To Be Titled

As I’ve tried to explain, the notion of journals as gatekeepers was largely fictional even 25 years ago. And I have a somewhat jaundiced view of how the whole refereeing/publication system has ever worked; all too often, it seems to act as a way for entrenched doctrines to blockade new ideas, or at least to keep people with new ideas from getting tenure at a good school.

—Paul Krugman

Mario Rizzo of NYU economics on macroeconomics:

Therefore, it is not simply a matter of finding the right explanation of the recent financial meltdown and recession. The search by most macroeconomists is constrained by a certain set ofunquestioned methodological precepts. These precepts go to the heart of the conception of Economics as a Science. They are the standards of what constitute acceptable forms of expression of economic ideas.

His approach to economics places him in a good position to advance this criticism:

My research is grounded on four fundamental premises: (1) the decentralization of knowledge in a complex society, such as ours, is important in the explanation of both economic and social phenomena; (2) human action should be understood in a contextual way — both the individual and social context is needed to to make sense of what people do and how they relate to one another; (3) these phenomena are, wherever possible, best viewed as processes in time; and (4) economic and social policies usually have important unintended consequences.

Henry Farrell draws some obvious contrasts between Ignite conferences and APSA (American Political Science Association) conferences:

Ignite gives you precisely (and only) five minutes to speak - your Powerpoint/Keynote or similar presentation has 20 slides that advance inexorably every fifteen seconds. What’s nice about it is that it forces people to cut to the chase.

I’ve only recently found out about Ignite. It seems to be a great way to share knowledge and experience within communities, and I hope to participate at some point in the future. Farrell continues:

I don’t think I have ever seen a conference presentation at APSA that couldn’t have been improved by being cut down to five minutes with inexorable advance, requirement for advance planning over what you actually want to say and so on.

I think the APSA presentations I have seen recently are a lot better than the ones I saw in previous years. (I may simply be doing a better job of choosing panels with better presenters.) But I still see some horrible presentations as well. Presenters should not have more than 5-6 slides for a 12-minute presentation. Ignite format for APSA would be interesting.

This essay—which I first came across via MFM last week—got some play on the internets today. Interestingly, I think it addresses a fundamental conflict that academics at major research institutions deal with everyday. Our days are constantly interrupted by classes and seminars to teach and various other service obligations. At the same time, either implicitly or explicitly, the principal endeavor we’re engaged in is research, which is a creative enterprise that requires contiguous and continuous stretches of time blocks.

Lord, grant me the courage to fail the students I cannot pass, the strength to grade 100+ finals and 20+ lab reports, and the cockroach-level survival skills needed if a mentally unstable grade grubber gets an A-.

Teaching is the most visible and intelligible aspect of what academics do, but it certainly is not the most important.

The political environment within which CU has to operate is unfortunate. But I have no problems with a stream of good reasoned thinkers rather than ideological buffoons coming through on someone else’s dime—or about two million dimes.