I'm spending today doing course outlines, meeting with students, and reading letters of reference.* Carleton is hiring this year. I'm on the labour/behavioural economics committee, which so far has received over 100 applications.
A candidate's letters of reference are a key part of the package. Generally I skip to the end and read the last couple of paragraphs. If a person is a graduate from a good school [i.e. top 3 in Canada, top 20 in US], and their letter says "our best applied micro candidate on the market this year," then that person is almost certain to make the interview list, especially if there is something on the file indicating some kind of connection to Ottawa or to Canada, or a liking for long, cold winters.
Any information about the candidate's rank is usually a good signal, because people writing letters of reference tend to follow the rule "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." However a letter writer will almost always provide a ranking if she is writing letters for two candidates applying for the same job. Not ranking would hurt both candidates, ranking hurts only one, so ranking the candidates is the better strategy.
The letters also try to convey what the candidate is like as a person. An eye for an interesting research problem (or, less frequently, a nose) is complementary; "enthusiastic" is the kiss of death. "Hard working" or "energetic" are only positive if the letter writer can convey that the candidate would win the intellectual equivalent of an iron man race, as in "____ has a ferocious appetite for work." Only women are "young"; only men are "affable." "Would make a good colleague" is to be expected – if there is not a line to that effect, I worry.
It might surprise – even worry – people to know that a candidate who "would be a good hire for a teaching-oriented university" might not make our short list. But they don't, and the reason is straight out of ECON 1000.
In terms of teaching, we are interested in the candidate's absolute teaching ability. Are they good teachers or not? The information in letters of reference, however, is about a candidate's comparative advantage in teaching. "Would be a good hire for a teaching-oriented university" only means that the person is better at teaching than at research – but might not be particularly good at either. (Although they're likely better at teaching than the candidate who would be a "good hire for a government department or policy research institute.")
Moreover, being a competent teacher is only partly about being a good communicator and a dynamic speaker. The person who can get their research done on time is probably also going to be able to get their exams and course outlines done on time; the person who is smart enough to use advanced research techniques is probably also going to be smart enough to keep up with our best students; the person who can think of new research ideas is probably going to be able to think of interesting exam questions.
Academic research is, in a way, like peacock feathers. It's beautiful to look at, and of dubious practical value. Yet because it's the best available signal of an individual's fitness, that's what we go for.
*and blogging.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
Do you have preferences over bloggers (or ex-bloggers)? I’ll restart if it improves my job market prospects!
Andrew – at the risk of taking you more seriously than you intended…
It’s all a game of signalling. My general answer to “should I list a hobby on a resume” is “only if you are exceptional at it” – because then you’re signalling ability. Otherwise you’re simply broadcasting what kind of person you are (“my hobby is building model airplanes”) – and that is definitely over-sharing.
So list “canoeing” if you can have an informed discussion of the relative merits of the Nahani and Yukon rivers, list “dancing” if you’ve been a serious contestant on So You Think You Can Dance, list “blogging” if your blog is ranked, award-winning or has impressive stats.
Blogging is not, in and of itself, a useful signal of ability, because anyone can do it; creating a blog that is widely read, cited and influential is. But even then, a blogger risks being seen as not-devoting-enough-time-to-research.
I can accept that some schools are research focused, and should therefore prioritise research expertise in the hiring process. But imagining that research skill can be used as a proxy for teaching skills is just plain wrong. All my experience as a student – I’ve attended both research and teaching oriented schools, and have had a wide variety of instruction – suggests the two are unrelated.
You seem to concede that research skills say nothing about how good a communicator or speaker a person is – certainly an important aspect of teaching that shouldn’t be discounted. But even getting their research in on time may indicate a dependable person with a dedication to timeliness…or it could indicate someone completely dedicated to their research who gets it done well and on time by letting other responsibilities slip.
In the end, Carleton’s a research school. Students who go there should expect to be taught by great minds, but perhaps mediocre-to-terrible teachers. What really bugs me is that I’ve been attending a teaching-oriented school for the past several years, and while the sessionals who work in industry and teach in the evenings have been almost entirely fantastic, all the full time instructors I’ve had were still mediocre-to-terrible.
