<p>Also I misread #37 before, I agree with it actually. I was coming at this from a different angle. But maybe I’m still not that bright anyway.</p>
<p>It’s one thing if fewer people at your school want to do some grad program, and the percentage is lower for that reason, But it’s another thing if they do want to do it, but just can’t get in to a top program. In that case, there may be some noticeable differential between the #phDs produced and the # phds just from the top programs, which might be interesting to explore. I thought that might cast a different light on the ubiquitous phd tables.</p>
Several such as? Do you have any proof that there is a number of profs leaving that is beyond the usual churn in any academic institution in a given year?</p>
<p>Penn tends to attract pre-professional students, not folks who are attracted to academia. Also, Penn was a bit easier to get into than some of the schools you list at the time. On the other hand, there are some “nerd” schools with lower admissions hurdles than Penn whose students salivate for academia.</p>
<p>This is one of the least-edifying theads I have read. Really, barrons, quoting a “job rumors” site as evidence that several Penn faculty are leaving is a bit much. And even if they were leaving, it is not the end of the world. Should we conclude that Wisconsin’s Economics Department is falling apart because so many game theory/IO people have left (yes, actually left) in the last few years? Che, Haile, Hendel and Samuelson all left, never to return. There will always be churning. Moreover, in the RW case, there are two things to note. First, Wisconsin had to pay him so much to come that they had to get the B School to pay part of the salary. Second, there were joint career issues, and they had to agree to hire his wife, too. </p>
<p>I also have to respond to pizzagirl’s post #37</p>
<p>"The people who aren’t very bright conclude that “Harvard does better in placing students into Program Y because 50 of the 60 Y are from Harvard.” That’s the dumb way of thinking about things. The smart way is realizing that only 25% of the Harvard people got into their program of choice whereas 100% of Penn people got into their program of choice. The fact that there may have been 190 other Penn people who went and did different things is irrelevant. They didn’t want to be in Y, so who cares?</p>
<p>Scary that “bright” people don’t get this."</p>
<p>It is absolutely relevant what the other people do. Suppose that 200 people matriculated at each school with the goal of going to grad school. At one school, all 200 received mentoring that convinced them to pursue that dream. The other school just identified the 10 most promising students, gave them intensive mentoring, and essentially told the rest to get lost. So, it may matter what the 190 others do and why.</p>
<p>Yes, UW had some losses–that’s why they are hiring 10 new econ people. Last year they got two top people from NU and Chicago as senior profs. UW had some lean years, now it’s working back. But state U’s will always lose people to the likes of Stanford, etc. But those people also built their rep at UW which means they can find talent and bring it along.</p>
<p>Less than 35% of all undergrad Whartonites go on to get an MBA. Does that mean Wharton grads can’t get into a business school and so Wharton is a TTT ?</p>
<p>Having followed that econ job rumors thread to its conclusion, it appears Penn made a counter-offer (including “you don’t have to live in wisconsin”) and this Randall fellow is staying at Penn.</p>
<p>The conclusion has him at UW. The rumor first posted over 4 months ago was accurate. The other stuff was just some silly attempts at humor. Why don’t you just prove the other Penn guys are not leaving.</p>
<p>Haha, I’m really starting to enjoy Y7’s posts, actually. They give me a great place to vent some steam vis-a-vis REAL placement facts, and they’re so poorly written that it’s laughable. Did you immigrate here last week? What’s the deal with your delivery-boy English?</p>