Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
Sounds reasonable on the surface, but in practice I don't actually think that's true. Just thinking back the last few years it was pretty clear to me who would take off. They not only had good CVs, but they were taking on topics that were mainstream or accessible enough that it was easy to see the general value of the work, but still had some cutting-edge innovative feel to it to make it 'sexy'.
Sometimes that has meant people do stuff that sounds good but is superficial and thin as toilet paper. Other times it's meant someone struck a balance of creativity and obvious current and future impact. Take home lesson: hits in AJS/ASR don't usually mean much if they're on some obscure or esoteric topic only a minority of sociologists care about. Oh, and pedigree matters. Maybe that's unfair, but it's just what I see happen time and time again.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
Sounds reasonable on the surface, but in practice I don't actually think that's true. Just thinking back the last few years it was pretty clear to me who would take off. They not only had good CVs, but they were taking on topics that were mainstream or accessible enough that it was easy to see the general value of the work, but still had some cutting-edge innovative feel to it to make it 'sexy'.
Sometimes that has meant people do stuff that sounds good but is superficial and thin as toilet paper. Other times it's meant someone struck a balance of creativity and obvious current and future impact. Take home lesson: hits in AJS/ASR don't usually mean much if they're on some obscure or esoteric topic only a minority of sociologists care about. Oh, and pedigree matters. Maybe that's unfair, but it's just what I see happen time and time again.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
well, tell us, oh wise one, who will be market stars this year.
Sounds reasonable on the surface, but in practice I don't actually think that's true. Just thinking back the last few years it was pretty clear to me who would take off. They not only had good CVs, but they were taking on topics that were mainstream or accessible enough that it was easy to see the general value of the work, but still had some cutting-edge innovative feel to it to make it 'sexy'.
Sometimes that has meant people do stuff that sounds good but is superficial and thin as toilet paper. Other times it's meant someone struck a balance of creativity and obvious current and future impact. Take home lesson: hits in AJS/ASR don't usually mean much if they're on some obscure or esoteric topic only a minority of sociologists care about. Oh, and pedigree matters. Maybe that's unfair, but it's just what I see happen time and time again.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
Did you or anyone else expect MBFH to land at NYU? Didn't think so.
Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
So what does a CV need to be good enough then?
Assume I'm getting no professional socialization from my advisers and faculty in my program and that I've missed what I need to be aiming for when I hit the market. How would you describe the state I should strive to be in to be good enough?
I thought we were talking about "market stars". People with multiple top R1 talks and multiple top R1 offers. Did she even get any other top offers or talks? In the end MBFH did well, but let's not exaggerate. NYU is still like #15, similar in rank to Duke where she got her degree.
Sounds reasonable on the surface, but in practice I don't actually think that's true. Just thinking back the last few years it was pretty clear to me who would take off. They not only had good CVs, but they were taking on topics that were mainstream or accessible enough that it was easy to see the general value of the work, but still had some cutting-edge innovative feel to it to make it 'sexy'.
Sometimes that has meant people do stuff that sounds good but is superficial and thin as toilet paper. Other times it's meant someone struck a balance of creativity and obvious current and future impact. Take home lesson: hits in AJS/ASR don't usually mean much if they're on some obscure or esoteric topic only a minority of sociologists care about. Oh, and pedigree matters. Maybe that's unfair, but it's just what I see happen time and time again.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
Did you or anyone else expect MBFH to land at NYU? Didn't think so.
Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
So what does a CV need to be good enough then?
Assume I'm getting no professional socialization from my advisers and faculty in my program and that I've missed what I need to be aiming for when I hit the market. How would you describe the state I should strive to be in to be good enough?
market stars are always favored students in their departments. you will not be a market star.
I thought we were talking about "market stars". People with multiple top R1 talks and multiple top R1 offers. Did she even get any other top offers or talks? In the end MBFH did well, but let's not exaggerate. NYU is still like #15, similar in rank to Duke where she got her degree.
Sounds reasonable on the surface, but in practice I don't actually think that's true. Just thinking back the last few years it was pretty clear to me who would take off. They not only had good CVs, but they were taking on topics that were mainstream or accessible enough that it was easy to see the general value of the work, but still had some cutting-edge innovative feel to it to make it 'sexy'.
Sometimes that has meant people do stuff that sounds good but is superficial and thin as toilet paper. Other times it's meant someone struck a balance of creativity and obvious current and future impact. Take home lesson: hits in AJS/ASR don't usually mean much if they're on some obscure or esoteric topic only a minority of sociologists care about. Oh, and pedigree matters. Maybe that's unfair, but it's just what I see happen time and time again.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
I'll refer you to my earlier comment, about how stars do not differ a great deal from other top candidates, which makes predicting them basically impossible. I think of it in much the same way Salganik Dodds and Watts (2006) observed "hits" in music markets. Songs have to be "good enough," but after that, it's anybody's guess which will take off what which won't.
Did you or anyone else expect MBFH to land at NYU? Didn't think so.
NYU is 11 now. Similar in rank, location, and status to UCL
...See full postI wouldn't call losing Conley, Arum, Torche, and Jennings, denying tenure to an AP (Lee), and having another in hot water "on a bigger upswing" But hey, that's me!
NYU is 11 now. Similar in rank, location, and status to UCLA and Northwestern, but on a bigger upswing. Chicago is more like Duke or Indiana now actually, but with a better location and with NORC/AJS helping it from imploding a la Yale.
I wouldn't call losing Conley, Arum, Torche, and Jennings, denying tenure to an AP (Lee), and having another in hot water "on a bigger upswing" But hey, that's me!
NYU is 11 now. Similar in rank, location, and status to UCLA and Northwestern, but on a bigger upswing. Chicago is more like Duke or Indiana now actually, but with a better location and with NORC/AJS helping it from imploding a la Yale.
who is in hot water?
They are supposedly going to hire multiple people this year. If they hire a market star and make a good poach they'll be just fine. They have a huge faculty size as is, so they can afford some losses here and there. Chicago is a different story with all its current deadwood, losses of Small and Monk, as well as the ongoing faculty hiring freeze.
I wouldn't call losing Conley, Arum, Torche, and Jennings, denying tenure to an AP (Lee), and having another in hot water "on a bigger upswing" But hey, that's me!
NYU is 11 now. Similar in rank, location, and status to UCLA and Northwestern, but on a bigger upswing. Chicago is more like Duke or Indiana now actually, but with a better location and with NORC/AJS helping it from imploding a la Yale.
Basically, people above answer "we'll tell you who is likely to be a market star after the fact." Talking about fly outs after the fact is a poor response to people's request for what a market star looks like.
Basically correct, yes. Market stars are defined by what happens to them on the market. That's how you operationalize "market star." The track record of predicting market stars in advance is pretty poor. We don't know what causes them to be market stars.
What are the characteristics of a market start that lead to their getting flyouts/offers?
Sometimes they have published a solo or first authored paper in ASR/AJS. If not they often have a solo/first authored Social Forces or a top subfield paper that's getting a lot of attention. If they're qual their book contract may be lined up already. Sometimes they use an innovative method (computational, experiments). The dissertation captures the zeitgeist of the discipline (if a random sociologist hears about the dissertation they get very curious what it finds). They tend not to do work on culture or religion.
But if it sounds like I have a good idea of who is going to be a "market star", that's not what's going on. Market stars have some set of those qualities but we don't know how many. The list of people who fit some of those characteristics each year is probably ~50 JMCs, and only a handful of people are market stars each year. So we have some idea who in that pool of ~50 JMCs is going to take off but we're wrong as much as we're right.