But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire."--Mt 15, 25-28a
U of Guelph (Agr. Econ)
Well that sounds much more interesting. However, I should note this is a forum not a seminar, and that I said i didn't read it. It just seemed pretty trivial for a job market paper to test some golf result. Fun yes , very important no. Oh and there are TONS of unimportant theories too
If it is set in a larger question regarding incentives etc its another story. I would not have said my comment in a seminar withut having read the paper and made my comment in a passing way noting I had not read it. Sorry if it was too harsh. Still it sounds weird though.
I think you need more than course dummies. Prize amounts, could help. Still havent read the paper yet. I will wait for Freakonomics II to read about it
As for Berkeley profs knowing if its important or not, that would also be my prior. However not everyone does important, relevant or even good job market papers and end up never being read and people do get crappy jobs, so "job market status" doesn't necesarily assure quality....
OK I read this paper earlier than probably anybody here (not that it matters anyway), and thought of it as a rather interesting paper.
For one, its implications can be carried over to other fields (as depicted by the real-estate example) and the model is also tractable and realistic (Stigler).
Many would probably question that whether this constitutes a substantial addition to the literature. However, how can we determine that from an objective viewpoint. Remember Akerlof's seminal paper and how many times it was rejected by editors (who are supposedly much better adjudicators of economic contributions). Now, it would be fool-hardy to compare this paper with that of Akerlof's, but I am just trying to draw a comparison between similar cases. In the final analysis, this paper might just turn out to be a unimportant contribution, but I don't think that allows us to comment on the relative importance of the paper.
However, I am all for criticizing the methodology of the paper - I fully agree with econphilomath's suggestions. But I am not entirely empathetic to the
criticisms directed towards its contribution.
Besides, having a job a Kellogg is great and I will update my priors about my best estimate on the quality of the paper accordingly but....this is not a seminar and I can voice my admittedly uniformed opinion regarding the importance of "a golf paper".
Besides there are tons of papers which you might consider "bad" or "not relevant" which are published in QJE etc so spare me the publication worship.
Bottom line for me regarding methods, is I don't think you can properly control for some things even going through all the metrics procedures you want. It just doesn't convince me. I don't think the methods are enough. Maybe this is not one of those cases, maybe it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)