Economists are evaluated on how intelligent they sound, not on a scientific measure of their knowledge of reality
For all the best teachers pride themselves on having a large number of pupils and think themselves worthy of a bigger audience.
Oxford, the paradise of dead philosophies.
Too rigid specialization is almost as bad for a historian's mind, and for his ultimate reputation, as too early an indulgence in broad generalization and synthesis.
In an ideal world, you might imagine that scientific papers were only cited by academics on the basis of their content. This might be true. But lots of other stuff can have an influence.
It is common, and encouraged by many journals, for research to be judged by the impact factor of the journal that publishes it. But as a journal's score is an average, it says little about the quality of any individual piece of research.
Her reputation for reading a great deal hung about her like the cloudy envelope of a goddess in an epic.
I'm not one of those professors whose office is encased floor-to-ceiling with books. By the way, I think academics do this to intimidate their visitors.
There is, however, another purpose to which academies contribute. When they consist of a limited number of persons, eminent for their knowledge, it becomes an object of ambition to be admitted on their list.
Bernanke has cultivated this idea that he is a brilliant scholar of The Great Depression, but that’s not true at all.
