关于商科phd对什么要求更高的讨论：数学，文采，idea？ judy修改

majia20112011

如果你的文采不行，research做得再好文章写得干巴巴的presentation也说不清楚，you would never ever get a shot.

yellowfish

英语是出国，并且活下去的最基本要求....

quyanqing

idea第一 文采 和论证严密性 应该是并列的 前面几个说的好 有IDEA 有文采 有故事 数据跑一下 JFE JF照样发 运气好点AER都上了

allain2011·

我看国外教授发表的文章，好像都是白话文，用词也很简单，
一看就懂，可惜我们学不来。

Paragon

GOOD POINT
\

benxu

哎，张维迎的东西

FlyUFalcon

好吧，其实我一直想说originality 是PHD最重要的....但是这东西多少靠灵感，没有originalit也没办法， 可以通过logical analysis 拟补。

LZ去读 张维迎的《契约》和张五常的《佃农》（都是两位的PHD论文）会觉得有文采吗？  刚开始必然是枯燥的， 但是随着文章的深入， 读者会被originality 和 logical analysis 所打动...

majia20112011

That might be true if you submit your paper to a journal. However, when you are on the market, each school get tons of applicants and would have no time to read the main body. Even for referees, most of the time introduction determines the fate of the paper.

90% of the people who read your paper will only read your abstract and at most introduction. If your introduction is not good enough , they would think the paper to be quite uninteresting and would ignore the rest.

文采？
真的吗？
你说gmat AWA需要文采这我同意，但是PHD的thesis 需要的是综合的英语实力和词汇量，还有客观的分析。

哪里需要文采啊？ 这种要求很严格的论文不能用比喻，类比，倒装.....

-- by 会员 FlyUFalcon (2010/11/7 18:47:41)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/8 2:44:11)

introduction is 5% of your final thesis. I agree that introduction needs interesting staff to dazzle the schemer.
But, over all, body graph in you thesis has to be objective, concise and entirely out of your personal WENCAI.

-- by 会员 FlyUFalcon (2010/11/10 20:11:39)

FlyUFalcon

90% of the people who read your paper will only read your abstract and at most introduction. If your introduction is not good enough , they would think the paper to be quite uninteresting and would ignore the rest.

文采？
真的吗？
你说gmat AWA需要文采这我同意，但是PHD的thesis 需要的是综合的英语实力和词汇量，还有客观的分析。

哪里需要文采啊？ 这种要求很严格的论文不能用比喻，类比，倒装.....

-- by 会员 FlyUFalcon (2010/11/7 18:47:41)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/8 2:44:11)

introduction is 5% of your final thesis. I agree that introduction needs interesting staff to dazzle the schemer.
But, over all, body graph in you thesis has to be objective, concise and entirely out of your personal WENCAI.

brika

Please do not give unprofessional inputs if you know nothing about marketing. I do not want to argue with one unfamiliar with marketing anymore.

How many marketing professors do publish in top economic journals? Those are not really marketing people, but really economists specialized in IO. You think those are really marketing issues?

I mean please give me an example, but not the empty inputs.

Marketing professors also published a lot of Econometrica, AER, QJE, JET, and JOE, not mention many Rand. Do you think these papers are toy models?

Some of top econ journal papers also cited a lot of Marketing papers. Do you think these economists just cited toy models as references?

Plus, some of marketing professors also got top econ positions upon graduation, such as Stanford, and even got full professor position invitation.  Do you think these top econ deparments are stupid?

Most Econometrica papers are not, although there are some exceptions. A toy model is defined as any model with little or no economic insight, regardless of how complex the model might be, because they are good to play with but makes no real intellectual sense.

Can you give an example about marketing? What's more, which kind is not a toy one?

All the models used in marketing are, in my opinion, toy models.

OM yes, marketing no.

finance对数学的要求也没那么高，一传十十传百，弄得贼邪乎。

其实om，和marketing里的modeling对数理的要求平均来说比finance高。

-- by 会员 kndx5 (2010/11/7 13:00:31)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/8 2:44:56)

Why marketing no? seriously ask

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/8 16:07:08)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/9 2:52:34)

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/9 9:36:38)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/9 14:04:54)

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/9 14:27:37)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/10 10:21:12)

majia20112011

How many marketing professors do publish in top economic journals? Those are not really marketing people, but really economists specialized in IO. You think those are really marketing issues?

I mean please give me an example, but not the empty inputs.

Marketing professors also published a lot of Econometrica, AER, QJE, JET, and JOE, not mention many Rand. Do you think these papers are toy models?

Some of top econ journal papers also cited a lot of Marketing papers. Do you think these economists just cited toy models as references?

Plus, some of marketing professors also got top econ positions upon graduation, such as Stanford, and even got full professor position invitation.  Do you think these top econ deparments are stupid?

Most Econometrica papers are not, although there are some exceptions. A toy model is defined as any model with little or no economic insight, regardless of how complex the model might be, because they are good to play with but makes no real intellectual sense.

Can you give an example about marketing? What's more, which kind is not a toy one?

All the models used in marketing are, in my opinion, toy models.

OM yes, marketing no.

finance对数学的要求也没那么高，一传十十传百，弄得贼邪乎。

其实om，和marketing里的modeling对数理的要求平均来说比finance高。

-- by 会员 kndx5 (2010/11/7 13:00:31)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/8 2:44:56)

Why marketing no? seriously ask

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/8 16:07:08)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/9 2:52:34)

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/9 9:36:38)

-- by 会员 majia20112011 (2010/11/9 14:04:54)

-- by 会员 brika (2010/11/9 14:27:37)