   5cab
   

   WD's Booth tenure story is that the school (including PV) is fully DEI and gave Finance and Accounting an ultimatum for making sure they had at least a tenured female by the end of the academic year.

   Accounting chose to rehire their own student AC with an absurdly generous offer. Finance decided to tenure WD, their own only internal female close to going up for tenure, even if the faculty was heavily divided on this case, to say the least. Believe me, many of her own tenured colleagues were outraged by this choice. WD was hired by Booth to begin with for similar reasons. At her flyout, she presented a paper already published in JF with a very senior person in her field, AV of MIT. Whom else could do this and get an offer from any department, let alone Booth?

   Now Columbia made WD a tenured offer, after having told her no two years ago for a junior reset offer, because they have several tenured lines they can fill as long as the majority goes to women.

   The Sloan story is also accurate.

   So, yes, ultimately WD is a by-product of DEI in all her endeavors so far. Good for her. She was lucky to be at the right place and the right time, i.e. when DEI exploded. Thanks to this, all the doors were open to her. Others in the past might have also got lucky for other reasons. E.g., at Booth PV is clearly below the bar for behind tenured there and yet he got tenure because he got lucky. Ironically, he is the one who's now pushing the whole DEI agenda at Booth without any critical or serious thinking.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 0 Vlad !

4. Economist
   8337
   

   Yep. And I agree that what pis*es people off is not the choice in itself, everybody if free to do what they so choose and the profession will judge them.

   What pis*es people off is that they try to come up with ridiculous excuses or made up stories rather than own their choices. Did you decide to tenure somebody due to DEI reasons and irrespective of merit? Great, then state it explicitly and move on. Why do you have to make up stories when the whole profession knows and understands what’s going on?

   WD's Booth tenure story is that the school (including PV) is fully DEI and gave Finance and Accounting an ultimatum for making sure they had at least a tenured female by the end of the academic year.
   Accounting chose to rehire their own student AC with an absurdly generous offer. Finance decided to tenure WD, their own only internal female close to going up for tenure, even if the faculty was heavily divided on this case, to say the least. Believe me, many of her own tenured colleagues were outraged by this choice. WD was hired by Booth to begin with for similar reasons. At her flyout, she presented a paper already published in JF with a very senior person in her field, AV of MIT. Whom else could do this and get an offer from any department, let alone Booth?
   Now Columbia made WD a tenured offer, after having told her no two years ago for a junior reset offer, because they have several tenured lines they can fill as long as the majority goes to women.
   The Sloan story is also accurate.
   So, yes, ultimately WD is a by-product of DEI in all her endeavors so far. Good for her. She was lucky to be at the right place and the right time, i.e. when DEI exploded. Thanks to this, all the doors were open to her. Others in the past might have also got lucky for other reasons. E.g., at Booth PV is clearly below the bar for behind tenured there and yet he got tenure because he got lucky. Ironically, he is the one who's now pushing the whole DEI agenda at Booth without any critical or serious thinking.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   2501
   

   This sounds like an insider. I’m guessing it’s either MW, CY or EZ, who all have more publications and citations. PV will remember when you come up for tenure.

   WD's Booth tenure story is that the school (including PV) is fully DEI and gave Finance and Accounting an ultimatum for making sure they had at least a tenured female by the end of the academic year.
   Accounting chose to rehire their own student AC with an absurdly generous offer. Finance decided to tenure WD, their own only internal female close to going up for tenure, even if the faculty was heavily divided on this case, to say the least. Believe me, many of her own tenured colleagues were outraged by this choice. WD was hired by Booth to begin with for similar reasons. At her flyout, she presented a paper already published in JF with a very senior person in her field, AV of MIT. Whom else could do this and get an offer from any department, let alone Booth?
   Now Columbia made WD a tenured offer, after having told her no two years ago for a junior reset offer, because they have several tenured lines they can fill as long as the majority goes to women.
   The Sloan story is also accurate.
   So, yes, ultimately WD is a by-product of DEI in all her endeavors so far. Good for her. She was lucky to be at the right place and the right time, i.e. when DEI exploded. Thanks to this, all the doors were open to her. Others in the past might have also got lucky for other reasons. E.g., at Booth PV is clearly below the bar for behind tenured there and yet he got tenure because he got lucky. Ironically, he is the one who's now pushing the whole DEI agenda at Booth without any critical or serious thinking.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 5 Vlad !

