The Economist covers an academic study about lazy Econ Ph.D.s, based on the lack of productivity (peer-reviewed research publications) in the years following graduation. Um, hello? Nobody can maintain productivity when they are un/under-employed as adjuncts. The premises of the study (and the magazine coverage) are stunning in their ignorance of the *economic* foundations of Ph.D. productivity: only secure tenure track employment at R1 institutions provides the financial and institutional support for intensive publishing of peer-review articles. When that employment evaporates, so does peer-rev research. If two economists cant figure that much out, then what does it say about the field?
Posted on: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:14:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015