3 ms·

The same approach can be applied to tenure. Set a basic threshold that someone needs to meet, then run a lottery to chose who gets tenure. Would end an amazing

The same approach can be applied to tenure. Set a basic threshold that someone needs to meet, then run a lottery to chose who gets tenure. Would end an amazing amount of unproductive gaming of the system.

bonoboTP 6y ago
This would work if people are roughly equally good above that low bar. But there are vast differences. The current metrics aren't perfect but they do correlate with ability. And as I said, you can't randomize everything, like talk invitations or "followers", collaboration offers, research stay offers at prestigious places, media exposure etc.
- danieltillett 6y ago
  Not very closely based on my personal experience. I am not sure that science needs more of the activities on your list.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    Ultimately, most people are driven by a striving for social status and prestige. This is very general and includes money, power, freedom, intellectual influence, access to interesting people to work with and discuss, being taken seriously by intelligent co-experts, being a valued and respected member of the community, whose insights people look out for etc. This is taboo to say explicitly of course, one must say that it's all internal passion, but people, whether they admit it or not, will have to strive for these things. If they don't, they fall behind. This goes way way deeper than grants. It's not even just human nature, but a fundamental property of life. The same is true in dating. You have to present yourself in the best possible way, and those who do have better success. It's not enough that you and your ideas are good, you have to be able to convince people that you are worth investing in. You can't forbid people to associate, to form cliques, to keep tabs on who is good and who isn't (and the same for departments and universities) etc, to invite each other to work together. A grant that led to a sexy result will be considered money better spent, than something that leads to no presentable conclusions. And beyond the gaming, there are genuine differences in how good a research vision some people have. Top, visionary people vs mediocre incrementalist copycats is a real distinction.

bonoboTP 6y ago

This would work if people are roughly equally good above that low bar. But there are vast differences. The current metrics aren't perfect but they do correlate with ability. And as I said, you can't randomize everything, like talk invitations or "followers", collaboration offers, research stay offers at prestigious places, media exposure etc.

danieltillett 6y ago
Not very closely based on my personal experience. I am not sure that science needs more of the activities on your list.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  Ultimately, most people are driven by a striving for social status and prestige. This is very general and includes money, power, freedom, intellectual influence, access to interesting people to work with and discuss, being taken seriously by intelligent co-experts, being a valued and respected member of the community, whose insights people look out for etc. This is taboo to say explicitly of course, one must say that it's all internal passion, but people, whether they admit it or not, will have to strive for these things. If they don't, they fall behind. This goes way way deeper than grants. It's not even just human nature, but a fundamental property of life. The same is true in dating. You have to present yourself in the best possible way, and those who do have better success. It's not enough that you and your ideas are good, you have to be able to convince people that you are worth investing in. You can't forbid people to associate, to form cliques, to keep tabs on who is good and who isn't (and the same for departments and universities) etc, to invite each other to work together. A grant that led to a sexy result will be considered money better spent, than something that leads to no presentable conclusions. And beyond the gaming, there are genuine differences in how good a research vision some people have. Top, visionary people vs mediocre incrementalist copycats is a real distinction.