Yep. I’m on our committee this year as well: macro/econometrics.
As ever, the binding constraint is willing/able to teach in French.
I smell a market failure. Or at least a missed opportunity. Why doesn’t anybody publish stats on outcomes of people for whom they write reference letters? It’s a high stakes game. I bet people would pay good money to get a successful reference letter writer to write them a letter. Y’all are leaving money on the table!
Neil: “But imagining that research skill can be used as a proxy for teaching skills is just plain wrong.”
I agree. But letters of reference don’t usually give us any information about a person’s absolute level of teaching skills. They either say “this person is excellent at research” or “this person is better at teaching than at research.”
Generally we go for the first over the second. Sure, “this person is an excellent researcher and teacher” is better than “this person is an excellent researcher and has really worked hard at their teaching.” But we have a long short list – probably 20 to 30 people – and we’ll get a sense of how well people are able to communicate during the first round of preliminary interviews.
Patrick “I smell a market failure” – I don’t even like getting gifts from people before I’ve written them a letter of reference – it feels too much like taking a bribe (“Can you write me a letter? Here’s a nice bottle of wine.”)
One piece of advice I give people who are thinking about going on to do a PhD: ask “how many people have graduated with PhDs in the last 5 years and what are they doing now?” Perhaps there’s a reason why these stats are not widely published…
Frances,
I always figured this was the case, but interesting to have the perspective of someone on a hiring committee.
I am now curious to what my reference letters said when I was on the market(the job candidates have no idea). I had a mix of interviews from across the spectrum, from post docs (research intensive) to small regional universities (teaching intensive). So it couldn’t have been anything too damning either way.
Frances: “It’s all a game of signalling. My general answer to “should I list a hobby on a resume” is “only if you are exceptional at it” – because then you’re signalling ability. Otherwise you’re simply broadcasting what kind of person you are (“my hobby is building model airplanes”) – and that is definitely over-sharing.”
While this may be true when applying for a time-limited task-focussed role (like Student in a Graduate Program) I think this information is very useful when applying for a potentially long-term job. It is all about signalling, and one of the most important criteria is the new hire’s ability to work with the existing staff. At the very least it provides fodder for the interviewer to ask a generic friendly question and see if the candidate would be a good “fit”.
To quote: “especially if there is something on the file indicating . . . a liking for long, cold winters.”
(Of course, if a reference letter comments more on my Bi-Cycle knowledge than my Business Cycle knowledge that would be a different signal altogether.)
interesting post
what about teaching evaluation? Teacher award?
concerning research, do you look at the papers? Isn’t it a better indicator than letters?
Ah, the eternal Teaching vs. Research debate. Interestingly at my university, which was also research-intensive a nomination for the Student Union teaching award, or even better winning it was quite the prize for tenure-track faculty.
When reviewing candidates for tenure, faculties universally would prefer to have a good teaching prof because they would have to live with him/her permanently and it meant the candidate could take the weight on teaching. Your brilliant research got you on the tenure track, but couldn’t necessarily put you over the bar into tenure.
Frances wrote:
“Generally we go for the first over the second. Sure, “this person is an excellent researcher and teacher” is better than “this person is an excellent researcher and has really worked hard at their teaching.” But we have a long short list – probably 20 to 30 people – and we’ll get a sense of how well people are able to communicate during the first round of preliminary interviews. ”
I disagree. Teaching in a lecture hall has little to do with one-on-one conversation. It is an art in itself. Clergy call it “pulpit presence”, lecturing is far more like delivering a sermon. A good teaching prof is a bit of a showman and able to convey enthusiasm. Lecture teaching is preaching.
A more objective test would be to tape a lecture given by the prospective candidate on video. In the United Church of Canada where congregations call their own ministers it is standard practice for a minister to send video-taped sermons to a new church or to visit a prospective church, lead services and deliver a few sermons. The show really should be tried on.
