关于商科phd对什么要求更高的讨论：数学，文采，idea？ judy修改

majia20112011

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)

westhorizon

哦，这篇paper是我本周的macro reading作业啊～～

社会科学里没有客观的分析。没有出色的文采，怎么sell your idea? 对于“文科”的要求，远非文采这么简单。idea从哪里来的？

   As in the case of fables, absurd conclusions reveal contexts in which the model produces unreasonable results, but this may not necessarily make the model uninteresting.
   As in the case of fables, models in economic theory are derived from observations of the real world, but are not meant to be testable.
   As in the case of fables, models have limited scope.
   As in the case of a good fable, a good model can have an enormous in?uence on the real world, not by providing advice or by predicting the future, but rather by in?uencing culture.
   Yes, I do think we are simply the tellers of fables, but is that not wonderful?
   ------Dilemmas of An Economic Theorist, Ariel Rubinstein

-- by 会员 LeoVilla (2010/11/7 19:25:26)

brika

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

majia20112011

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)

brika

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)

hongnsong

BS!

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)

majia20112011

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)

brika

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)

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)

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)