The Economics Job Market Rumors forum, commonly known as EJMR Finance, is an anonymous online message board started in 2006 for discussions related to the academic economics job market. The forum allows users to post rumors, gossip, news, and opinions about economics departments, professors, journals, and the hiring process.
EJMR has become both popular and controversial within the economics academia community. On the one hand, it provides a platform for sharing information and experiences about the notoriously opaque and competitive economics job market. Users offer advice, data points, and emotional support for navigating the stressful process as a candidate.
On the other hand, EJMR has been criticized for enabling unprofessional, unethical speech and harassment, often targeting women and minority groups within economics. The anonymity affords users the ability to make offensive or inflammatory remarks without accountability. There are many documented instances of racist, sexist, and uncollegial comments on EJMR that have raised concerns about the site’s impact on the field.
The unfiltered nature of EJMR elicits strong opinions both for and against its existence. Proponents argue it serves a valuable function in democratizing information and revealing the true inner workings of academia. Critics say it propagates toxic discourse and exerts disproportionate influence over careers. There are also debates around anonymity, free speech, and creating a more inclusive culture within economics.
EJMR remains a polarizing subject within the economics community. Understanding its origins, impact, and the ongoing debate around its merits and harms provides insight into larger issues facing the field today.
History and Origins
The Economics Job Market Rumors forum, commonly referred to as EJMR, first launched in 2006. It was started by anonymous users on the economicsjobmarket.org website as an informal place for gossip and discussion related to the economics academic job market.
The forum grew out of frustrations with the existing Economics Job Market Wiki site, which was seen as too strict and moderated. EJMR emerged as an alternative where people felt they could speak more freely and anonymously about sensitive topics like salaries, job candidates, departments, and rumors.
In the early days, EJMR operated without any centralized organization or moderation. The minimal oversight allowed candid conversations but also enabled personal attacks, unverified claims, and other controversial content. However, the forum quickly became popular among economics graduate students and faculty as a behind-the-scenes look into the job market.
While EJMR has evolved over the years, its origins as an anonymous rumor mill with minimal moderation continue to shape its format and culture. The lack of oversight allows for open expression but has also led to ongoing issues around unprofessional and unethical content. The history helps explain both the appeal and the many criticisms of EJMR within academia.
Content and Format
EJMR features discussion forums and a wiki as its main content. The discussion forums contain threads started by users on various topics related to economics, finance, and the academic job market. Threads often involve debates, questions, advice-seeking, and commentary on news and research.
The wiki component includes guides, definitions, acronyms, school rankings, advice pages, and other informational content. It serves as a reference and knowledge base contributed to by the community.
Other features include user profiles, private messaging, notifications, search, and top/recent/unread content filters. The site has a basic text-focused design with minimal visual elements. Overall the format focuses on text discussions and information sharing rather than social networking or multimedia.
Userbase
EJMR has a large and diverse userbase that includes academics, industry professionals, students, and others interested in economics and finance.
Many tenure-track and tenured professors in economics, finance, and related fields actively participate on the forum. They use it to discuss research, share opinions on journals and conferences, and get insight on the academic job market. Some senior academics even admit to consulting EJMR to get a sense of junior scholars in their field.
The forum also attracts industry professionals, including economists and quantitative analysts at banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions. They participate to keep up with academic research and debates relevant to their work. Some even find EJMR useful for recruiting and evaluating job candidates coming out of PhD programs.
A sizable portion of the EJMR community consists of PhD students and candidates on the academic job market. They turn to the forum to seek advice on managing grad school, preparing for qualifications like the field exams, and navigating the stressful process of applying for faculty positions. Many find it reassuring to connect with others going through similar struggles.
In summary, EJMR has become a popular online destination for various stakeholders in economics and finance education and research. Its unfiltered conversations offer an inside look at the culture and realities of these fields.
Controversies
EJMR has been embroiled in controversy due to allegations that its anonymous forums enable the spread of unverified rumors, as well as sexist, racist, and otherwise inappropriate content. Critics argue the site provides cover for users to attack and harass others without accountability.
Specific controversies include:
Sexist attitudes and misogynistic content, including offensive remarks about female academics and discussions of their physical appearance rather than academic merits. There are concerns this creates a hostile climate for women in economics.
Racist and prejudiced comments, including ethnic slurs and stereotyping of minority scholars and students. Critics say this perpetuates discrimination.
Unverified and potentially damaging rumors being spread about academics, including accusations of inappropriate relationships with students and plagiarism. With no evidence required, reputations can be unfairly tarnished.
Harassment and bullying of students and junior academics, enabled by the anonymous forums. There are concerns vulnerable individuals can be targeted without recourse.
Overall lack of civility and professionalism, with critics arguing the site’s tone and content reflects poorly on the economics profession.
EJMR’s owners counter that anonymity facilitates free speech and that objectionable content gets removed when reported. But many believe stronger moderation and accountability measures are needed to address these controversies. The site’s impact on academia and economics remains hotly debated.
