Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

  1. #21
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Sponsored Ad:
    Quote Originally Posted by another user View Post
    Ok then check out the last 5 years of placements (Marketing +Strategy) for Toronto, Michigan and Rochester which you put in group "A":

    Toronto: City University HK, New South Wales, Northwestern (2x), Dalhousie U., INCAE Bus. Sch., Southern California, UCSD, LBS, U. Groningen, U. Technology Sydney, Western Ontario, MIT, Duke, Queen's, Rochester, Ryerson, Paris Inst. of Tech, Penn State.

    Michigan: Duke, LBS, U. Tech Sydney, Arizona State, SKEMA Business Sch., National U. Singapore, U. Florida, Southern California, UC-Davis, Wisconsin, California State (Long Beach), U. Kansas, Oregon State, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Facebook

    Rochester: Brandeis U., U. of Buffalo, Purdue U., Adobe, Wash U., Nielsen Marketing

    Now look at the following, which are also group "A":

    Florida: Oxford, Denver, City U. of HK, Renmin U. of China, Xiamen U., U. of Cincinnati (2x), Walsh College, U. of Mississippi

    Pittsburgh: their website is a mess, it's not in chronological order and some of the students listed under the "marketing" have something else on their CV, like the first person listed. His CV says he has a PhD in Information Systems and Technology Management despite his placement being listed under "Marketing" on Pittsburgh website.
    Just check out their placements (PhD Student Job Placements | University of Pittsburgh Katz Graduate School of Business) and you'll see it's nowhere close to that of Toronto, Michigan or Rochester, even though your ranking puts all of them in the same group.

    Those are not on par with the first 3. Also, check out the placement for the following schools, which according to your ranking should be a tier above, "A+":

    Wash U: Pacific U., Ohio State, UBC, Rutgers, UT-Austin, UC-Riverside, Amazon, Peking U., Georgia State, U. Singapore, Illinois Urbana Champaign, U. of Alberta, Fudan U., Shangai U., Catolica Lisbon, UBC

    UCLA: Chapman, Columbia (2x), Catolica de Chile, Wharton, SMU Cox, Post Doc at CMU, No placement (2x), Michigan, Rutgers, Wisconsin, U. of Hong Kong, South Carolina, Boston U., Azusa Pacific U.

    How is this a better placement record than those of Toronto, Michigan, and Rochester? I don't see it. Furthermore, your ranking has way too many schools in each group, and ranking Quants + CB + Strategy all together is also weird since those are very different things (especially quant and CB).
    I think you just browsed Wharton, Stanford, Chicago, Harvard and whatever other schools you think are great to see where the professors got their PhD from, but you're not considering that those guys may be outliers. IMHO we should pay attention to the median placements, not the outliers.



    That's not the point. You said that your ranking is based on two things: first the competitiveness in admissions and second the rigor of the curriculum. Most quants take the microeconomics and econometrics sequences at economics department, therefore you should also look at the economics ranking as a way to measure coursework rigor (better-ranked schools attract better students and can afford to design more difficult/complete courses). Personally, I don't think you can measure how difficult courses are, and that's why I don't see how you can make a ranking based on something you can't measure. What I suggested is just a (lousy) way to proxy for coursework rigor.

