注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

N·格里高利·曼昆的博客

恒甫学社的学术性分支博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
曼昆  

曼昆

网易考拉推荐

谁更牛?  

2009-03-26 17:08:08|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

中文博主按:当然还是我的美女同事译的。她看到有两篇文章,虽然时隔一个月,但却相关兼有趣。她的记性好,而且,能连到一起。真好!


Harvard vs MIT

Itis now the time of year when the next generation of economists isdeciding where to attend graduate school. Those with the bestundergraduate records will typically choose either Harvard and MIT.There are several reasons for this:
又到了每年一度的,未来的经济学家选择研究院的时候了。那些最优秀的学生,一般会选择Harvard或者MIT。理由如下:
  1. Each school has a great economics department.
  2. Each school is only a couple of miles away from another great economics department.
  3. Each school is close to the NBER, a preeminent economics think tank.
  4. Each school is in Cambridge, which is a cool place to be a grad student.
  1. 两个学校都有个伟大的经济系。
  2. 两个学校离另一个伟大的经济系仅数里之遥。
  3. 两个学校都紧邻NBER,一个著名的经济智囊团。
  4. 两个学校都地处剑桥,作一个研究生,这绝对是个很酷的的地方。

Asa result, it is rare for a student who gets into either school's PhDprogram to turn it down, unless he or she is attending the other.

因此,只要被两个学校中的任何一个录取,很少有学生会拒绝,除非他/她选择了另一个学校。

Everyyear, I meet a number of highly promising students who were accepted byboth schools and are having trouble choosing between them. Here is myadvice:

每年,我都会碰到一些前程远大的学生。他们同时被两所学校录取,难于取舍。我的建议是:

  1. Don't sweat it. You will get a great education at either place.
  2. Lookup your favorite ranking of economists' productivity and look at whichschool has more faculty near the top. Those are the profs you want tohang around and learn to emulate.
  1. 不要自寻烦恼。两个地方都可以接受到很棒的教育。
  2. 搜寻你喜欢的经济学家排名榜,看看哪所学校有更多的老师位居前列。那些老师就是你愿意跟随并超越的。

For example, if you use this standard ranking and look at the top 50, you will learn that MIT has 3 and Harvard has 12.

例如,你可以使用这个标准的排名,前50位经济学家中,你会发现MIT有3位,而Harvard占了12位。

That should settle the question.

这样问题就解决了。


原文


Ranking Economics Departments

In a previous post,I offered some advice for those lucky duckies who were admitted to PhDprograms in economics at both Harvard and MIT. I noted that if you use the standard REPEC ranking and look at the top 50 economists, you will learn that MIT has 3 and Harvard has 12.
在前面一篇博客中,我提了些建议给那些幸运儿,他们同时被Harvard和MIT的经济学博士项目录取。我说,如果使用标准的REPEC排名,你会发现前50位经济学家中,MIT有3位,Harvard有12位。

Iran into an old friend at the Brookings conference yesterday, and hetold me he distrusted that particular REPEC ranking. He said hepreferred one based only on citations.
在昨天Brookings的会议上,我碰到了一个老朋友。他说不相信那个REPEC的排名,更喜欢那些单纯根据论文引用情况的排名。

Okay, so for my friend and anyone else who might be interested, here is a recount: Using the REPEC citation ranking, MIT has 2 of the top 50 economists, and Harvard has 11.
既然我的朋友和其他一些人可能会感兴趣,我就重新计算了下:根据REPEC论文引用排名,前50位经济学家中,MIT占了2个席位,Harvard占了11位。


Alternatively, one might look at the institutional ranking based on total citations, where (ignoring the think tanks) one gets this ranking of schools:
当然,还可以看看,根据总的论文引用情况的机构排名,下面是学校排名情况(除了一些智囊团):


1. Harvard econ
2. Princeton econ
3. Chicago econ
4. NYU econ
5. UC Berkeley econ
6. London School of Economics
7. MIT econ
8. Chicago GSB
9. Harvard Kennedy School
10. Oxford econ
11. Columbia econ
12. Columbia Business School
13. Boston University econ
14. Harvard Business School
15. UC San Diego econ

Ofcourse, none of these rankings is perfect. But they provide a startingpoint for students trying to figure out which school to attend. Andremember: subjective judgments of quality are imperfect as well.
当然,没有一种排名是完美无缺的。但是它们至少提供了一个起点,让学生据此决定选择哪个学校。不要忘了:单靠主观判断同样也是不完美的。


Update: David Autor of MIT emails me:
更新:MIT的David Autor 给我来了封邮件:
Dear Greg,
亲爱的Greg,

BecauseI chair recruiting for MIT, several folks have contacted me about yourblog entries on Harvard v. MIT. As one of our grad students has pointedout, there is a an irony to the department rankings that your blogoverlooks:
由于我在负责MIT的招生工作,有几个人就你的博客Harvard vs MIT,来咨询我。正如我们一个博士生指出的一样,这样的大学排名具有某些讽刺意味(你的博客忽略了):

a. On the list of top authors by
rank score, 13 of the top 50 were educated at MIT (yourself included, of course) and 10 were educated at Harvard.
a.依据分数排名,前50位经济学家中,有13位毕业于MIT(当然了,包括你本人在内),只有10位毕业于Harvard

b. On the list of top authors
by citations, 14 are MIT Ph.Ds and 11 are Harvard Ph.Ds.
依据论文引用排名,有14位是MIT的博士,只有11位是Harvard的博士。

Isuppose you could argue that it matters more [where] these"home-runners" sit now than where they were trained. But the evidencedoesn't really bear this out: the
attached paperon department rankings, forthcoming in the ReStat, uses graduatestudent placements to rank departments. Over the past 40 years of data,Harvard slightly out-places MIT. Using data since 1990, MIT slightlyout-places Harvard.
我认为,你可能会说,这些“选手”当前所居之地,比他们接受培训之地更为重要。但是,上面的证据并不能证实以下这个问题:在附录的文章中,有个ReStat给出的学校排名,它们是根据研究生找工作的情况给出的排名。使用过去40年的数据,Harvard比MIT略胜一筹。而使用1990年来的数据,MIT则稍领风骚。

So, if you want to keep your readers well informed, you might point out these facts as well.
 所以,如果要让你的读者完全知情的话,请你不要忽略了这些事实。


- David
Let me conclude by repeating advice from my original post on the topic of Harvard vs MIT: Don't sweat it. You will get a great education at either place.
请让我重复前面一篇博客的建议,作为总结:不要自寻烦恼了。在两个地方你都能得到最好的教育。

原文


  评论这张
 
阅读(153)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017