Further since clergy calls have to be approved by the overseeing Presbytery, such trials are often demanded by Presbytery to make sure that minister and church have gotten to know each other and tried each other out, due diligence in other words. Presbytery is the group that has to deal with the ill effects if the call process goes wrong.
Frances,
will you interview automatically someone with a good solo authored publication?
or very good publication with advisor and good letter from advisor?
thanks
JMC: “concerning research, do you look at the papers? Isn’t it a better indicator than letters?”
Yes, we do look at the papers. But here are some reasons why we look at letters first
– it takes a huge amount of time to read papers, say 1/2 to 1 hour per paper for a careful reading, times 100 files.
– the papers span a wide range of topics, and it’s very hard to gauge the originality or importance of a paper that’s not in one’s own sub-field, let alone a paper in a completely different field e.g. health economics.
– some papers are co-authored with other job market candidates, or the candidate’s thesis supervisor, and it is hard to know who has written what
– every a solid and well-written paper might not be the candidate’s own, original idea
Peter: “I think this information is very useful when applying for a potentially long-term job.”
Once upon a time people had hobbies. Now they have kids, jobs, and facebook. I joke about looking to hire people who ski, but being serious – getting into discussions about hobbies or leisure time activities risks disadvantaging certain candidates. The socio-economic profile of people who ski is very different from that of people who don’t ski. A much better question is “have you ever been to Ottawa before?” or “what attracted you to Carleton?” (“I applied to every single school with a PhD program” is honest, but doesn’t make us feel very special.)
“will you interview automatically someone with a good solo authored publication? or very good publication with advisor and good letter from advisor?”
It depends what you mean by good – Canadian Journal of Economics or better? Or top 20?
But a publication helps. It helps a lot. Especially if you’re from a university that we figure is at about the same level of Carleton.
Here are some reasons why we might not automatically interview someone with a good solo authored publication
– one publication, 5 years since PhD
– you’re the top candidate from MIT and you have an AER. We might think you’re out of our league (this is when it helps to write the committee chair and say “my spouse has a job at the Bank of Canada, please interview me”)
– no letter, or equivocal letter, from advisor
– bad match in terms of field, e.g. industrial organization for a labour/behavioural job
– no knowledge of quality of PhD granting institution (or knowledge that the institution is of low quality)
– something that suggests the candidate is a “lemon”, e.g. failure to get tenure at an institution of comparable quality to CArleton.
But if the field is a good match, the candidate is a fresh or fairly fresh PhD from a reasonable school, and there’s a good solo authored publication then, yes, the chances of getting an interview are high.
It sounds like you’re reading too much into reference letters. Not all reference-letter writers are not uniform. Some have more credibility than others, and some will be more effusive than others. Just because a reference letter says a candidate is the best from their school that year doesn’t mean that another professor at the same school will agree.
If you’re trying to judge research ability, publication record has to be a huge factor. I’m also surprised you downplay the benefit of co-written papers on the basis that you don’t know who did what. That’s because (my perception of) what most universities are looking for is not necessarily people who can produce the most novel economic research, but those who will have a great publishing career. You can be a mediocre researcher in terms of your pure economic ability, but if you can write well and put a good spin on your research, it can help your publishing record. Likewise, you may be a brilliant mind, but if you are a mediocre mind who can network well to get your name on lots of papers, even if most of the research wasn’t your idea, you’ll be valuable to a university. Publishing helps the university’s reputation and brings in grant revenue, so my guess is that you don’t want a brilliant researcher — you want a brilliant publisher.
Concerning the letters, I suppose it helps if the advisor or comittee member is somewhat known, isnt it?
David
“If you’re trying to judge research ability, publication record has to be a huge factor.”
And it is. The aim of this post was to point out this tension: we want to hire people who are good teachers, but avoid candidates who are better at teaching than at research.