Criticisms and Defenses
The Economics Job Market Rumors forum, known as EJMR, has generated significant controversy and debate within academia. Critics argue the site promotes unprofessional and unethical behavior, while defenders claim it provides important transparency.
Arguments Against EJMR
Critics say the anonymous nature of EJMR encourages abusive speech, harassment, discrimination, and false rumors. Offensive language and personal attacks are common.
The site is seen as hostile toward women, minorities, and foreign-born scholars. Critics argue it amplifies implicit biases.
EJMR is accused of violating privacy and causing real-world harm via doxxing, reputation damage, and unfair evaluations.
The prevalence of rumors, speculation, and unverified claims on EJMR is seen as antithetical to principles of academic rigor and integrity.
Some say EJMR’s culture rewards toxic, aggressive behavior and devalues civility and ethics. It promotes an unhealthy academic climate.
Arguments For EJMR
Supporters argue EJMR provides valuable transparency about hiring practices, salaries, department politics, and advisor/committee relationships.
Anonymity allows candid discussion and critique without fear of professional repercussions, supporters claim.
Defenders say letting off steam anonymously on EJMR is better than bottling up frustrations. It provides an outlet.
Some argue that unfiltered conversations on EJMR counteract systemic biases by exposing them. Moderation could hide these issues.
While acknowledging issues, defenders caution against overstating EJMR’s real-world impact and question whether censorship is appropriate.
Proposed Solutions
Many have called for reforms and improvements to EJMR in light of the controversies surrounding the site. Some proposed solutions include:
Improving moderation: EJMR has been criticized for lax moderation that allows harmful content to remain posted. Many have suggested the site should adopt stricter moderation policies and be quicker to remove offensive, unprofessional, or unethical content. This could help improve the overall tone and usefulness of discussions.
Increasing accountability: Currently EJMR users are anonymous, which some argue enables bad behavior without consequences. Requiring real names or verified accounts could increase accountability and discourage inappropriate posts, although it may limit participation.
Promoting diversity and inclusion: EJMR has developed a reputation as unwelcoming to women and minorities. Improving moderation and civility expectations could help, but explicitly promoting diversity and inclusion may further improve the community. For example, highlighting contributions from underrepresented groups.
Enabling reputation systems: Allowing site users to develop reputations based on their contributions could help identify valuable members versus problematic ones. Mechanisms like ratings, badges, and reputation levels could incentivize productive behaviors.
Banning unethical content: EJMR should be clear that unethical posts like sabotaging job candidates are prohibited. Violations should lead to bans. This policy should be strongly enforced.
Adding oversight mechanisms: Some suggest adding oversight from outside academics and ethicists to audit content and site policies. This independent perspective could identify areas for improvement.
Many argue these changes could help EJMR become a more constructive platform for academic discourse and move beyond its controversial history. However, reforms may be challenging given the site’s decentralized and anonymous nature.
Alternatives
While EJMR has long been a dominant forum for online academic discussions in finance, economics, and related fields, there are some emerging alternatives that offer different formats and cultures.
Other Sites for Academic Discussions
Several newer sites aim to foster more constructive academic conversations and move away from some of EJMR’s more controversial elements. These include:
Academia Stack Exchange – This Q&A site uses the popular Stack Exchange format to enable academics to ask and answer questions on research, teaching, and academic culture. Moderation policies promote civil discourse.
Academic Inquiries – A recently launched discussion forum that emphasizes diversity and prohibits personal attacks or discrimination. Threads cover research, careers, academia, and more.
Scholar Forum – An actively-moderated forum for civil discussions about research and academia. Features include user reputation, badges, and the ability to upvote constructive contributions.
The Grad Cafe Forums – Long-running forums with a range of academic discussion threads. While less focused on economics and finance, it attracts a subset of former EJMR users seeking different norms.
Discourse-based department forums – Some leading departments have set up Discourse sites for internal academic discussions. These are closed communities but point to a shift towards more constructive forums.
While none have yet matched EJMR’s reach, these alternatives demonstrate there are platforms better optimized for supportive academic discourse and knowledge sharing. Those disturbed by EJMR’s culture may wish to participate in these communities instead.
The Future of EJMR
EJMR’s future remains uncertain. Many critics have called for the site to be shut down due to its toxic culture, but others defend it as an outlet for free speech in academia.
There are valid arguments on both sides. Proponents believe EJMR provides transparency and that shutting it down would simply drive these conversations underground. Critics counter that the site enables bullying and discrimination that far outweighs any benefits.
It’s possible that public and legal pressure could eventually lead EJMR to close voluntarily. However, the site owners have resisted past calls to shut it down. Banning it may also be difficult given protections for online speech.
More likely, the site will only change if its user base pushes for reforms from within. Some users already advocate for more civility and less personal attacks. Wider adoption of these norms could make EJMR less hostile, though still controversial.
Ultimately, EJMR’s fate depends on how the economics and social science communities choose to engage with it. If it remains a platform for unfiltered criticism, the site may well continue. But if users demand higher standards, EJMR could still evolve into something more constructive.