Subject: IFM program
From: Jeffrey_Frankel@harvard.edu
Date: Thu Aug 26 2004 - 12:59:43 EDT
Dear IFM Program Members:
I recently had my annual review of the program with Marty Feldstein. I
am sending this email to remind you how this works.
We evaluate the participation of each member of the program, or more
precisely, each member for whom IFM is his or her primary affiliation.
(I.e., those of you for whom AP or ITI is your primary affiliation are
reviewed by the director of that program.) We focus primarily on three
issues, on which the Bureau keeps tabs:
1) Attendance at Fall and Spring program meetings and Summer Institute.
You get additional credit for organizing a meeting.
2) Yellow jacket working papers
3) NSF grants (or any others) that are run through the Bureau. Marty
frowns severely every time he sees that a member has run an NSF grant
through some other institution -- and he does see it.
Other contributions, such as participation in conferences, special
projects, or other Bureau activities are also noted.
I realize it may seem like meetings and working papers are a favor from the
bureau to us. But it also goes the other way. In particular, the Bureau
wants your working papers. Marty sometimes expresses surprise that most
people don’t submit more. The NBER working paper series is the highest
visibility series there is, and is more visible than almost all journals.
No refereeing, very short lags; what more could one want? We are
self-censoring our submissions, and that is good up to a point. But you
should know that many of us (not quite everyone) are erring on the side of
sending too few.
Of course, you do not have to commit to the NBER being the only working
paper series. Often you will want to do SSRN or your department series
in addition. My own practice is to space them out: I give the NBER
series my best shot, and I often put earlier or later revisions in other
series. But I realize some people like to do it all at once.
The IFM group has one of the worst records in the Bureau as far as grants
are concerned, though I am not sure why. Overhead from NSF grants is an
important source of funds for the NBER. You can get up to $20,000 in
summer salary for one month. If you already receive two months from other
sources, you can still get up to $20,000 from an NSF grant for the third
month. Of course, you also get an RA, research budget, etc. The NBER
is set up to help you get grants. All you need is the project summary,
and 15 pages cobbled together from your latest working paper. People do
it in less than an afternoon. The Bureau’s excellent staff take care of
the rest. The next deadline is January, so consider submitting a proposal
for a grant that would start next summer. Especially you young folks.
The NBER provides gentle carrots and sticks over the long run. Research
Associates are sometimes awarded honoraria for high levels of
participation. Faculty Research Fellows are only appointed for a term;
continuation is not automatic, and eventual promotion to RA is far less so.
Also, senior RAs who do not participate in the Bureau for a long time are
eventually asked whether they’d like to allow their slot to go to someone
who would make more active use of it. (I am not talking about a year or
two that is sometimes lost to interruptions in one’s professional life.)
Feel free to ask questions.
Enjoy what is left of your summer.
JF
