Some Austrians are making it, Peter Leeson for one is publishing quite a bit. Seems like GMU would be your top choice of graduate schools. They seem to do a good job of placing their graduates. I think I saw on the Austrian Econ blog a recent PhD recipient is going to Loyola (where Block is at).
anEconomist wrote:
what are you a postdoc in?
This is not true in economics or finance -
getting the assistant prof position is tough, but getting tenure is even harder
Physics.
What do the assistant profs in econ/finance do when they are denied tenure? Go to another university or get business jobs in companies? I know several profs who were denied tenure at ivy league universities and got tenured positions at other universities. I don't know any who have been denied at lesser universities.
Leftie wrote:Anything that shows the hypocrisy, intolerance and closed mindedness of the liberal establishment is automatically labled a kook, conspiracy theory.
Gotta love those open minded, tolerant, free speech loving liberals.
Did you read the review? These charges aren't just thrown out there. They are backed up by details from the movie, like this:
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
p.s. How did the reviewer in any way try to infringe on Ben Stein's right to free speech? Pointing out that someone else's speech is shallow and misleading is not the same thing as trying to shut down someone's right to be shallow and misleading.
maybe true for economics but many from b-schools go to private sector, or nonprofit groups such as fedyou are correct some go to other schools and get tenure... i suppose i was just thinking along the lines of top 20 schools... it is harder than hell to get tenure at those schoolsfor the very best, you need about 6 publications in the top 3 or 4 journals... all that in about six yearsthe publications process is LONG and SLOW, that is a tough target to hitmy offer as an assistant prof came after i finished my phd, i had two working papers, one was under review for publicationi think that is fairly standard
postdoc wrote:
anEconomist wrote:what are you a postdoc in?
This is not true in economics or finance -
getting the assistant prof position is tough, but getting tenure is even harder
Physics.
What do the assistant profs in econ/finance do when they are denied tenure? Go to another university or get business jobs in companies? I know several profs who were denied tenure at ivy league universities and got tenured positions at other universities. I don't know any who have been denied at lesser universities.
economist - you have got to be kidding. Most universities absolutely seek out their own - meaning not only liberal but often hard to the left Marxist - and find ways to exclude conservatives in almost every way possible. And it is absurd to generalize as to the proposition that more intelligent people being liberal - only a myopic academic could ascribe to that worldview. There is such lack of intellectual diversity in American academe that specious rationales about liberals being smarter get spouted all too often without scrutiny. And the lack of diversity is why top schools now have a bunch of worthless angry studies programs that produce scholarship of no appreciable value but which satisfies a myopic social engineering agenda. No one outside of academia finds it of any value.
My brother is a world class economist (formerly a professor at a well known university) who no longer practices in the field because he has become one of the nation's better (and wealthier) fund managers. He is conservative, and will relate to you that he was quickly becoming persona non grata in academia. And he would also relate to you that he knows plenty of conservatives in high finance and elsewhere who are every bit as smart - if not smarter - than those he met in academia. People who eschew academic life and politics (infighting to an absurd degree) its relatively low pay are not less intelligent - on the contrary - many of them make very rational decisions to avoid the field.
And my own experiences as the editor of a top tier law review reflect the same. The condescension and the we are smarter meme was appalling - and I rarely found anyone that I could not hold my own with intellectually. The herd mentality and lack of true appreciation for intellectual diversity in thought was appalling, and so was the almost wilful desire to avoid empirical results that contradicted the politically correct world view (look at the grief Richard Sander is now receiving for rightfully questioning affirmative action). And so was the relative lack of debate - the true debate that one can see - often in the hard sciences thankfully - is refreshing and still gives hope for the American academy. But the future does not augur well for the apparatchiks dominate academia.
Did you see the film? Of course you didn't.
I did and the reviewer is way off base. It's not "ideologically unrelated" in any way, shape, manner or form.
As for Dr. Sternberg, I guess the reviewer decided it was a kook conspiracy to report what Dr. Sternberg actually had to say on the matter. It was better just to put his own subjectivity in the review instead of the actual facts.
In other words, the reviewer just convinced you not to see the film. He couldn't stop Ben Stenin's free speech because the move is already out, so he's trying to do the next best thing. Keep you from seeing it. The very point the film makes on the creation issue.
Here's Dr. Stenberg's web site and very own words if you have the open mind and tolerance to go read it. As an open minded, tolerant liberal, I'm sure you'll read it with glee.
i am no longer in academia...i have alluded to the fact very many times on this sitei am at a hedge fund now...I am much happier than i ever was in academia but that is for different reasons.You can tell me I am wrong all you want. I was there, I have been part of it. If you are writing absolutely brillant papers, you will have a spot somewhere.I have met professors who are way, way left and way, way right.
economist is wrong wrote:
economist - you have got to be kidding. Most universities absolutely seek out their own - meaning not only liberal but often hard to the left Marxist - and find ways to exclude conservatives in almost every way possible. And it is absurd to generalize as to the proposition that more intelligent people being liberal - only a myopic academic could ascribe to that worldview. There is such lack of intellectual diversity in American academe that specious rationales about liberals being smarter get spouted all too often without scrutiny. And the lack of diversity is why top schools now have a bunch of worthless angry studies programs that produce scholarship of no appreciable value but which satisfies a myopic social engineering agenda. No one outside of academia finds it of any value.
My brother is a world class economist (formerly a professor at a well known university) who no longer practices in the field because he has become one of the nation's better (and wealthier) fund managers. He is conservative, and will relate to you that he was quickly becoming persona non grata in academia. And he would also relate to you that he knows plenty of conservatives in high finance and elsewhere who are every bit as smart - if not smarter - than those he met in academia. People who eschew academic life and politics (infighting to an absurd degree) its relatively low pay are not less intelligent - on the contrary - many of them make very rational decisions to avoid the field.
And my own experiences as the editor of a top tier law review reflect the same. The condescension and the we are smarter meme was appalling - and I rarely found anyone that I could not hold my own with intellectually. The herd mentality and lack of true appreciation for intellectual diversity in thought was appalling, and so was the almost wilful desire to avoid empirical results that contradicted the politically correct world view (look at the grief Richard Sander is now receiving for rightfully questioning affirmative action). And so was the relative lack of debate - the true debate that one can see - often in the hard sciences thankfully - is refreshing and still gives hope for the American academy. But the future does not augur well for the apparatchiks dominate academia.
economist is wrong wrote:
The condescension and the we are smarter meme was appalling - and I rarely found anyone that I could not hold my own with intellectually. . . . But the future does not augur well for the apparatchiks dominate academia.
I'll be glad when the word "meme" drifts back into obscurity -- like the word "apparatchiks," which I generally expect to see these days only in National Review articles and Justice Scalia's dissenting opinions.