You know, the job market, tweets, and RCT, here’s a complaint from Christopher Phelan. Here is the paper. I will point out a few points in hit and run fashion:
1. I’m not sure IRBs should have a say in this kind of matter, one way or the other. (I think they should ban professors from injecting patients with syphilis.) In that sense I’m not sad that this continues.
2. Given the current standards (I would choose very weak IRBs), I don’t think this trial should have been approved. It spoils the testing process.
3. Think about my behavior in Mr. As you know, everyone during the job market I write a few papers on the job market, and usually I will say or at least suggest something good about the candidate and the job. (On a side note, I think now I think this helps them, and I wasn’t sure before.) I take this process very seriously, and I try to look at as many websites and papers as possible. For this, I will also look at management schools and public policy schools, as well as a large number of schools outside the top ten. I will not randomize this process for experimental purposes. I feel like that would be unfair to the candidates, it shouldn’t be Mr students, and somewhat undermines the integrity of the economic labor market. I know my tastes are weird! But they are my true passion, and I want my readers to know that. I would not participate in this experiment. In fact, I feel that evaluations always challenge the integrity of which papers I choose to include, because some readers may think that I am also a randomizer in the form of this study.
I don’t think “learning something about the job market” is enough to cover these problems.
4. As a practical matter, research shows that you can do well if you look for talent in new or unusual areas. I agree, and Daniel Gross and I pushed that topic in our book on talent.
5. If you have read this far, I hope you have understood the topic of this post.
Source link