haha centipede gone...
JH at it again on Twitter
-
I like this. Make sure this shows up when you google search his name:
John Holbein, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Politics, Education
University of Virginia, Brigham Young University
-
I like this. Make sure this shows up when you google search his name:
<blockquote>
John Holbein, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Politics, EducationUniversity of Virginia, Brigham Young University
https://batten.virginia.edu/people/john-holbein
https://sites.google.com/site/johnbholbein/
</blockquote> -
This guy seems nice, but also annoying on twitter. But my question here is why don't more universities encourage folks like this to go up for tenure early? Having folks like this wait 6 years is really just silly, unless they also just promote someone to full right away. Because when people look at the last person to go up and see APSR [x5] and a Cambridge book it just makes the standards out of whack.
-
This guy seems nice, but also annoying on twitter. But my question here is why don't more universities encourage folks like this to go up for tenure early? Having folks like this wait 6 years is really just silly, unless they also just promote someone to full right away. Because when people look at the last person to go up and see APSR [x5] and a Cambridge book it just makes the standards out of whack.
for the university, you have to pay them more when they’re promoted. more years at lower wages is good.
and its a lot harder to leave a place as a tenured associate than as an assistant, so many people in this position know they have tenure in the bag, but try to stall for a bit to see if they can leave for somewhere better first rather than commit to the current place. given you’ll definitely get it anyway, why go up early and trap yourself?
-
I hate to site the dolt Sadie approvingly, but this is a better way to handle rejection, even if you feel (like both Sadie and Holbs) that you need to tell everyone about it:
On the publication front, I got another rejection, but with really positive feedback from two of the three reviewers. So, we will resubmit elsewhere. This is normal when one aims for the top. It ain't heartbreaking, and this one wasn't even that frustrating. As I keep saying, rejection is inherent in our enterprise.
http://saideman.blogspot.com/2021/03/quarantine-report-week-54-springing.html
Soldier on Sadie. Keep the Battle Rhythm at the ready and hook 'em horns. You're gonna get a hit.
Holbs? Not so much. He can learn from the Sadies-ster. Big Time
-
Omg are these people for real? Writing diaries like 14 year old girls.
I hate to site the dolt Sadie approvingly, but this is a better way to handle rejection, even if you feel (like both Sadie and Holbs) that you need to tell everyone about it:
On the publication front, I got another rejection, but with really positive feedback from two of the three reviewers. So, we will resubmit elsewhere. This is normal when one aims for the top. It ain't heartbreaking, and this one wasn't even that frustrating. As I keep saying, rejection is inherent in our enterprise.
http://saideman.blogspot.com/2021/03/quarantine-report-week-54-springing.html
Soldier on Sadie. Keep the Battle Rhythm at the ready and hook 'em horns. You're gonna get a hit.
Holbs? Not so much. He can learn from the Sadies-ster. Big Time -
I'm a quant, but I agree that you make less contribution with a co-authored paper than with a sole-authored paper, holding quality constant. After all, in the former case you have to enlist someone to help you produce the paper, while in the latter case you free up that person to conduct their own research to contribute to human knowledge.
If you're a self-respecting quant, you cannot claim that two people producing one paper together is the same as two people each producing one paper. In the former case, two people produced one paper, but in the latter case two people produced two papers and contributed more to human knowledge.Is this satire? If so, hat's off to the author, if not it represents the worst of quant-based analysis: Ignore quality and focus only on quantity, as if paper quality is irrelevant. Two bad papers are not better than 1 good paper. Maybe quality should be judged based on page or word (character) count: A 30-page paper contributes more to human knowledge than a 20-page paper, regardless of research and analytical quality.
-
Are you blind? Didn't you see the three words "holding quality constant" in the first sentence? Or as a qually you don't know what it means?
I'm a quant, but I agree that you make less contribution with a co-authored paper than with a sole-authored paper, holding quality constant. After all, in the former case you have to enlist someone to help you produce the paper, while in the latter case you free up that person to conduct their own research to contribute to human knowledge.
If you're a self-respecting quant, you cannot claim that two people producing one paper together is the same as two people each producing one paper. In the former case, two people produced one paper, but in the latter case two people produced two papers and contributed more to human knowledge.Is this satire? If so, hat's off to the author, if not it represents the worst of quant-based analysis: Ignore quality and focus only on quantity, as if paper quality is irrelevant. Two bad papers are not better than 1 good paper. Maybe quality should be judged based on page or word (character) count: A 30-page paper contributes more to human knowledge than a 20-page paper, regardless of research and analytical quality.
-
I have to say, the replies are shockingly supportive and wholesome. There are always some trolls who jump in to mock such tweets, not here. Amazing.
That's a little sad. While I don't approve of trolling, this sort of public whinging about how hard it is to be part of a privileged elite should be discouraged.
Whatever bro.