Thread by @JakeVigdor, Here's a little thread you might callA TALE OF TWO CLARK(E) MEDALSWherein [...]

Here& #39;s a little thread you might call

A TALE OF TWO CLARK(E) MEDALS

Wherein the @AEAInformation& #39;s J.B. Clark medal shall be compared and contrasted with the @geochemsoc F.W. Clarke award. Which also comes with a medal.

A comparative case study of 2 research ecosystems.

Note: No part of this thread should be taken as a slight against the remarkable accomplishments of those who have received either award. Clearly these researchers have flourished and are driving their fields forward.

But what patterns do we see in the flourishing?

The J.B. Clark medal is awarded to an American economist (i.e., working in the USA) under 40.
https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors-awards/bates-clark

The">https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea... F.W. Clarke award is bestowed on a geochemist under 35 who is no more than six years post-Ph.D. It is not restricted to Americans.
https://www.geochemsoc.org/honors/awards/fw-clarke">https://www.geochemsoc.org/honors/aw...

The last 15 J.B. Clark medalists were employed at one of 5 universities at the time of award.

The last 15 F.W. Clarke medalists were employed at 8 American universities, one foreign university, one government agency, and one research institute.

The last 15 J.B. Clark medalists were trained at one of 5 universities. Aggregating across places of training and employment yields a list of 7 institutions.

The last 15 F.W. Clarke medalists were trained at 13 universities. The same aggregation yields a list of 21 institutions.

. @RiceUniversity dominates the F.W. Clarke list (4 recipients) nearly as much as @MIT (5 recipients) dominates the J.B. Clark list.

None of Rice& #39;s recipients were trained within 1,000 miles of Houston. Three of MIT& #39;s recipients were trained in Cambridge.

Before proceeding to interpretation, one more factual note: based on this small sample, the gender imbalance problem in geochemistry appears at least as severe as in economics.

Now, let& #39;s consider 5 hypotheses for the stark differences we see in early career award patterns:

H1: The differences we observe all reflect underlying variation in award criteria. In theory, an earlier-career award should be noisier. On the other hand, it& #39;s fairly easy to imagine what the JB Clark recipient list would look like if restricted to age 35 or 6 years post-Ph.D.

H2: The differences we observe all reflect underlying variation in award process (rather than anything about the research ecosystem). The geochemists use an open nomination process. The economists rely on a closed process run by an unelected nominating committee.

H3: In economics, talent is more scarce and a greater function of pre-training factors. It& #39;s fairly obvious who the top economists in a generation will be by the time they are about 22. That& #39;s why you see these winners emanating from a small set of top depts. No "late bloomers."

H4: Talent is neither scarce nor predetermined. It& #39;s just that the training at Harvard and MIT is a quantum leap ahead of anywhere else in the world. (With a handful of possible exceptions.)

H5: Economists hoard opportunity. Who you know/interact with determines the quality of your work, or perceptions thereof, and intentionally designed structural barriers (*cough* @NBERpubs) keep those trained or employed at "lesser" institutions out of the room where it happens.

Of course, these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. And though there may be stark differences in patterns of scholarly flourishing across disciplines, it& #39;s not clear that one pattern is normatively better for the world.

/end

Latest Threads Unrolled: