4 ms·

This article points out yet ANOTHER way in which modern academia is rendering itself obsolete. Let academia die the miserable death it deserves. Let us instead

This article points out yet ANOTHER way in which modern academia is rendering itself obsolete. Let academia die the miserable death it deserves. Let us instead focus our efforts on building its replacements rather than participate in this research funding gangbang of society. Because, make no mistake, we are all paying for this garbage. For replacements: 1. We need systems meant to EDUCATE goddamnit. (e.g. Khan Academy) 2. We need systems focused entirely on producing PUBLIC and cutting edge research where resources are assigned on merit. (Don't yet know what these research systems look like.)

nexuist 5y ago
> where resources are assigned on merit No Child Left Behind was supposed to implement this; the problem that quickly became obvious is that schools that were already doing well got more money because their students had higher scores and schools that were struggling actually lost funding because their scores were garbage. This contributed to the gap widening instead of closing. It's difficult to figure out how to develop a system where resources are allocated based on objective potential rather than historical metrics.
- zomglings 5y ago
  I did not know that about No Child Left Behind. If you have some links, would really appreciate them. I will look myself, as well. Sounds like a great bit of history to learn from. I do believe that academics have come up with the right approach to determine the value of research - anonymized peer review. The problem is, there are always signals that leak through that veil of anonymity that help you determine who the authors and even the reviewers actually are.
  - nexuist 5y ago
    https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 > Perhaps the most adverse unintended consequence of NCLB is that it creates incentives for schools to rid themselves of students who are not doing well, producing higher scores at the expense of vulnerable students' education. Studies have found that sanctioning schools based on average student scores leads schools to retain students in grade so that grade-level scores will look better (although these students ultimately do less well and drop out at higher rates), exclude low-scoring students from admissions and encourage such students to transfer or drop out. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-child-left-behind-what-worked-what-didnt https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-chil... > Ahn found a very different story among schools where lots of students were struggling. For these, often poorer schools, the law was like quicksand. Donna Brown is director of federal program monitoring and support for North Carolina's public schools, and she saw the quicksand firsthand. > "When I came to the department in 2004," Brown remembers, "there were nine schools in the state that were identified for some level of improvement sanction. And, by 2008-9, there were 521."
- dilawar 5y ago
  Interesting. My opinion is to fund proportional to the ratio in change of some objective function. For example, an 2x improvement in text scores get a school x thousands. At least a significant chunk of money will motovate the bottom line to improve.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Topolomancer 5y ago
Author here; thanks for this interesting take! What makes you arrive at the conclusion that the research funding is garbage? I am seeing this more as a problem in terms of providing hires with the wrong incentives. The replacements you mention fall exactly into that category: depending on where you are working, your teaching/outreach/educational aspects might actually count against you when it comes to advancing your career in academia. That is certainly a problem. The second point I don't entirely get---the grants I applied for all demand public research, for instance open-access publications, open source software etc. (European perspective, YMMV)
- zomglings 5y ago
  My biggest problems with university research and its funding (speaking as an academic failure): 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) The French Academy of Sciences used to run a mathematical grand prix (in the 18th and 19th centuries... maybe not anymore?) where they would put out a call for essays about a particular problem (e.g. the three body problem) and award a substantial prize to the winning essay. I like that kind of setup more, and I think there could be room for a parallel funding system where private companies or groups of interested individuals offer funding for targeted research using this kind of grand prix methodology. I was not criticizing academic research for not happening in the public, was merely stating that that should also be a property of the new system. Also, the same institutions should not be responsible both for education and for research. The objectives are clearly not aligned.
  - Topolomancer 5y ago
    Thanks for outlining these positions! > 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. This is indeed something I am experiencing across the board. There are few 'blue-skies research programmes.' The Swiss National Science Foundation had one a few years back and I was over the moon to get a grant there...because I could not really guarantee success. I am still somewhat struggling when writing a proposal: on the one hand, I want to show that I considered all the angles that can be considered; on the other hand, it's research, so I probably did not foresee all the problems that might arise. Getting this balance 'just right' is a knack, it seems. > 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. I never experienced this so far, but I can definitely see that 'networks help.' When you are in the in-group, everything is a little bit easier. > 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) OK, that one hit close too home! I just had exactly this discussion with someone from our own admin team. They are doing an excellent job, but they are getting quite miffed by the overheads claimed from the grant admin people (a different division). The numbers are even bigger outside Europe, or so I am told... I am definitely with you in that the system needs improving. At this point, I am still somewhat optimistic that I can at least try to enact some changes by playing the game according to my own rules, but I am not sure whether reality is going to catch up with me at some point, overriding my 'idealistic naïveté generation field.'

