I was there for less than 24 hours. This is otherwise known as "big-timing" a conference. As in, when you have made the big time you are encouraged to drop in on a conference or workshop and stay for, at most, one night making a brief appearance (typically to give a keynote) and get ASAP back to more important things (e.g., consulting, advising a President, or another conference/workshop).
Alternatively, you have family obligations (gots to go to Ky to see my mom and sis/fam at holiday time [and Jason Isbell on NYE]!) and the conference has a terrible calendar spot (As far as I can tell, the ASSA meetings occur on the first weekend in January because the demand for hotel rooms is otherwise low. Why else risk a snowstorm that causes half the job candidates to miss their interviews and permanently derail their careers?).
My plane took off for the meetings at 4 pm (or so) on Sunday. I planned on finishing my presentation that night but, thanks to a 2:42 pm Lynne Lewis text, I had a late dinner with old friends and new. I finished my presentation in the morning (didn't have time to pick up my badge and program ... was there any SWAG? [not swagger but "something we all get"] and made it to my session on Monday morning at 10:15. I took off directly afterwards to try to get on the earlier, 2:40 pm, flight after stupidly booking the 5 pm flight (I got an exit row seat after some tense moments on standby). I made it back to Boone just in time to pick up my kid at (indoor) soccer practice.
I participated in a fantastic session. There were four papers each estimating the benefits of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL program (I think this is the correct link). I can only imagine what a great research team environment this was/is. I was the discussant for the Massey/Newbold recreational fishing paper. My first comment was that I enjoyed watching an always fun battle with the MRFSS/MRIP data. My comments went downhill from there.
And Tim, yes, there was a crab feast afterwards (which I, unfortunately, misssed so that I could make an appearance at soccer practice).
Here is how the session looked on my ASSA 2015 app (who needs to program book anyway?):
Let's have our informal AERE Happy Hour after the Distinguished Guest Lecture ("Life as a Lab: Using Field Experiments in Economics" John List [see note below]) on Saturday. This is a great chance to meet old friends and new and organize your dinner party!
What: AERE Happy Hour
Why: Meet old friends and new and organize your dinner party
Where: Hotel lobby bar (i.e.., Pulse -- "At 5:00 pm, an audible heartbeat will welcome the beginning of an eight-hour social hour as Pulse transforms into a vibrant lounge. As the evening progresses, the bar staff intensifies the showcasing of mixology behind the bar by giving demonstrations on how to make classic and new trendy drinks. The color of the iconic sail will change with the mood of the evening ending with a heightened pulsating array of radiant colors as a salute to the evening.")
When: 6:15 pm
See you in Atlanta!
Note: Speaking of field experiments, I withdrew my field experiment paper just now. Buy me a beer at happy hour and I'll explain why!
I'll try to post on that note soon (if I can get ready for my other sessions). Here is the excuse that I gave the SEA "We've been waiting on some essential data and it has not arrived." Nor will it ever.
My name is [redacted] and I am the SEO expert of a leading SEO service provider company. As per my analysis, your website is not performing well in the Google organic search. Also your traffic is poor from last couple of months due to some of the reasons.
Some of the aspects given below:
Due to poor Back links
Keywords are not in the first page of Google, Yahoo and Bing
Due to errors and issues present in website
Errors in the coding part of your website
Website content quality is not high standard.
Area of Improvement:
We will give you 1st page ranking on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.
Improve your sales and brand value.
100% satisfaction guarantee or your full money back.
Hummingbird recovers and secures your website from next Google updates.
Increase your traffic flow.
Target your local market to increase business.
Some comments on our areas of improvment:
When I google "environmental economics" it still comes up first. Is that still happening for others?
How could our sales be even better? And after the oil spill, our brand was so destroyed that not even a million dollar tourism campaign could improve it.
We have no local market (unless you count Pete Groothuis)
And would someone please help us with errors and content quality?