6. Economist
   0a64
   

   Might be them. All of them have already been told to gtfo.

   This sounds like an insider. I’m guessing it’s either MW, CY or EZ, who all have more publications and citations. PV will remember when you come up for tenure.

   WD's Booth tenure story is that the school (including PV) is fully DEI and gave Finance and Accounting an ultimatum for making sure they had at least a tenured female by the end of the academic year.
   Accounting chose to rehire their own student AC with an absurdly generous offer. Finance decided to tenure WD, their own only internal female close to going up for tenure, even if the faculty was heavily divided on this case, to say the least. Believe me, many of her own tenured colleagues were outraged by this choice. WD was hired by Booth to begin with for similar reasons. At her flyout, she presented a paper already published in JF with a very senior person in her field, AV of MIT. Whom else could do this and get an offer from any department, let alone Booth?
   Now Columbia made WD a tenured offer, after having told her no two years ago for a junior reset offer, because they have several tenured lines they can fill as long as the majority goes to women.
   The Sloan story is also accurate.
   So, yes, ultimately WD is a by-product of DEI in all her endeavors so far. Good for her. She was lucky to be at the right place and the right time, i.e. when DEI exploded. Thanks to this, all the doors were open to her. Others in the past might have also got lucky for other reasons. E.g., at Booth PV is clearly below the bar for behind tenured there and yet he got tenure because he got lucky. Ironically, he is the one who's now pushing the whole DEI agenda at Booth without any critical or serious thinking.
   

   2 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 6 Vlad !

7. Economist
   ab81
   

   I guess all of them have better stuff to do than posting here. After all, why the heck would anyone care about getting tenure at a failing place in a failing state.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

8. Economist
   5cab
   

   I have no problem to say that I'm somebody at a lower school who broadly speaking work in a similar field as WD. I am a white male. I see her profile and have no issues saying that she obviously is below the level of what she's been getting so far (tenure at Booth, Sloan fellowship, tenure at Columbia). I've been hearing the same comments unanimously from everybody I've talked to at conferences since the summer, including women in the profession. So no, I am not her colleague and have no stake in her department, but I am very pi**ed by this situation and if I get the chance I want to make my voice heard on this website. Will Booth people read it? Probably not. And I don't care. I want the profession to read this and to make up their own mind about the situation, that's all.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 0 Vlad !

9. Economist
   c6af
   

   WD's Booth tenure story is that the school (including PV) is fully DEI and gave Finance and Accounting an ultimatum for making sure they had at least a tenured female by the end of the academic year.
   Accounting chose to rehire their own student AC with an absurdly generous offer. Finance decided to tenure WD, their own only internal female close to going up for tenure, even if the faculty was heavily divided on this case, to say the least. Believe me, many of her own tenured colleagues were outraged by this choice. WD was hired by Booth to begin with for similar reasons. At her flyout, she presented a paper already published in JF with a very senior person in her field, AV of MIT. Whom else could do this and get an offer from any department, let alone Booth?
   Now Columbia made WD a tenured offer, after having told her no two years ago for a junior reset offer, because they have several tenured lines they can fill as long as the majority goes to women.
   The Sloan story is also accurate.
   So, yes, ultimately WD is a by-product of DEI in all her endeavors so far. Good for her. She was lucky to be at the right place and the right time, i.e. when DEI exploded. Thanks to this, all the doors were open to her. Others in the past might have also got lucky for other reasons. E.g., at Booth PV is clearly below the bar for behind tenured there and yet he got tenure because he got lucky. Ironically, he is the one who's now pushing the whole DEI agenda at Booth without any critical or serious thinking.

   This is written by a Booth PhD student.

