4 ms·
It's pretty outdated. In research schools you need to win funding or die nowadays. And while publications do help you, say in getting hired and promotions, you
by unishark 6y ago
It's pretty outdated. In research schools you need to win funding or die nowadays.
And while publications do help you, say in getting hired and promotions, your publications are dug into pretty deeply. They don't want to be tricked into hiring someone useless who can crank out fluff but can't win a grant.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- derbOac 6y agoThis is completely true -- something that many outside of academics don't understand -- but I'm not sure it really makes the situation any better. In a lot of ways it just kicks the problems down the road. By whatever metric you use, it's really about the checklist rather than substance. And the checklists are based on stereotypes, and get gamed.
- unishark 6y ago> This is completely true -- something that many outside of academics don't understand -- but I'm not sure it really makes the situation any better. Indeed in some ways it's worse. When the money is insufficient, the established researchers get it first. Then everyone else has to increasingly work for established researchers as postdocs and similar positions... helping to yet further boost the advantage of the established researchers. It went from senior researchers versus junior researchers, to senior researchers with a herd of postdocs working for them, versus junior researchers. At least if it was based on publications, everyone gets co-authorship and in fact the first author counts most. So the postdoc and the PI gain the same new items on their CV's for their collaboration. For grants, credit goes entirely to the PI.