Another unexpected death this year… Werner Troesken passed away last September and I just found out. I feel like I was just talking to him about being interviewed by reporters about Flint. (He’s an economic historian with an amazing book on the effects of lead solder in water pipes. Other fantastic books about segregation etc. as well.) People are dying too young. I had never met Devah Pager or Alan Krueger (though I have read so many articles by both and had seen Krueger give talks), but Werner I knew and liked as a person.
It’s a little weird seeing old “faces” on the internet and remembering when everyone was saying, “NOooooo do not do that stupid thing with your money”… and then they did anyway, and now the thing that everyone said could happen did happen and the person is in bad shape because of it. I think it’s more sad than schadenfreude, but also, do not do stupid things with your money. And don’t be a jerk when you ask people for their advice and don’t like what they say.
DC2 fractured hir wrist in two places falling off the monkey bars. :(
One of the things I hate about being a woman is how journal editors and occasionally referees will use any even marginally related previously done paper as evidence that the paper I’ve submitted is not novel. Even if all it does is use a related novel technique looking at a completely different question. Or uses the same dataset for a completely different literature. When I’m refereeing guys papers that never ever gets said by the other referees (or me). It’s like the initial assumption is let’s find any reason to reject, even a flimsy one. It’s such a hard bar to pass. Women’s papers have to be more than perfect. I see this in refereeing all the time and it’s so unfair. I hate it when it happens to me. And big name guys can submit stuff that does the most minimal of lit reviews and provide no spec checks and somehow their stuff gets sent out and negative referee reports often get overruled. It is just unfair. And I’m not good enough to get over that hurdle. I can’t get the line just right. I put so many checks in footnotes. And it takes me forever to do all the checks I need to put in in order to get the paper not rejected by an editor and to get the writing so it is concise but also contains enough material while also not having so much people overlook things (I have not managed this balance yet for all reviewers), and by the time I’ve done that, someone else has published something marginally related, and that’s enough of a reason not to accept what I’ve done. So why did I bother in the first place? And when the paper is finally accepted, there’s enough cut out to publish a second paper in another journal. Though it has to be a lower quality journal because, of course, I already used that dataset or looked at a different subset or whatever. FML.
our local library’s opening has been delayed until September. Apparently the city counsel delayed ordering furniture and are now at the end of the furniture buying queue behind all the school districts.
Ugh, so crappy on the review process. I think you may have answered this before, but this is not double-blind reviewing? If not, that sucks and econ needs to get with the times. It’s NOT that you are not good enough, btw, it’s that the process is bad and leads to bad science because big name people with lower quality work are getting published when they shouldn’t be.
From what I’ve heard this was more a they kept saying they were going to buy stuff and then they kept putting it off until it was too late. So now there’s a beautifully renovated empty library with nothing in it because the shelves won’t get there for another 3 months. (They are still working on the parking lot, but I can’t imagine they have much left to go on that.)
It has only recently become clear to me that one of the reasons my career has not been as successful as I would have hoped as a bright-eyed graduate student is my gender. Like the women in the recent NYTimes article about gender discrimination at the Salk Institute, I always thought that those things only happened to other women, or that because I don’t see obvious discrimination, there is none. These excuses sound ridiculous, even to me, as I have worked hard to understand implicit biases and take notice of them when I see them impacting those around me. For example, I have non-ironically justified my own relatively low pay based on the fact that my husband makes much more than I do, so I don’t really need more. I would slap a colleague who used that lame excuse! It’s so hard to recognize the impact that these thousands of tiny injustices have on my own career.
– I feel like this trend of people dying too young started about ten years ago and I do not like it one bit.
– I’m curious about which old faces you’re thinking of, and if I know them. Most of the old faces I know seem to be doing more than well enough for themselves.
– Poor DC2 :( I hope ze heals up fast and well.
– I keep thinking double blind would be so much better.
– No library for the summer is sad.