越来越难了

phdaccounting

经济不好也许影响也挺大的吧，对那些market star木有神马影响可能，但是对那些可上可下的candidate，真的是致命的。如果好学校的opening不会因为经济不好缩减（尤其是公立学校），这些candidate是有希望place到好学校的，但是如果时运不济，说不定就一落千丈，掉到很一般很一般的学校。

而且，有的candidate可能虽然不善于做presentation啊，social啊神马的，但是推荐信非常好，因为平时总体表现非常好，这种推荐信好的人，有些普通的学校认为interview他们是浪费时间，也不invite他们，那就更是高不成低不就了。

djorkovic

Teaching is not at all important 10 years ago, is somewhat important 5 years ago and is very important nowadays. Schools like Booth and Wharton requires excellence in both research and teaching and when they recruit somebody, they want to make sure that they are comfortable putting that person in the MBA classroom as well.  The sad truth is that teaching is not a plus but a necessity for top private schools.

Network is very important but for junior faculty members who graduate from top schools the effect is almost the same, but I agree with you that in social science, native speakers have natural advantages in research as well.

要说demand增加什么的，我觉得也许更多的demand来自于teaching school吧。所以accounting phd毕业生，总的应该好找工作，绝大多数只要混下来，至少能找个10万左右的teaching school吧。

主要的那几十所research school（薪水base + 2/9在20万上下，高的pay到20多万，或者research经费上非常大方）, demand和supply其实大致基本维持平衡的，招phd的数量（create supply)和招faculty的数量总体其实并没有什么大的变化。

其实teaching evaluation在大多数research school还不是那么重要的（MBA，private school可能稍微强调一点，少数学校更重视一些），但是tenure的要求和你在整个学术圈的地位，靠的是publication和visibility. teaching好是plus, 但是research好才是重点。

比如wharton, 4分总分的evaluation,老师达到2分就算合格了（意思是如果research好，不会因为teaching来刁难你了，这是他们的老师亲口说的，但是准确不准确有待考证）。Chicago Booth，现在不知道怎样，但是以前，有年轻老师教了3点几分（5分满分），vice dean跟她说你如果teaching上了4，我们可能就要找你谈话，让你不要花这么多功夫在teaching上了。

top school很多老师流行的的（是不是公认就不知道了)是一周7天时间，最多花一天准备teaching。

teaching对语言要求和institutional knowledge要求高是一定的，所以英语母语的人都会有优势。但是即使是research, 英语母语一样占优势。首先paper写出来的writing就不说了，paper拿出去present, 以及提高自己的visibility，和同行的其他人形成有效的social, 语言差是不可能做好的。

薪水近10年来的不断升高，加上faculty的flexibility，也吸引了很多在industry做得非常好的人来竞争phd，继而竞争faculty职位。这些在industry本身就做得比较成功的人，进来后基本走的都是empirical路线，而且这些人本身已经在industry混得不错，Presentation，social这些对他们是太容易了，需要的就是掌握一些research methodoloty, get familiar with literature. 总之，整个行业总体人数就算不变，进入的人素质随薪水拉高而变高是趋势。

确实很多interesting的idea已经被人不断做掉了，毕竟不是ray ball时代，自己发明游戏规则自己做着玩还带着别人玩。所以现在也许需要更加creative的research吧。而且这个行业和其他行业一样，也非常靠关系，建立自己的关系网，editor，referee神马的都是你的朋友，至少拿到你的paper会重视一些，nice一些。有的牛的人，跟referee熟悉关系好，paper写之前就跟主要的referee都谈过，referee觉得可以才开始写。有的topic，一般人做发不了，但是放到几个牛牛手里去做，即使哪怕做得一般般，说不定也发了。在建立network上，中国人毕竟目前是不占优势的。

但是行业内还是有很多做得很好的中国人啊，所以咱们要多抱团，多分享信息啊，信息越充分，越了解自己的优势和缺点都在哪里，就越知道自己应该怎样提高。

-- by 会员 phdaccounting (2012/2/14 9:10:48)

phdaccounting

[quote]
Teaching is not at all important 10 years ago, is somewhat important 5 years ago and is very important nowadays. Schools like Booth and Wharton requires excellence in both research and teaching and when they recruit somebody, they want to make sure that they are comfortable putting that person in the MBA classroom as well.  The sad truth is that teaching is not a plus but a necessity for top private schools.