We collect contingent valuation data from 524 student survey respondents over a 3-day, 72-hour period. Data analysis of a hypothetical campus referendum focuses on time-of-day effects on willingness to pay for a renewable energy project. We find that subjects responding to the survey during the night-time hours (i.e., between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.) do not display the law of demand, offering theoretically invalid responses to questions with important policy implications. Results from this research may have serious implications for the contingent valuation method (CVM). In short, just like your father said, nothing good happens after midnight when using the CVM. (JEL Q51)
A guiding principle, consistent with the work of the CVM critics, is that a hypothetical valuation question, especially one used for major policy issues and natural resource damage assessments, should pass the most important theoretical validity test no matter what time of day the survey is administered.
I'll point out the funny parts if, like the folks we passed it around to for a quick read and the journal referees, you can't spot the humor (here's one: footnote 1 drops "cromulent" for the first time, I think, in the economics literature). And thanks to the editor for accepting the paper even when a referee said it should be rewritten as a real paper (and submitted where?). That was the original intention but we could never get motivated to do so. It was only during the hopeless to curious phase of my life that inspiration stuck.
*Dickinson, D. L. and Whitehead, J. C. (2014), DUBIOUS AND DUBIOUSER: CONTINGENT VALUATION AND THE TIME OF DAY. Economic Inquiry. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12161
I served four years, the first year as a tryout and then a regular three year term. At the end of the fourth year (2013) I was offered another term but indicated that I was worn out by the process. I haven't received any new manuscripts in 2014 but have continued editing revise and resubmits. Last night I finished reading (and accepting) a paper that cleaned out my to do list. Here is the proof:
Based on the numbers at the bottom, I handled 270 papers over four years (doing the math, that is more than one paper each week). I'm not quite finished. I still might see some of those 11 papers "with decision" (revise and resubmits). But, only a few are recent so it feels like I'm done.
The paper is titled ''Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: a meta-analysis application exploring the determinants of the time for publication acceptance" [pdf] and here is the abstract*:
In this paper, we test whether the time it takes for a submitted paper to be accepted by the editor(s) is sensitive to the stated preference method used. Two methods are considered: the Contingent Valuation (CV) and the Choice Experiments (CE). A meta-analysis based on a sample of 129 papers published in Resource and Energy Economics, Ecological Economics and Environmental and Resource Economics between 2005 and 2011 is conducted. The dependent variable in the ordinary least squares regression model is the number of days between the submission of the paper and the acceptance of the paper, referred to as Time for Publication Acceptance, or TPA. The main results are that TPA is lower for CE papers than CV papers, especially for those that aim at improving the method which can be interpreted as a higher academic demand in the CE field. However, a convergence is observed over the years.
The time to publication is 68% lower for choice experiment papers. My theory is that choice experiments don't need to jump through the same narrow hoops that CVM papers must. Here is a previous rant on this subject.
Here is the first paragraph:
Adamowicz (2004) provided an overview of the future directions that the academic demand in the environmental valuation field may take by examining the number of publications between 1975 and 2003 for several valuation methods. According to the author, “the most significant advance in environmental valuation may be to move away from a focus on value and focus instead on choice behaviour and data that generate information on choices” (page 439). It implies that the Choice Experiments (CE) method may become more popular than the Contingent Valuation (CV). Whitehead (2011) confirmed such shift in the academic demand by examining the number of papers published between 1989 and 2010 for each method using the ISI database.
Romain Crastes and Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu, (2014) ''Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: a meta-analysis application exploring the determinants of the time for publication acceptance'', Economics Bulletin, Vol. 34 No. 3 pp. 1575-1599.
If the objective of graduate training in top-ranked departments is to produce successful research economists, then these graduate programs are largely failing. Only a small percentage of economics PhDs manage to produce a creditable number of publications by their sixth year after graduation. Even at the top five departments, it would be hard to argue that the bottom half of their students are successful in terms of academic research. The number of AER - equivalent papers of the median at year six is below 0.1 in all cases and is in fact zero in most. At the majority of the departments ranked in the top ten in conventional rankings (such as Coupé 2003), 60 percent of their students fail to meet this 0.1 AER -equivalent standard, and for the majority of the PhD graduates of the top 30 departments, 70 percent fail. A tenure standard of 0.1 AER-equivalent papers is roughly equal to publishing one paper in a second-tier field journal over six years. This record would not be enough to count as “research-active” in most departments, much less to result in tenure. ...