    By the way, I used Toronto, Michigan and Rochester as examples but I'm pretty sure others such as Minnesota, Maryland and UT-Austin are also a tier above Florida and Pittsburgh. Also, at least for quants, I can tell you I'm pretty confident that it's way more difficult to be accepted at Toronto, Michigan, Rochester, Maryland than Pittsburgh,Boulder, UNC, Florida, TAMU, Indiana, Penn State...
    Look here please : PhD in Marketing | Georgia Tech
    https://www.ama.org/academics/Docume...Went-Where.pdf
    You may not understand my points because you look at placement for Strategy( Strategic Management not MTK Strategy) According to AMA, Marketing is an integrated and broad field that includes:
    1)Quantitative modeling: Analytical(Statistical Modeling from real world data to make inference) and Empirical(Mathematics and Econometrics Modeling) 20%
    2)Marketing strategy: focus on the application of marketing theories and its effect on firms and consumers. 30%
    3) Consumer Behavior: Pyschology and Sociology, neuroscience, behavioral science 45%
    4) Other tracks: Logistics, advertising, ethics, innovation, sales, sales management, and marketing & entrepreneurship 5%
    What you try to explain is just 20% of the persons in Marketing which follow Microeconomics and Econometric Modeling.
    Fun fact: My wife is Economist (BA, and PhD), I am also PhD student in Economics. A half of my friends is Economists. We agree that although Microeconomics training is good for PhD in Marketing, but not sufficient or totally required in all tracks. We need more than Economics to be productive researcher. Many Economists do not know or do not care about Marketing sub-fields such as CB, sales, innovation.
    Therefore, I do not want to include ECON ranking to the my ranking, it will add more bias. For us, top 30 microeconomics and econometric courseworks are good enough for Marketing because they are nearly the same format and content. The important thing is how well students perform in the class and how well they use the knowledge for their research. I know many people who have GPA 4.0 in ECON but still get stuck on research. My professors now nearly did not have ECON training, but he is now one of top 10 quantitative researchers in MKT in term of productivity and contribution to the field ( Ranked by AMA) and editor also.
    More importantly, the placement for PhD program you see is just initial placement, not tenure placement. The ranking for MKT placement is already on urch, I do not repeat the same thing. 4 year ago, I did the same things you did, looking for the initial placement posted by all top 100 in MKT. Later, I see that this way may not work well. Initial placement is good, but many people are unable to hold their position or promote to tenure-track or Associate Prof, and have to go to lower rank schools because they do not have good pubs on Top A journal.
    Some professors, I sent you a link are just some examples for many of persons who work hard, have creative mind in research, so they can hold tenure- position, the best reward. Chief Editor is the more than the best
    In MKT, we should know the persons following:
    Chief editor Journal of Marketing Research: PhD from Cincinnati, initial placement Washsington State, later Pen State, now at North Carolina.
    Chief editor Journal of Marketing: PhD Texas Austin, next person will be Duke female Prof. 4 years ago is the prof from Emory who has PhD from Pittsburgh
    Chief editor of Marketing Science: Yale prof, but PhD from Cornell
    Chief editor of Consumer Research: PhD Texas Austin.
    If you look at the ranking of AMA: researcher by productivity. Nearly 60% comes from lower rank A, A-, or B+ school.
    Looking at school ranking without thoroughly studying the faculty research profile is useless work.
    I appreciate young assistant prof by initial placement, but I much more appreciate and respect the persons who contribute very much on MKT field. They are not outliers, they are hard working and have creative mind.
    Many people used term "Outlier" to describe The trend that they cannot explain why.
    In statistics, if too many Outliers exist, we need to reconsider our assumption, conceptual framework and model. The Outliers can be very influential points for a hidden trend that you have not figured out at first!!!

    Initial Placement may last for a few years, but the Top A publications and tenure professors will last forever!
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-07-2018 at 03:59 PM.

  2. #22
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    @whatever123
    very fun to know, but words of mouth are hard to confirm, maybe
    exaggerated
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-06-2018 at 04:01 PM.

  3. #23
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Public Service Announcement for Marketing Strategy

    duplicate
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-06-2018 at 03:58 PM.

  4. #24
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Public Service Announcement for Marketing Strategy

    What you try to explain is just 20% of the persons in Marketing which follow Microeconomics and Econometric Modeling.
    Fun fact: My wife is Economist (BA, and PhD), I am also PhD student in Economics. A half of my friends is Economists. We agree that although Microeconomics training is good for PhD in Marketing, but not sufficient or totally required in all tracks. We need more than Economics to be productive researcher. Many Economists do not know or do not care about Marketing sub-fields such as CB, sales, innovation.
    Therefore, I do not want to include ECON ranking to the my ranking, it will add more bias. For us, top 30 microeconomics and econometric coursework is good enough for Marketing because they are nearly the same format and content. The important thing is how well students perform in the class and how well they use the knowledge for their research. I know many people who have GPA 4.0 in ECON but still get stuck on research. My professors now nearly did not have ECON training, but he is now one of top 10 quantitative researchers in MKT in term of productivity and contribution to the field ( Ranked by AMA) and editor also.
    I'm not saying that economics training is the most important thing in marketing; I'm just pointing out the fact that measuring rigor of curriculum is nearly impossible and depends on other things such as the quality of the Economics/Psychology/CS/Stats departments. I just used Economics as an example, the point is that marketing is a multidisciplinary field and the courses are often taken in other departments so if you want to measure how difficult and complete the courses are, you should take that into account.

    More importantly, the placement for PhD program you see is just initial placement, not tenure placement.
    The school can't be responsible for what happens to former students during their whole lifetime, it doesn't make sense to talk of a "tenure placement" or tracking the publication record over their entire career. The value added by the PhD ends with the program and culminates in the initial placement.
    To look at tenured people of today and where they got their PhD is at best a lagging indicator of program quality.

    Same goes for Chief editors and where they got their PhD. Those guys graduated 20 years ago and rankings change (if you're from economics you probably know how Rochester, for example, went from top 10 to top 30 in 20 years). Also, like I previously said, they can be outliers and this is 1 observation per journal, hardly informative. You should at least look at the whole editorial board to get more observations.
    Moreover, some programs simply graduate more people and increase the chance of having a former student in the editorial board. The same goes for current professors and department size: Rochester, for example, has only 6 professors while other larger departments such as USC have over 20.

    Many people used term "Outlier" to describe The trend the they cannot explain why.
    In statistics, if too many Outliers exist, we need to reconsider our assumption, conceptual framework and model. The Outliers can be very influential points for a hidden trend that you have not figure out at first!!!
    Becoming Chief Editor of a top journal means to be an outlier even if they came from, say, Stanford. It's not a normal thing to become Chief Editor, this is definitely not the trend. I don't think anyone should go to a PhD program thinking they will have the best initial placement (or in the case of Chief Editor, the best career outcome). So looking at the initial median placement still makes more sense to me.