Network is very important but for junior faculty members who graduate from top schools the effect is almost the same, but I agree with you that in social science, native speakers have natural advantages in research as well.




Top schools always set very high standard when they recruit faculty. What I was talking about is overall when they evaluate whether their faculty is doing well or not, most of the schools cares much more about research.

Different schools have different requirements for teaching. Some are high. Some are low. It depends. But to a faculty, teaching is something like if you screw it, it might or might not hurt your academic career overall; but if you screw research, your are screwed.

An academic career starts from the first day of your PhD study, or even before that. In fact, after 4-6 years study, when they graduate, some people already have built or are building a strong network, and are way ahead of their peers.

小松鼠

沃顿和chicago的一些毕业生毕业之前都没教过课呢。中等私立，像william mary那样对teaching和research要求都不低，会balance一下，但top私立，像standford那种，更多是看research吧

[quote]

Teaching is not at all important 10 years ago, is somewhat important 5 years ago and is very important nowadays. Schools like Booth and Wharton requires excellence in both research and teaching and when they recruit somebody, they want to make sure that they are comfortable putting that person in the MBA classroom as well.  The sad truth is that teaching is not a plus but a necessity for top private schools.

Network is very important but for junior faculty members who graduate from top schools the effect is almost the same, but I agree with you that in social science, native speakers have natural advantages in research as well.




Top schools always set very high standard when they recruit faculty. What I was talking about is overall when they evaluate whether their faculty is doing well or not, most of the schools cares much more about research.

Different schools have different requirements for teaching. Some are high. Some are low. It depends. But to a faculty, teaching is something like if you screw it, it might or might not hurt your academic career; but if you screw research, your are screwed.

-- by 会员 phdaccounting (2012/2/14 11:11:39)

djorkovic

That is my point. In tenure evaluation nowadays teaching is also very important. That is why they set high standard for teaching from the very beginning because otherwise they are not going to succeed in teaching. If you have a chance, check the teaching evaluation scores for those who eventually get tenured in schools like booth and Wharton in recent years, they should be very high.

I would say the relative weight of research over teaching is the highest in public schools nowadays and higher over private schools.

Speaking of network, my point is for those who graduate from top programs and are placed in top places, they all have very good network established throughout all those years, which is in no contradiction with what you say. My point is that the difference among themselves is not that different.

[quote]

Teaching is not at all important 10 years ago, is somewhat important 5 years ago and is very important nowadays. Schools like Booth and Wharton requires excellence in both research and teaching and when they recruit somebody, they want to make sure that they are comfortable putting that person in the MBA classroom as well.  The sad truth is that teaching is not a plus but a necessity for top private schools.

Network is very important but for junior faculty members who graduate from top schools the effect is almost the same, but I agree with you that in social science, native speakers have natural advantages in research as well.




Top schools always set very high standard when they recruit faculty. What I was talking about is overall when they evaluate whether their faculty is doing well or not, most of the schools cares much more about research.

Different schools have different requirements for teaching. Some are high. Some are low. It depends. But to a faculty, teaching is something like if you screw it, it might or might not hurt your academic career overall; but if you screw research, your are screwed.

An academic career starts from the first day of your PhD study, or even before that. In fact, after 4-6 years study, when they graduate, some people already have built or are building a strong network, and are way ahead of their peers.

-- by 会员 phdaccounting (2012/2/14 11:11:39)

djorkovic

This is true 10 years ago. Nowadays, because MBA tuition are becoming more and more expensive, the demand for teaching becomes higher and higher. The fact that native speakers from Wharton and Chicago has no teaching experience does not imply that they will not be good teachers. Some of them have teaching experience before entering PhD and frankly speaking, quite a few Americans do PhD because they want to stay in academia instead of industry and they are naturally good teachers.

