Thomas Blanchet (@thomas_blncht) header
Thomas Blanchet (@thomas_blncht) profile picture

Thomas Blanchet

@thomas_blncht

Data Scientist/Data Engineer in industry | Formerly @UCBerkeley, @PSEinfo (PhD), @ENSAEparis (MSc)

 Paris, France
linkedin.com/in/thomasblanchet92
Joined August 2019
  • Tweets9
  • Following239
  • Followers622
Thankfully, that would never happen in academia.
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
1
236
That it’s OK for your answers to be shittier if the problem you’re working on is more important is not only wrong, it’s also very much *not* a hot take within academia. But people like to pretend it is as cope when their paper get rejected.
Gerardo L. Munck (@GerardoMunck) profile pictureGerardo L. Munck
@GerardoMunck6 Apr 2024
Some wise advice by Theda Skocpol about scholarship.👇 From Skocpol’s 2017 interview with Eric Schickler: annualreviews.org/docserver/…
Image from Gerardo L. Munck (@GerardoMunck)
1
2
968
Oh look, a good enough answer to an important question.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Try viewing anyway · View on X
277
I find it weird how much digital ink has been spilled on the (minor) TWFE negative weight issue. When the *obvious* problem with the DiD literature is that people barely ever have enough pretreatment data to be able to meaningfully reject the parallel trend assumption.
Journal of Corporate Finance (@JCorpFin) profile pictureJournal of Corporate Finance@JCorpFin30 Mar 2024
Wait, is that FIVE DiD estimators in one graph?😍😍😍
Image from Journal of Corporate Finance (@JCorpFin)
2
1
20
5,850
If I were cynical, I'd argue that the negative weight issue has been so readily embraced by the profession precisely because it never posed an existential threat to the current practice of applied econometrics.
523
Yes, in industry, you do stupid things like creating PowerPoint slides, as opposed to academia, where you do important things like creating Beamer slides.
Martin Schmalz🧘 (@OxfordFrom) profile pictureMartin Schmalz🧘
@OxfordFrom12 Mar 2024
An alternative outcome is you might become motivated to stay in academia, e.g. when you realize you can achieve more important things by creating ideas than by creating PowerPoint slides.
2
24
3,406
It's supposed to show how great ChatGPT is, but I think it mostly shows how terrible peer review is.
Ethan Mollick (@emollick) profile pictureEthan Mollick
@emollick19 Mar 2023
Not sure how to feel about this as an academic: I put one of my old papers into GPT-4 (broken into into 2 parts) and asked for a harsh but fair peer review from a economic sociologist. It created a completely reasonable peer review that hit many of the points my reviewers raised
Image from Ethan Mollick (@emollick)
Image from Ethan Mollick (@emollick)
1
2
912
All of these comments are incredibly broad, superficial and unspecific. "Correlation is not causality." "How can we be sure it generalizes to other samples?" "XYZ needs more discussion, maybe a model." "XYZ could be further developed." "Should engage more with the literature."
1
310
I agree it's a completely reasonable report. In fact, I've seen much worse. But that's kind of the problem. Taking peer review seriously would require engaging with papers in a way that's not done, and frankly not doable for researchers given how academia currently works.
1
2
868
Load more