“I’m also surprised you downplay the benefit of co-written papers on the basis that you don’t know who did what. ”
How can I make any kind of accurate assessment of a person’s ability when presented with a paper that might be written in whole or in part by his or her thesis supervisor? How can I possibly compare an excellent paper co-authored with a top academic with a very good single authored paper? If the file clearly indicated the precise division of labour between the authors that would be one thing, but this rarely happens.
JMC: “I suppose it helps if the advisor or comittee member is somewhat known, isnt it?”
That’s tricky. Credible is not identical to well-known, some people are known for saying that every person that they supervise is the best candidate ever (as people have pointed out earlier).
And if you’re applying to, say, a policy school, it’s likely that at least some of the people on your committee might not have heard of your advisor, even if he/she is well-known. A strong letter from a less well-known person can be better than a so-so letter from a well-known person.
Don’t assume that because someone seems nice, that they’ll write you a nice letter – and especially don’t assume that the caring and nurturing female faculty member will write you a kind and loving letter. Try to gauge their enthusiasm for the task by saying “would you mind writing me a letter” and watching carefully how they react and what they say.
But as PhD student you have to have a letter from your advisor – not having one is a terrible, career-wrecking signal.
Hi Frances,
“But if the field is a good match”
I found it strange that most schools limit their search to particular fields. What factors are considered when choosing the fields to consider?
Joel: the last hiring committee I was on advertised for two “any field” positions. We got almost 1,000 applications, and it isn’t fun to have to even skim 1,000 applications.
Hence, most searches are advertised as targeted to specific fields, even if the department would actually consider any field. Of course, often departments really are desperate to hire in a specific field to fill a teaching gap.
At some schools – Laval is one – HR rules make it hard to run an “any field” ad. Teaching requirements are usually the main criteria.
Chris: Thanks for the insight. I believe I was one of those 1,000 applications and was lucky enough to get an interview.
” especially don’t assume that the caring and nurturing female faculty member will write you a kind and loving letter”
Ouch.
Is it rude to just ask: “If you where to write me a reference letter, would it be a good one?”. Though I suppose one is stuck with whatever ones supervisor has to say.
Some people seem to get a kick out of having make or break power over other people’s live, but personally I really hate it. I feel like a jerk and a hypocrite when I reject someone using some vague heuristic (aha! there’s a typo on the resume). There but for the grace of … And I keep imagining them waiting for the phone call for an interview that never comes (only successful applicants will be contacted). Or the conversations with their spouse: “Do we have money for diapers this week? No? Can we borrow some from your mother?”. By the time someone has slogged through a PhD and arrives at the reference letter writing phase, I just couldn’t live with myself to blow their hopes and dreams to smitherenes with a reference letter that said “meh”.
Oh well. Guess that’s why I’m the white collar slave and the jerk VP who enjoys firing people drives a Porsche.
Joel “I found it strange that most schools limit their search to particular fields. What factors are considered when choosing the fields to consider?”
It varies from university to university. At Carleton we don’t get positions unless we can make a case that they’re necessary. Typically a university would approve a position in circumstances such as
– we have a PhD field in labour economics, one of our labour people has retired, and we can’t offer the field without another person
– we’re offering a new program in financial economics which will attract loads of super-excellent new students, we need a finance person to teach in that program
So we ask for a mix of what we want and what we think we’re likely to get!
I personally prefer field specific searches because it avoids endless arguments at the department level “this person has 10 publications and your preferred candidate only has 1” “yes, but those 10 publications are in health, my candidate has a theory publication, and one theory publication is more valuable than 10 health publications.”
Patrick: “I just couldn’t live with myself to blow their hopes and dreams to smitherens with a reference letter that said “meh”.”
A lot of people – except for the ones who are desensitized from having done it so often – feel exactly the same way as you do. But people on hiring committees know that. So we get into this game. Supervisors write nice letters because they don’t want to destroy people’s hopes and dreams. Hiring committees know that are heavily discount everything that’s said in reference letters. Supervisors know that hiring committees heavily discount everything that’s said and so ramp the praise up a notch.
Which may be why some people commenting on this thread have argued for placing more emphasis on the candidate’s publication record or their job market paper.
Really informative letters say things like “Johnny is not quite as great my former student Katie, who recently got hired at Carleton and has published in Econometric Theory, but Johnny is a bit better than my other former student Steve, who is now tenured at Brock and has published in the CJE”. The point is that, as with most types of assessments, the only thing that really matters is relative position. Even graduate admissions committees have figured this out: they now ask you to state that the applicant was ranked ____ out of ____ in your class. Saying that someone got an A is almost meaningless unless we know how many other people get As.
On a related note, statements like “Johnny’s job market paper has a good shot at being published in J Econometrics, and, if not there, then at least somewhere else pretty good like Econometric Reviews” are very useful.
I hardly look at the letters, unless it’s written by someone I know.
econometrician – agree 100% on what makes an informative letter. “One of the top three students I have ever supervised” is cheap talk if the person has only ever supervised three students. Quite a few letters do follow the format you’ve outlined.
Stephen – approximately what weight do you put on the remaining parts of the file, i.e. rank of PhD granting institution, publication record, quality of research sample, teaching evaluations?
Willingness/ability to teach in French must narrow it down considerably, though, so perhaps you don’t have to rely so much on letters to screen in/out?
Yes, to a depressing extent, the language factor narrows things down considerably. At this point, all we look for is some recognition that the language of instruction is French – almost no-one seems to have read the ad in full. Fluency is much less a consideration – if it were, I and my high-school French wouldn’t have been hired.
We look mainly at the school and the paper.
Hey – are you going to Chicago?
“Carleton’s a research school”
Huh, never woulda guessed that! I am well out of academia now, but unless Carleton has blossomed into a place were a lot of hard science and/or engineering is done, I don’t see how it can be regarded as a research school. No strong science / engineering programs, no research. I have to exclude economics and the other soft sciences because of their postmodernist tendencies.
What would be ‘teaching’ school be and why would anyone waste their time/money going there?
My advice for those who want a real research career, but are strangely drawn to economics or sociology, would be to get a good science degree first, then try your hand at the lesser stuff. You will probably end up improving those disciplines and get a great job as well.
… and then there was an awkward pause in the conversation.
Richard: you mean a career path like Kotcherlatoka?
CohC!
Richard, rule # 1: be respectful, of other commentators, of the bloggers, and especially of the bloggers’ institutions, which are subsidizing your free entertainment.
Rule #2: don’t display your ignorance: about Carleton, or about teaching universities.
The only reason I’m not deleting your comment is that I enjoyed Stephen’s and Jacques’ replies so much; any further such comments will be deleted without explanation.
Stephen, the rest of the committee members are going to Chicago, I’m going to enjoy being home and warm and comfortable when you guys are all stuck in Montreal/Toronto/O’Hare.
I’ve never had a trip to the ASSAs that didn’t involve a weather delay.
Stephen: All it takes is one storm somewhere in North America. And the odds of that not happening during the first weekend in January are close to zero….
Carleton did have reputation problem related to its undergrad programs ten years ago when I was making my undergrad applications. The phenomenon has been discussed on this blog and it was recognized and corrected by Carleton’s admin.
Though it probably further underlines the wide gulf between research and teaching. Carleton’s previous poor reputation for teaching is completely orthogonal to research.
O’Hare is the gateway to hell. If it isn’t thunderstorms, it’s snow. I’ve had a couple of dicey ascents through passing storms out of O’Hare – in one case the pilots literally turned tail and ran back the way we’d come (after damn near tearing the wings off the plane). I find it helpful to keep a list of the hotels near the airport in your phone so you can quickly book a room when your flight is cancelled. This has saved me spending an uncomfortable night in the terminal on a couple of occasions.
