 |
|
|
|
 | |||
 |
EEE members:
Attached is the latest NBER Reporter with an article about research by EEE members. I apologize for not being able to mention all of your fine working papers; it is over their maximum length already. They cut out an "acknowledgement" footnote in which I said I'm grateful for suggestions from Lucas Davis, Meredith Fowlie, and Mark Jacobsen.
If you have a paper you would like to present at the EEE or joint EEE/PR meeting April 8-9 at Stanford, please upload a copy here http://www.nber.org/confsubmit/backend/cfp?id=EEEs11. Submissions must be received by January 15, 2011. Please indicate if your submission is intended for the joint EEE/PE session on Friday afternoon or for the Saturday EEE session.
The 2011 Summer Institute will be on Friday and SATURDAY, July 29-30, organized by Catherine Wolfram and Lucas Davis, with submissions due march 15.
A couple months ago, I sent around a questionnaire (twice) and got 25 replies. A copy of the questions are below. I'll finish this email with a summary of results. Of the 25, there were 17 who had attended the SI, and 8 who didn't. Of those who missed, none said it was because of meeting on Thurs-Fri instead of Mon-Tues. Three said it was too crowded, five said not. In question 3, about size of the audience, 12 said "just right", three said the SI could be larger, five said it is too crowded. In response to the question how to cut the size of the audience, several said we could cut a few of the many grad students.
In question 4 about the time for each presentation, four said too short, eight said just right, one said more for presentation, and three said more for discussion and less for presentation. In question 5 about the eggtimer, 21 said yes they like it, two said not (and two did not answer). Many said it was their favorite part. A couple said to lengthen each from 5 minutes to 7 or ten minutes.
In question 6 about whether to add any paper presentations to the SI or spring, or fall meeting, I will report for each line how many said that was their first choice or second choice. For the first line, "Split sessions", five said that was best, two said second choice. In other words, that option was first or second choice for 7 people. The next line suggests extending the SI to 2.5 days, for which six listed as their first choice, one as second choice (7 people). The third line suggests SI of 3 days, chosen as first choice by two and second choice by one (3 people). Next line suggests raising the spring meeting from one day to 1.5 days, for which 4 said first choice, 4 said second (8 people). Next line says add a fall meeting with seven papers, which was most preferred by 5 and second preference for 2 (7 people). The last line says keep all meetings unchanged length; that was first choice of 3 and second choice of 7 (ten people).
My interpretation of all these results is that I see no overwhelming sentiment for change. Only ten people say that the current number of paper presentations per year is their first or second choice, and so a majority would seem to want more presentations somewhere, we have little agreement about where to add papers. I certainly do not want to thin the quality of the papers, and I'd like the total commitment to be short enough that you come for all of the days of all meetings! So for now, we'll keep just one day in the spring (7 papers) and two days at SI (eleven papers plus the eggtimer). Thanks for your support! Don
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Did you attend the July 2010 EEE Summer Institute (SI)? Yes_____ No _____
2. If No, was the choice influenced by any attribute of the SI, such as:
Being on Thurs-Friday instead of Mon-Tues? Yes ____ No _____
Being too crowded? Yes _____ No ______
Other reason (specify): _____________________________________________________
3. Whether or not you attended, do you think the size of the EEE SI meeting is (check one):
Just Right _____
Too Restrictive (could be larger) _____
Too crowded ____ ; indicate HOW to cut, who not to invite: ____________________
4. Do you think that the amount of time for each presentation is (check one):
Too long ________
Too short ________
More for presentation and less for discussion _______
More for discussion and less for presentation _______
Other (Specify): __________________________________________________________
5. Do you like the Eggtimer Session (a dozen 5-minute presentations): Yes _____ No ______
Recommend changes: _____________________________________________________
6. Past SI had six hours each day plus breaks, so the two days included 11 papers plus Eggtimer. This year we tried split sessions Friday afternoon, to raise the number of papers from 11 to 14 (including three one-hour papers in each of two rooms). Usually we have one spring meeting with seven presentations. Should we have more? Please rank the following options from first choice (1) to sixth choice (6), by placing your numerical rank in each blank:
______ Split Sessions as in 2010, but try for equal size audience in each
______ Only one room, but extend SI to 2.5 days (e.g. Thursday pm thru Saturday)
______ Only one room, but extend SI to 3 days (e.g. Monday thru Wednesday)
______ Keep SI to one room for 2 days, but raise Spring meeting to 1.5 days, 10 papers
______ Keep SI at 11 and Spring at 7 (unchanged) but add a Fall meeting with 7 papers.
______ Keep SI at 11 and Spring at 7 (unchanged, no more papers anywhere).
|
||