[quote]
沃顿和chicago的一些毕业生毕业之前都没教过课呢。中等私立，像william mary那样对teaching和research要求都不低，会balance一下，但top私立，像standford那种，更多是看research吧

Teaching is not at all important 10 years ago, is somewhat important 5 years ago and is very important nowadays. Schools like Booth and Wharton requires excellence in both research and teaching and when they recruit somebody, they want to make sure that they are comfortable putting that person in the MBA classroom as well.  The sad truth is that teaching is not a plus but a necessity for top private schools.

Network is very important but for junior faculty members who graduate from top schools the effect is almost the same, but I agree with you that in social science, native speakers have natural advantages in research as well.




Top schools always set very high standard when they recruit faculty. What I was talking about is overall when they evaluate whether their faculty is doing well or not, most of the schools cares much more about research.

Different schools have different requirements for teaching. Some are high. Some are low. It depends. But to a faculty, teaching is something like if you screw it, it might or might not hurt your academic career; but if you screw research, your are screwed.

-- by 会员 phdaccounting (2012/2/14 11:11:39)

-- by 会员 小松鼠 (2012/2/14 11:16:01)

ProfCPA

不仅找工作，录取也难了。想去好的research school, 从来没有容易过。。

容我三思

要说demand增加什么的，我觉得也许更多的demand来自于teaching school吧。所以accounting phd毕业生，总的应该好找工作，绝大多数只要混下来，至少能找个10万左右的teaching school吧。

主要的那几十所research school（薪水base + 2/9在20万上下，高的pay到20多万，或者research经费上非常大方）, demand和supply其实大致基本维持平衡的，招phd的数量（create supply)和招faculty的数量总体其实并没有什么大的变化。

其实teaching evaluation在大多数research school还不是那么重要的（MBA，private school可能稍微强调一点，少数学校更重视一些），但是tenure的要求和你在整个学术圈的地位，靠的是publication和visibility. teaching好是plus, 但是research好才是重点。

比如wharton, 4分总分的evaluation,老师达到2分就算合格了（意思是如果research好，不会因为teaching来刁难你了，这是他们的老师亲口说的，但是准确不准确有待考证）。Chicago Booth，现在不知道怎样，但是以前，有年轻老师教了3点几分（5分满分），vice dean跟她说你如果teaching上了4，我们可能就要找你谈话，让你不要花这么多功夫在teaching上了。

top school很多老师流行的的（是不是公认就不知道了)是一周7天时间，最多花一天准备teaching。

teaching对语言要求和institutional knowledge要求高是一定的，所以英语母语的人都会有优势。但是即使是research, 英语母语一样占优势。首先paper写出来的writing就不说了，paper拿出去present, 以及提高自己的visibility，和同行的其他人形成有效的social, 语言差是不可能做好的。

薪水近10年来的不断升高，加上faculty的flexibility，也吸引了很多在industry做得非常好的人来竞争phd，继而竞争faculty职位。这些在industry本身就做得比较成功的人，进来后基本走的都是empirical路线，而且这些人本身已经在industry混得不错，Presentation，social这些对他们是太容易了，需要的就是掌握一些research methodoloty, get familiar with literature. 总之，整个行业总体人数就算不变，进入的人素质随薪水拉高而变高是趋势。

确实很多interesting的idea已经被人不断做掉了，毕竟不是ray ball时代，自己发明游戏规则自己做着玩还带着别人玩。所以现在也许需要更加creative的research吧。而且这个行业和其他行业一样，也非常靠关系，建立自己的关系网，editor，referee神马的都是你的朋友，至少拿到你的paper会重视一些，nice一些。有的牛的人，跟referee熟悉关系好，paper写之前就跟主要的referee都谈过，referee觉得可以才开始写。有的topic，一般人做发不了，但是放到几个牛牛手里去做，即使哪怕做得一般般，说不定也发了。在建立network上，中国人毕竟目前是不占优势的。

但是行业内还是有很多做得很好的中国人啊，所以咱们要多抱团，多分享信息啊，信息越充分，越了解自己的优势和缺点都在哪里，就越知道自己应该怎样提高。

-- by 会员 phdaccounting (2012/2/14 9:10:48)

Mark! Thanks!