For graduate students in economics (and also potential graduate students), the message is that becoming a successful research economist is difficult. The good news is that one does not have to go to a top department in order to become a successful research economist. The bad news is that wherever one goes, only the very best of each class is likely to find academic success as defined by research publications. ...
Thus, students thinking about applying to PhD programs in economics would be well advised to have “Plan B’s” for every stage of the journey—including the possibility of not being accepted into a PhD program, the possibility of not completing the program, the possibility of not finding a suit able academic job, and the possibility of not receiving tenure. We hasten to add that there are many rewarding and worthwhile nonresearch and nonacademic career paths open to those who obtain masters or doctorate degrees in economics, and many students discover, either while in graduate school or during their untenured years, that they actually prefer these sorts of jobs to the academic life.
A couple of other quotes are worth excerpting. From the intro:
Economics PhD programs are primarily designed to produce research economists. There is little or no focus on training students to suit the needs of business or industry (Siegfried and Stock 1999). Our experience suggests that most students, especially at the better programs, enter graduate school planning to seek academic jobs, or at any rate, jobs that require research. We would also argue that students have a more-or-less common preference ordering over departments. In general, a student admitted to MIT or Princeton is unlikely to choose to go to Duke or Ohio State instead.
Teaching is not even mentioned in the first sentence. And, Duke and Ohio State? Burn!
And this from the conclusions:
However, at lesser departments, there is always a debate about whether it is better to hire lower-ranked graduates from top-ranked departments of economics, or the best graduates from lower-ranked departments. Our conclusion is that it is indeed worthwhile for lower-ranked schools to look outside the top-ranked departments for new hires, though only at the top students of such programs in general.
Some of us at "much lesser" departments have known about this for a long time. I'm most interested in the PhD program ranked #31 - all other PhD programs. The data (available at the link above) contain 7396 of these graduates and 59% (n=4356) do not have any publications** after 6 years. Of those with at least one publication, 82% have published less than two papers in second tier field journals (this is my definition of "research active" and my cutoff is 0.195). If you were at a much lesser department and trying to find a research active faculty member in the job market, there were only about 36 of these on the supply side of the market each year. I wonder if this is any different in in 2014?
Only eighty-nine (16%) of these 541 research-active PhDs published at least one AER-equivalent paper (1 paper in the AER or 10 in second-tier field journals). Here is a picture:
Incredibly, one 1991 graduate had 4.55 AER-equivalents in his/her first six years. Twelve others had two or more.
And going back to that line from the intro. The major activity of most PhD economists is teaching. Given these results it seems that PhD programs at departments 1-31 should spend a bit more time training teachers or, at least, paying it some lip service.
*Source: Conley, John P., and Ali Sina Onder. 2014. "The Research Productivity of New PhDs in Economics: The Surprisingly High Non-success of the Successful." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3): 205-16.
**Here is information on the sample and measurement:
We start with a census of 14,299 economics PhD recipients from 154 academic institutions in the US and Canada who graduated between 1986 and 2000 compiled by the American Economic Association (AEA) and connect this to an EconLit database with 368,672 papers published between 1985 and 2006 in 1,113 peer-reviewed journals (including conference volumes to the extent that these are captured in EconLit).
"This blog aims to look at more of the microeconomic ideas that can be used toward environmental ends. Bringing to bear a large quantity of external sources and articles, this blog presents a clear vision of what economic environmentalism can be."
Don't believe what they're saying
And allow me a quick moment to gush: ... The env-econ.net blog was more or less a lifeline in that period of my life, as it was one of the few ways I stayed plugged into the env. econ scene. -- Anonymous
... the Environmental Economics blog ... is now the default homepage on my browser (but then again, I guess I am a wonk -- a word I learned on the E.E. blog). That is a very nice service to the profession. -- Anonymous
"... I try and read the blog everyday and have pointed it out to other faculty who have their students read it for class. It is truly one of the best things in the blogosphere." -- Anonymous