Mirto Mavraki?
DZB (Emory) to Amherst
I think there is a hype around MM. Well connected? yes. But the publication record is pretty average and short, and there are no remarkable results of hers in the field. Decent mathematician, but certainly not at the level of TT at UofT.
I'd say she is about at that level. Papers in JEMS, Crelle, AJM, and 4 or 5 other respectable papers is a good record. She has an NSF grant. Maybe slightly below a median new AP hire at Toronto, its close, and I'm not sure I would say that. In her case 3-4 of the preprints look strong to me (about at the level of her best work), and she's been productive, with 4 preprints which are recent from her time in Basel and 1 which with a bunch of authors which seems less important. Her letters are really quite good.
We'll see if she has the juice to get a 2-body solved there (that seems quite marginal to me). Partner is already TT at a different place.
I think there is a hype around MM. Well connected? yes. But the publication record is pretty average and short, and there are no remarkable results of hers in the field. Decent mathematician, but certainly not at the level of TT at UofT.
If you exclude Jinyoung Park she's the best female candidate (together with Maggie Miller). Also her last preprints with DeMarco and Schmidt look very interesting
I think there is a hype around MM. Well connected? yes. But the publication record is pretty average and short, and there are no remarkable results of hers in the field. Decent mathematician, but certainly not at the level of TT at UofT.
If you exclude Jinyoung Park she's the best female candidate (together with Maggie Miller). Also her last preprints with DeMarco and Schmidt look very interesting
Being the best female candidate does not mean she is qualified for any given position (in the absence of other information). Good god these affirmative action folks are delusional.
Being the best female candidate does not mean she is qualified for any given position (in the absence of other information). Good god these affirmative action folks are delusional.
Since essentially all schools are filling positions in the "affirmative" way, for purposes of answering how person X lands (or is offered) a position at school Y, what matters is X's location on the actual Job Market Value scale, which includes DEI, not the Absolute Research Ability scale which is not used in employment decisions.
Being the best female candidate does not mean she is qualified for any given position (in the absence of other information). Good god these affirmative action folks are delusional.
Since essentially all schools are filling positions in the "affirmative" way, for purposes of answering how person X lands (or is offered) a position at school Y, what matters is X's location on the actual Job Market Value scale, which includes DEI, not the Absolute Research Ability scale which is not used in employment decisions.
“These people deserve the jobs they get because they got those jobs.”
[...]
Since essentially all schools are filling positions in the "affirmative" way, for purposes of answering how person X lands (or is offered) a position at school Y, what matters is X's location on the actual Job Market Value scale, which includes DEI, not the Absolute Research Ability scale which is not used in employment decisions.
“These people deserve the jobs they get because they got those jobs.”
That doesn't follow from what was said. The concept of "does not deserve the job" makes as much sense for the Job Market Value scale as for any other. To illustrate, if some HRM search hires PH and rejects Kate O, you can conclude that huge irregularities were involved, not that whoever was hired by definition deserved the job.
I'd say she is about at that level. Papers in JEMS, Crelle, AJM, and 4 or 5 other respectable papers is a good record. She has an NSF grant. Maybe slightly below a median new AP hire at Toronto, its close, and I'm not sure I would say that. In her case 3-4 of the preprints look strong to me (about at the level of her best work), and she's been productive, with 4 preprints which are recent from her time in Basel and 1 which with a bunch of authors which seems less important. Her letters are really quite good.
We'll see if she has the juice to get a 2-body solved there (that seems quite marginal to me). Partner is already TT at a different place.
To be fair, there are plenty of other below-Duke-profiles out there.
I'd say she is about at that level. Papers in JEMS, Crelle, AJM, and 4 or 5 other respectable papers is a good record. She has an NSF grant. Maybe slightly below a median new AP hire at Toronto, its close, and I'm not sure I would say that. In her case 3-4 of the preprints look strong to me (about at the level of her best work), and she's been productive, with 4 preprints which are recent from her time in Basel and 1 which with a bunch of authors which seems less important. Her letters are really quite good.
We'll see if she has the juice to get a 2-body solved there (that seems quite marginal to me). Partner is already TT at a different place.
To be fair, there are plenty of other below-Duke-profiles out there.
Sure, and some were interviewed by Toronto, as I’d expect. Evaluating candidates is more subtle than an accounting of journal names - why is everyone around here obsessed with this?
I'd say she is about at that level. Papers in JEMS, Crelle, AJM, and 4 or 5 other respectable papers is a good record. She has an NSF grant. Maybe slightly below a median new AP hire at Toronto, its close, and I'm not sure I would say that. In her case 3-4 of the preprints look strong to me (about at the level of her best work), and she's been productive, with 4 preprints which are recent from her time in Basel and 1 which with a bunch of authors which seems less important. Her letters are really quite good.
We'll see if she has the juice to get a 2-body solved there (that seems quite marginal to me). Partner is already TT at a different place.
To be fair, there are plenty of other below-Duke-profiles out there.
Sure, and some were interviewed by Toronto, as I’d expect. Evaluating candidates is more subtle than an accounting of journal names - why is everyone around here obsessed with this?
Because undergrads only understand journal rankings.
[...]
To be fair, there are plenty of other below-Duke-profiles out there.
Sure, and some were interviewed by Toronto, as I’d expect. Evaluating candidates is more subtle than an accounting of journal names - why is everyone around here obsessed with this?
Your screen is so tiny that we decided to disable the captcha and posting feature
Formatting guidelines: Commonmark with no images and html allowed. $ and $$ for LaTeX. Input previewed in last post of thread. For a link to be allowed it must include the http(s) tag and come from the list of allowed domains.