Here is an interesting article although all the points are not new. It’s hard to beat the market, but there’s always a new product that tries anyway
Yep -- I went to Rochester and saw the academic snootiness first hand. I took my stat in (pure, sacrosanct) political science. Many classes were in econ. ("Ew! They use numbers!") The *worst* was where the numbers had dollar signs -- finance. I didn't get it then, I *surely* don't get it now. But it is surely there. (And at too many schools since.) And yeah, this was thirty years ago, and "data-mining" was a thing then. "...Interesting article although all the points are not new." But whether a lie or ignorance? I'd go a third route: apathy. They just want to publish. They are self-branding whores, who do not care a whit about whether their argument will fly *forever* -- they just want it to fly long enough to get a cite. I've met 'em firsthand, and *science* is a process *unknown* to them. As a general rule? The better the school, the deeper the department will go in checking out the research, the better the scholar.
It's a known thing. Here is a quote from yours truly in the recent thread on VIX: That's the issue with most structured products, ETFs and QIS. Unless the product issuer get paid based on forward looking results (e.g. some sort of profit sharing agreement) or they are somehow forced to invest side by side with the buyers, their incentive is to tweak the results towards better sellability. As a result, some of the strategies are pathetically back-fit.
I had a similar experience. I basically lost a lot of respect for academic researchers when I worked on my 2nd research project. Sure it got accepted by some conference and published in the proceedings, but my work was intentionally simplified before publication. Why intentionally take an idea that would produce better results and simplify it in to something that would produce inferior results? This didn't make sense to me. Basically what I was told was to simplify the method as much as possible so that it would still be interesting to submit to conferences. Save all of the extra bits for as many follow up papers as possible -- each subsequent paper would include just enough additional work to be accepted by the academic community, but don't "waste" ideas. The gist was that if you have an idea for a research project, get as many publications out of it as possible (no matter how trivial each incremental "research paper" is) rather than write a paper encompassing the totality of the concept. Academia is a game and publications, conference proceedings, panels, citations, etc are the points. Their incentive is not to produce the best work they're capable of producing. It is to collect as many points as possible.