3 ms·

>If an applicant can't be bothered to go through the initial steps to get onto the short list for consideration, why should they think that's a good candidate t

>If an applicant can't be bothered to go through the initial steps to get onto the short list for consideration, why should they think that's a good candidate to be throwing money at, regardless of their resume? That's a fair question. I'd like to ask a question in response: if an applicant has worked under/helped/seen those who could be bothered the jump through the hoops to get on the short of consideration and then funded, walked away because someone threw money at them to work on financial/trading software (thus enabling and "freed" to pursued related research work in more detail in their spare time), why shouldn't they throw money at such candidate despite considering how far throwing more of the same into neuroimaging research has gotten us thus far? Personally, jumping through arbitrary/superficial hoops is not a game I want to play (plenty of others are good at that, and I wish them all the best, darpa's latest and greatest ways at dealing with signal 2 noise issue is their problem, and anyone should feel free to point that out), I'm having much more fun playing my own game from my fancy apt all the away across the world, while still working with those don't want to waste my time (and mine there's). Luckly for others and folks like me, darpa aren't the only folks interested, and money isn't the only "limited" resource of consideration.

kbenson 10y ago
> I'd like to ask a question in response ... why shouldn't they throw money at such candidate Because they don't see that candidate. Your indication that your email was sufficient implies a few underlying assumptions which may or may not be true: a) They have enough staff to actively monitor this mailbox for submissions, b) there aren't too many useless submissions that make it unlikely the staff will be able to find the useful ones, c) that even if the staff exists, it doesn't require some bureaucratic hurdle to be met so it can be allocated to this use, d) that the staff assigned to monitoring this source is capable of assessing your accomplishments and how they relate to the grant in question. Since there is a grant process, I think it's likely that whatever resources they do have are allocated towards assessing entries that come in through that process. There's probably more than enough work to be done in that department, such that monitoring mailboxes for the odd useful non-conformant applicant is not a priority. Even so, I assume if the stars aligned and someone happened to see the email, and knew the applicant was uniquely qualified or had time to research the person, then it's likely it might be followed up on (depending on how much interest that person had in this particular grant or field). The important thing to consider in this is that none of these scenarios have anything to do with how qualified the applicant is. Taking issue with them not persuing you in this process when I think it's likely your application may have never even seen human eyes seems an odd response to me. The little information I have to go on makes it sound like you did the equivalent of applying for an engineering position at Apple by walking into the nearest Apple store and dropping off your resume. I'd expect about the same level of success with that. Sure, the store manager might pass it on, or know someone who is interested, but really, that's not their job or responsibility.
- cinquemb 10y ago
  >Because they don't see that candidate. >The important thing to consider in this is that none of these scenarios have anything to do with how qualified the applicant is. I know this, which is why I kinda of have no faith in these kinds of initiatives (the kinds Elon is inadvertently/or not parading over) since most of effort involved goes into being seen, the people behind the "process" could care less of after such funds have been allocated as to what becomes of them. I've seen enough people do work behinds the scenes (and how far south/delayed projects go after they leave), actually making things happen for those who do go through the "process" in labs/orgs to not really care too deeply about getting through this hurdle that's ultimately meaningless in the scope of the work. Things are moving forward overall, just a bit slowly than they have to (although I've made more related useful for stuff for others in less time after not working in labs directly anymore). >The little information I have to go on makes it sound like you did the equivalent of applying for an engineering position at Apple by walking into the nearest Apple store and dropping off your resume. I've talked about similar issues before on HN (with others also in similar positions with their work in research <-> industry) in more depth with more links and such, so its not really worth going into here.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Fair enough. You obviously have more experience in this area than I do.

kbenson 10y ago

> I'd like to ask a question in response ... why shouldn't they throw money at such candidate Because they don't see that candidate. Your indication that your email was sufficient implies a few underlying assumptions which may or may not be true: a) They have enough staff to actively monitor this mailbox for submissions, b) there aren't too many useless submissions that make it unlikely the staff will be able to find the useful ones, c) that even if the staff exists, it doesn't require some bureaucratic hurdle to be met so it can be allocated to this use, d) that the staff assigned to monitoring this source is capable of assessing your accomplishments and how they relate to the grant in question. Since there is a grant process, I think it's likely that whatever resources they do have are allocated towards assessing entries that come in through that process. There's probably more than enough work to be done in that department, such that monitoring mailboxes for the odd useful non-conformant applicant is not a priority. Even so, I assume if the stars aligned and someone happened to see the email, and knew the applicant was uniquely qualified or had time to research the person, then it's likely it might be followed up on (depending on how much interest that person had in this particular grant or field). The important thing to consider in this is that none of these scenarios have anything to do with how qualified the applicant is. Taking issue with them not persuing you in this process when I think it's likely your application may have never even seen human eyes seems an odd response to me. The little information I have to go on makes it sound like you did the equivalent of applying for an engineering position at Apple by walking into the nearest Apple store and dropping off your resume. I'd expect about the same level of success with that. Sure, the store manager might pass it on, or know someone who is interested, but really, that's not their job or responsibility.

cinquemb 10y ago
>Because they don't see that candidate. >The important thing to consider in this is that none of these scenarios have anything to do with how qualified the applicant is. I know this, which is why I kinda of have no faith in these kinds of initiatives (the kinds Elon is inadvertently/or not parading over) since most of effort involved goes into being seen, the people behind the "process" could care less of after such funds have been allocated as to what becomes of them. I've seen enough people do work behinds the scenes (and how far south/delayed projects go after they leave), actually making things happen for those who do go through the "process" in labs/orgs to not really care too deeply about getting through this hurdle that's ultimately meaningless in the scope of the work. Things are moving forward overall, just a bit slowly than they have to (although I've made more related useful for stuff for others in less time after not working in labs directly anymore). >The little information I have to go on makes it sound like you did the equivalent of applying for an engineering position at Apple by walking into the nearest Apple store and dropping off your resume. I've talked about similar issues before on HN (with others also in similar positions with their work in research <-> industry) in more depth with more links and such, so its not really worth going into here.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Fair enough. You obviously have more experience in this area than I do.