Thread by @simardcasanova

There is this belief in economics, I think widespread, that if you’re not in a top institution, it’s because somehow you’re not good enough.

You’re not good enough with math, you’re not good enough with econometrics, with this, or that.

That’s non-sense.

1/n

Rare, or even non-existent, are the people who are skilled in *everything*. It’s normal to not be good at everything.

But for people in non-top institutions, they often interpret this as a proof they are not good enough-period.

2/n

Because here’s the thing, a trend I’ve noticed in the non-top institutions where I navigate since the beginning of my PhD: self-censorship.

I’ve met so many brillant and talented people who have such a low opinion of themselves (academically speaking).

3/n

When I’ve discussed this with them, the answer is invariably the same: « if I were that great, I wouldn’t be in a non-top institution ».

But there’s a logical flaw in the reasoning, probably also made by people at top institutions.

4/n

Maybe top institutions have a higher chance to attract talented people. That’s likely. But it does not mean that all talented people are necessarily in top institutions.

Some sort of fallacy of composition at play here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_o…

5/n

The problem is that talented people at non top institutions are an asset for the field - for any field, actually.

Good ideas can come from everywhere. And any field benefits from having a large flow of good ideas.

6/n

As a PhD in a non-top institution, if tomorrow I have a genius idea, I would probably not even *try* to publish it in a top journal. Or anywhere, btw, because I’m so disappointed by econ academia that I’ve decided to leave the field.

7/n

The reason I wouldn’t even try is because I don’t have the network. I don’t know the editors, I don’t know the right people. And if I publish it in a lower ranked journal, it won’t be noticed.

It’s a race I have no chance to win. Zero. Nada.

Winning it is not playing it.

8/n

It’s so gross that I’ve noticed first hand papers getting rejected in journals because they are too close to papers that PhD students of some high profile researchers are *about to submit*.

Yeah, you read it correctly. And I’m talking of a top journal.

Is this science?

9/n

This thread is half about general observations, half about myself (sorry).

I’ve got prizes during my PhD, people with really long resumes ready to write recommendation letters. I even managed to get fundings! I interpret all of this as a signal of some sort of competence.

10/n

But I feel unheard. My voice can’t reach anyone. No matter what I’m saying.

Because, yeah, I’m not (and will never be) in a top institution.

Even at my own research center, some have said *publicly* « we should hire more promising PhD students ». Thanks for trusting us…

11/n

It’s so bad that literally 15 days after the beginning of my PhD, I’ve been told by someone who should have been much more supportive that I can only « expect a mediocre career ».

Thanks for giving me a chance.

And: hello, self-fulfilling prophecies…

12/n

I know what I’m capable of. I know how hard I’ve worked, despite all the negativity, and the lack of trust. I know my leadership skills. And the rest.

I could definitely help economics, even modestly. I have no expectations for a Nobel (lol). I just want to be useful.

13/n

I won’t be useful. Because, again, I’m so disappointed that I’ve decided to leave.

And how many like me also left, and are now getting paid to use their skills outside academia? Probably a lot.

14/n

And it’s not that I fear competition, or that there are not enough academic jobs. Sure, we wouldn’t mind more. And I can fight.

I just don’t understand why I should fight so hard to, at the end, not being heard because, you know, I’m not from a non-top institution.

15/n

I will sure miss economics, especially now that I’m discovering more and more of the good sides (and marvelous people) of #EconTwitter.

I will undoubtedly have a hard time adjusting. But I’m ready to swallow the pill, and transition. I’ve known so much worse.

16/n

So at the end, economics would probably benefit to give a larger place to its talented people who are not in top-institutions.

But I don’t think it will happen, unfortunately. And that makes me really sad for our science.

17/17

Addendum: thriving in non-top institution probably requires a different set of skills that thriving in top institutions. Tenacity, lateral thinking, initiative, endurance.

Those skills are too often wiped out from our field. And maybe it would be better off with them onboard…

*PhD student

(Don’t write deep Twitter thread at midnight after a long day of work)

@SciTania Si un jour quelqu’un te demande à nouveau à quoi sert Twitter, en plus de lui répondre que tu y as trouvé un emploi, tu pourras aussi lui dire que ça a aidé un jeune chercheur en économie a avoir à nouveau foi en sa discipline !

J’ai commencé ce thread en étant dépité, il a fait littéralement le tour du Twitter science éco, et je n’y ai eu *que* des réponses positives. J’ai découvert un pan entier de ma discipline qui ressemblait pour moi aux contes qu’on raconte aux enfants !