My 8 year old son takes some on-line courses in math and science. The instructors are all excellent. Moreover, my son can replay the courses where he needs repetition and can fast forward through material he already knows. Thinking back, I would have loved to have the on-line option for some of my courses. I think there will always be a need for face-2-face teachers in some cases, but the rise of on-line courses should shrink that need markedly. So if just being a great teacher isn’t good enough now to secure an academic position, it will be even less important in the future.
to econometrician
May I say with all due respect.
it is not clear than econometric theory is better than CJE
For an applied person like myself, not clear at all.
econometric reviews is not a very good publication within econometrics btw…
my2cents: My example was meant to include some ambiguity. If a reference letter that said that someone was worse than so-and-so with a paper in Econometrica, but better than so-and-so with a paper in the Mongolian Journal of Economics, it would be entirely useless. That being said, I generally wouldn’t think of someone who was granted tenure based solely on a CJE publication (as in my example) as a strong researcher, whereas a new hire with a paper in Econometric Theory (as in my example) is definitely signalling strong research potential.
As an aside, I personally despise the whole journal-ranking game, and don’t want to start any kind of debate, but here are the 2010 JCR impact factors for the journals in question:
Econometric Reviews: 1.088
Econometric Theory: 1.015
Canadian Journal of Economics: 0.844
There are certainly other ranking systems out there that might reverse this ordering, but I think it’s fair to say they are all in the same “ballpark”.
Econometrician and my2cents –
As you acknowledge, econometrician, there are serious issues with the journal ranking game. Citation measures tend to be highly correlated with the “size” or a particular field – so the top journal in public has a lower citation index than the top journal in labour because public is smaller than labour.
Health is huge and publication lags are low, so health journals tend to have high impact factors. But how does a “Health Economics” or a “Journal of Health Economics” compare to an “Economics Letters” or an “Applied Economics Letters”, especially if one is looking for a labour economist?
This is why yesterday’s meeting lasted 3 1/2 hours, and we still have to spend time carefully reviewing the files on the long short list,
I tend to look at this blog for Nick Rowe’s monetary economics, but having been a university lecturer myself, as well as a potential user of academic finance and economic research in a central bank, I was interested by the title of this post.
This post exemplifies some of the complacency and arrogance of academic economists that I experienced, with its assumption that somehow research is superior to teaching, because a good researcher ought to be a good teacher but not necessarily vice versa. While I can see your point, I would counter that a good teacher ought to make a good researcher, because a good teacher will anticipate questions and deal with them, and the key to producing worthwhile research ought to be to be able to identify worthwhile questions. My impression of (UK) academic economists however, was that the question that many of them are really concerned with is “how can I maximise the quantity and reputation of my publications”, with the result that much of their research was inward-looking and contributed little to economic understanding or current practical economic problems. I even came to the conclusion that many academics would actively steer away from tackling the most worthwhile economic problems because if they were really worthwhile but had not been solved already, they must be uncertain or hard, and therefore a risky topic to work on. Their teaching may meet the requirements, but in my view, often lacked rigour and even factual accuracy.
But rather than debate the value of teaching and research, what I would do would be to unbundle them (and administration too) to some degree. Academics should be paid a small salary for a basic minimum of research and teaching, that would be just enough to allow them to focus on blue sky research if they were willing to live like artists in a garret, and then be paid extra for other jobs according to supply and demand. Given the public view of universities as principally institutions for higher learning, I suspect that the result would be far less universities styling themselves as “research-led”.
RebelEconomist:
“While I can see your point, I would counter that a good teacher ought to make a good researcher, because a good teacher will anticipate questions and deal with them, and the key to producing worthwhile research ought to be to be able to identify worthwhile questions.”
“Ought” does not imply “is”. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Anticipating undergrad students’ questions is a totally different matter from identifying forefront-of-knowledge research questions.
“unbundle them” The problem with inducing market forces into higher education is that, in the absence of standardized exams or some kind of extrinsic reward to knowledge (and let’s face it, a huge amount of what is taught in our education system has little extrinsic value, we’re not teaching people how to type or how to drive here), students will prefer those teachers who give the maximum grade for the minimum amount of work – with a little bit of “infotainment” thrown in on the side.