   2 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    a6f1
    

    Are you guys aware that her paper with Verdelhan has been shown wrong? That was the defining paper of the "agenda" she "revived"

    DEI not only back fires against women, given that everybody understands that some scholars are getting way higher position and recognition that is objectively deserved by their contributions exclusively because they are women, but also against the senior white men in the profession. I’ve been listening to dozens of young male researchers in finance who have started to complain vocally about the attitude of their male seniors, who have nothing to lose and are willing to kill young promising people’s cases to instead foster several objectively worse profiles. Younger scholars’ morale is very low and I fear that we will observe a strong push back over the next 2-3 years, especially if SCOTUS states that favoring URMs in college admissions is unconstitutional. This would be the justification for many younger people to revolt to the DEI-inspired decisions of their seniors

    The sounds fair. But the scholar in question is not low quality.

    Per usual, people here just look at pub count and don’t understand impact and attribute her tenure over other Chicago juniors as a sign of DEI. She’s done more to define an important field than any of the Chicago juniors ever will despite others having large numbers of publications. The Chicago juniors barely have to teach and have unlimited resources at their disposal, so anything less than an A per year would be massive underperforming. MW on pricing frictions, his advisor YG has already done that, Chicago should hire Yuri. SH writes the Nth cheap shot against market efficiency, with his tenured advisor DS that was already passed on by top schools. CY, does he even know what’s in his papers?
    

    You have started this trite misrepresentation yet again. Nobody proved that paper wrong. As I corrected you several months ago, the paper you're referring to as a nullifier of DTV gives conditions under which what DTV documented won't hold. That does not nullify DTV. And DTV does not even claim their findings hold under those conditions in the first place. You don't work in this literature, so I guess your knowledge here is limited. As I told you then, and am telling you now, I sleep and eat that literature - and nobody in the world has proven that particular work wrong. The paper you're pointing to, which was recently published in RFS or so, does not claim what you're advancing.

    If you think something has been proven wrong, I challenge you to state it. Is it the empirical evidence of a wider basis during quarter ends or during periods of regulatory reporting that has been proven wrong? These are hard core results that have always been well known in the industry before they were formally documented by Du and her gang in DTV.

    I really want to know what has been proven wrong - so let's start with you enlightening us what has been proven wrong.

    2 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 4 Vlad !

11. Economist
    c9d1
    

    Who is MW?

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    a6f1
    

    Who is MW?

    mike

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    5353
    

    At the appointments committee meeting the comparison was MM from Stanford.

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    c9d1
    

    Who is MW?

    mike

    Tyson?

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    6a61
    

    I don’t get it, if MM at Stanford was the comparison how could she ever get tenure then? Comparing a Fisher Black prize awardee with a profile that would not even get tenure at a top 30ish school?

    WD would have never be tenured at schools like USC, OS, BC, Michigan etc, ie schools that are much lower than Booth but don’t let DEI dictate all their choices

    At the appointments committee meeting the comparison was MM from Stanford.

    2 months ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    358e
    

    I think she is tenurable at places (decent MRMs) you’ve mentioned. But Booth? No way.

    I don’t get it, if MM at Stanford was the comparison how could she ever get tenure then? Comparing a Fisher Black prize awardee with a profile that would not even get tenure at a top 30ish school?
    WD would have never be tenured at schools like USC, OS, BC, Michigan etc, ie schools that are much lower than Booth but don’t let DEI dictate all their choices

    At the appointments committee meeting the comparison was MM from Stanford.
    

    2 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    358e
    

    And remember EK who was also at Booth but then moved to HBS. Another typical DEI case. She’s even weaker.

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    5353
    

    People actually said, with straight faces, that she is better than MM.

    I don’t get it, if MM at Stanford was the comparison how could she ever get tenure then? Comparing a Fisher Black prize awardee with a profile that would not even get tenure at a top 30ish school?
    WD would have never be tenured at schools like USC, OS, BC, Michigan etc, ie schools that are much lower than Booth but don’t let DEI dictate all their choices

    At the appointments committee meeting the comparison was MM from Stanford.
    

    2 months ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

19. Economist
    8df0
    

    They should have hired Adrien for the sake of it. Or Schreger. He has a few top 5s as well and his own agenda.

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    a6f1
    

    They should have hired Adrien for the sake of it. Or Schreger. He has a few top 5s as well and his own agenda.

    Maybe those didn't show any interest in the role

    2 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

Reply »