nexuist 5y ago

> where resources are assigned on merit No Child Left Behind was supposed to implement this; the problem that quickly became obvious is that schools that were already doing well got more money because their students had higher scores and schools that were struggling actually lost funding because their scores were garbage. This contributed to the gap widening instead of closing. It's difficult to figure out how to develop a system where resources are allocated based on objective potential rather than historical metrics.

zomglings 5y ago
I did not know that about No Child Left Behind. If you have some links, would really appreciate them. I will look myself, as well. Sounds like a great bit of history to learn from. I do believe that academics have come up with the right approach to determine the value of research - anonymized peer review. The problem is, there are always signals that leak through that veil of anonymity that help you determine who the authors and even the reviewers actually are.
- nexuist 5y ago
  https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/blog/873 > Perhaps the most adverse unintended consequence of NCLB is that it creates incentives for schools to rid themselves of students who are not doing well, producing higher scores at the expense of vulnerable students' education. Studies have found that sanctioning schools based on average student scores leads schools to retain students in grade so that grade-level scores will look better (although these students ultimately do less well and drop out at higher rates), exclude low-scoring students from admissions and encourage such students to transfer or drop out. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-child-left-behind-what-worked-what-didnt https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/27/443110755/no-chil... > Ahn found a very different story among schools where lots of students were struggling. For these, often poorer schools, the law was like quicksand. Donna Brown is director of federal program monitoring and support for North Carolina's public schools, and she saw the quicksand firsthand. > "When I came to the department in 2004," Brown remembers, "there were nine schools in the state that were identified for some level of improvement sanction. And, by 2008-9, there were 521."
dilawar 5y ago
Interesting. My opinion is to fund proportional to the ratio in change of some objective function. For example, an 2x improvement in text scores get a school x thousands. At least a significant chunk of money will motovate the bottom line to improve.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Topolomancer 5y ago

Author here; thanks for this interesting take! What makes you arrive at the conclusion that the research funding is garbage? I am seeing this more as a problem in terms of providing hires with the wrong incentives. The replacements you mention fall exactly into that category: depending on where you are working, your teaching/outreach/educational aspects might actually count against you when it comes to advancing your career in academia. That is certainly a problem. The second point I don't entirely get---the grants I applied for all demand public research, for instance open-access publications, open source software etc. (European perspective, YMMV)

zomglings 5y ago
My biggest problems with university research and its funding (speaking as an academic failure): 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) The French Academy of Sciences used to run a mathematical grand prix (in the 18th and 19th centuries... maybe not anymore?) where they would put out a call for essays about a particular problem (e.g. the three body problem) and award a substantial prize to the winning essay. I like that kind of setup more, and I think there could be room for a parallel funding system where private companies or groups of interested individuals offer funding for targeted research using this kind of grand prix methodology. I was not criticizing academic research for not happening in the public, was merely stating that that should also be a property of the new system. Also, the same institutions should not be responsible both for education and for research. The objectives are clearly not aligned.
- Topolomancer 5y ago
  Thanks for outlining these positions! > 1. The grant system overly rewards proposals that grant givers can understand to have a high chance of success. This creates an echo chamber of what kind of research gets funded. This is indeed something I am experiencing across the board. There are few 'blue-skies research programmes.' The Swiss National Science Foundation had one a few years back and I was over the moon to get a grant there...because I could not really guarantee success. I am still somewhat struggling when writing a proposal: on the one hand, I want to show that I considered all the angles that can be considered; on the other hand, it's research, so I probably did not foresee all the problems that might arise. Getting this balance 'just right' is a knack, it seems. > 2. The acceptance of mafias based on mutual back-scratching. The dynamics of funding into these mafias. I never experienced this so far, but I can definitely see that 'networks help.' When you are in the in-group, everything is a little bit easier. > 3. The cut of research funding claimed by universities as operational costs. (How much of your grant money goes to your university as overhead?) OK, that one hit close too home! I just had exactly this discussion with someone from our own admin team. They are doing an excellent job, but they are getting quite miffed by the overheads claimed from the grant admin people (a different division). The numbers are even bigger outside Europe, or so I am told... I am definitely with you in that the system needs improving. At this point, I am still somewhat optimistic that I can at least try to enact some changes by playing the game according to my own rules, but I am not sure whether reality is going to catch up with me at some point, overriding my 'idealistic naïveté generation field.'