“inward-looking and contributed little to economic understanding or current practical economic problems”
I seem to remember Paul Krugman making this argument. I think he was lamenting the tendency to take a seminal paper (e.g. something by Stiglitz), tweak it a little, do some math, and say “voila! economic research!”
I see a lot of this in academic computer science. All the remaining deep questions are unbelievably hard, so that basically leaves armies of PhD students scrambling to find a pig to which they can apply copious amounts of lipstick. If the only way to get research cred was to tackle P=NP, there wouldn’t be any academic computer scientists.
Interesting (and entertaining) thread. To evaluate teaching ability, around here we simply ask the candidate to give a seminar attended by undergrads and faculty from other departments. If the candidate is stymied by the most basic questions, then maybe he or she wouldn’t be the best fit for us. Considering the commitment one makes when hiring someone for a tenure track position, a 75-minute seminar for the evaluation of teaching ability is time well spent.
Greg “around here we simply ask the candidate to give a seminar attended by undergrads and faculty from other departments.”
I’m a big fan of this particular approach, but as a department we’ve gone back and forth on this. Some people worry that it gives out the wrong signal, i.e. that we’re a teaching not a research university. It can be hard to persuade people to attend the teaching demonstrations – though I like them, because they give me good information about candidates who were not in my field. Also because teaching demos are not standard practice, when we do it we’re imposing an additional burden on the candidate – they have to prepare a 20 minute demo presentation over-and-above their standard job talk. And it’s tiring for the candidate – for a while we had teaching demos scheduled immediately prior to the job talk which made it particularly tough.
Though Greg given that you are such an outstanding teacher (I’ve heard the rumours, I’ve heard you talk) I suspect you might be a little bit self-interested here 😉
“….it just doesn’t work that way”. It did for me, which might reflect my view of what research was worthwhile (which, one would hope, would be respected in view of my work experience), although I must admit that I did mainly teach third year undergraduates and masters students. If I were hiring an academic, some real world (ie not a research institute) experience would be a big plus.
I agree that there is a danger that academics and teachers come to a tacit agreement that the teaching gets more lightweight and the assessment gets easier and less rigorous. That is my explanation for the grade inflation that has been occurring in UK universities. Actually, I would also unbundle the examination system to some degree too, with standardised exams carrying the most weight. After all, economists often talk about “the profession”, which implies that there is a substantial body of standard knowledge. And then if the teaching did not add much value, the students could do without it and take the exams anyway. Surely academic economists are not afraid of “market forces”!
I meant to say “students and teachers” in the above comment, rather than “academics and teachers”.
RebelEconomist: “Actually, I would also unbundle the examination system to some degree too, with standardised exams carrying the most weight.”
The UK has always placed much more emphasis on standardized exams than the Canadian system. When education primarily functions as a signal then, without standardized exams, the relationship between teacher and student is essentially adversarial. Education only has signalling value if some students fail, so teachers must fail some students to preserve the value of the system. However with standardized exams, the relationship between teacher and student is essentially cooperative – both share the common goal of getting students through the exam.
“Surely academic economists are not afraid of “market forces”!”
Perhaps as many as 5% of academic economists in Canada could quit their job tomorrow and find another job that paid equally well (taking into account hours of work and consulting opportunities). Perhaps 10%.
The rest of us are terrified of market forces or – if not – have grossly overinflated egos and/or a total detachment from reality.
We are all afraid of markets. Tinkers,tailors, soldiers, spies. All of us.
We know that even our most powerful personnnal deity can no more save us from market forces than a zebra can not be eaten.
A few months ago,didn’t we had a thread on the Seller’s fear?
That’s why we have union seniority and tenure. We bribe politicians to get the contracts.Who better to be terrified by markets forces than those who study it?
only 10%?
Take the faculty of top 5-6 economics department in Canada and I think most of them could find an as good paying job, in the us by example. Lets say that other departments has at least 2-3 people that could get another similar job somewhere else.
Take business academic economist and they would have outside options as well in the private sector.
Many other could get job as senior economist at BOC, stats can, etc. Those jobs dont pay that much lower, no?
isnt it correct?