    I understand that people may rank schools according to different criteria, but I really don't think you're measuring the things you said your ranking would (competitiveness to be admitted and rigor of curriculum).

  5. #25
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Public Service Announcement for Marketing Strategy

    Quote Originally Posted by another user View Post
    I'm not saying that economics training is the most important thing in marketing; I'm just pointing out the fact that measuring rigor of curriculum is nearly impossible and depends on other things such as the quality of the Economics/Psychology/CS/Stats departments. I just used Economics as an example, the point is that marketing is a multidisciplinary field and the courses are often taken in other departments so if you want to measure how difficult and complete the courses are, you should take that into account.



    The school can't be responsible for what happens to former students during their whole lifetime, it doesn't make sense to talk of a "tenure placement" or tracking the publication record over their entire career. The value added by the PhD ends with the program and culminates in the initial placement.
    To look at tenured people of today and where they got their PhD is at best a lagging indicator of program quality.

    Same goes for Chief editors and where they got their PhD. Those guys graduated 20 years ago and rankings change (if you're from economics you probably know how Rochester, for example, went from top 10 to top 30 in 20 years). Also, like I previously said, they can be outliers and this is 1 observation per journal, hardly informative. You should at least look at the whole editorial board to get more observations.
    Moreover, some programs simply graduate more people and increase the chance of having a former student in the editorial board. The same goes for current professors and department size: Rochester, for example, has only 6 professors while other larger departments such as USC have over 20.



    Becoming Chief Editor of a top journal means to be an outlier even if they came from, say, Stanford. It's not a normal thing to become Chief Editor, this is definitely not the trend. I don't think anyone should go to a PhD program thinking they will have the best initial placement (or in the case of Chief Editor, the best career outcome). So looking at the initial median placement still makes more sense to me.

    I understand that people may rank schools according to different criteria, but I really don't think you're measuring the things you said your ranking would (competitiveness to be admitted and rigor of curriculum).
    I remember nearly all broad name of members of top 4 journal and where they had PhD. Data I collect from websites and admission Committees. Ranking does not matter that much, your right: School Name cannot help people entirely their life, then personal ability is the most important factor. 60 percent cannot be Outliers in AMA ranking. You may not be updated with AMA. I attended AMA in New Orleans this Feb, met people and Chief there. The trend of city Business school in Big cities going up is here. Discussed with Profs. You are trying to refute the statistical evidence by your own perception. I know Rochester , 6 young Prof very few pubs, so fewer advantages for student to come there than USC in LA. More opportunities more competitive obviously fact . Rigor of curriculum is only 30%. Then It Counts little . Measurement Is simple if PhD Courses in hard sciences: categorical variables Low Medium High. It is not perfect but ok for me.
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-06-2018 at 08:49 PM.

  6. #26
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    I remember nearly all broad name of members of top 4 journal and where they had PhD. Data I collect from websites and admission Committees. Ranking does not matter that much, your right: School Name cannot help people entirely their life, then personal ability is the most important factor. 60 percent cannot be Outliers in AMA ranking. You may not be updated with AMA. I attended AMA in New Orleans this Feb, met people and Chief there. The trend of city Business school in Big cities going up is here. Discussed with Profs. You are trying to refute the statistical evidence by your own perception. I know Rochester , 6 young Prof very few pubs, so fewer advantages for student to come there than USC in LA. More opportunities more competitive obviously fact . Rigor of curriculum is only 30%. Then It Counts little . Measurement Is simple if PhD Courses in hard sciences: categorical variables Low Medium High. It is not perfect but ok for me. The end
    What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.

  7. #27
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.

  8. #28
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by another user View Post
    What statistical evidence? I'm just saying that (1) Rochester is an example of school with a great program but only 6 professors and therefore it's difficult for them to have faculty as Chief Editors. I believe UCSD is a similar case. This happens a lot so just by looking at where Chief Editors work or where they got their PhD is not very informative; and (2) rigor of curriculum is very subjective thing and cannot be measured.
    Try to do thing yourself, you will know how to do. I did not just look at Chief, these are just examples . I have data from schools, I even know salary of all Prof in publics schools and many private schools.You will see that salary to professors closely corresponds to productivity not by placement or Name of school. I keep track data every year. You say cannot measure rigor but I did. Not difficult for statistician although not perfect. I am here, tried to help people in the forum that I benefit from 7 years. People are free to use my ranking, and adjust based their own criteria. You don’t like my ranking, this is not my business to explain and argue with you!
    Last edited by hngu178; 04-07-2018 at 01:19 AM.

  9. #29
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Can you share the data?

  10. #30
    Eager! hngu178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    57
    Rep Power
    1


    Good post? Yes | No

    Re: Maketing PhD ranking by Group in North America

    Quote Originally Posted by another user View Post
    Can you share the data?
    Never. A lot of private info

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 02:36 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 10:13 AM
  3. Maketing Analyst - bold face
    By mbawannabe in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 08:39 PM
  4. university ranking Vs course ranking
    By shank1983 in forum Graduate Admissions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 10:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •