3 ms·

I think funding lotteries are rarely proposed as straightforward lotteries, there is usually still an evaluation step that filters some 50% of proposals. It’s b

I think funding lotteries are rarely proposed as straightforward lotteries, there is usually still an evaluation step that filters some 50% of proposals. It’s based on the observation that there is usually consensus about what is a reasonable grant proposal, and very little consensus about what is a great grant proposal.

fiprofessor 4y ago
Yes, I agree that it's the fine distinctions at the upper end that are hard to make. But if we're going to eliminate 50% of the proposals, is that really going to reduce the amount of time people spend on them? It might reduce reviewer time (which would certainly be welcome!), but I'm not so sure it reduces the submitter's time. It comes down to whether the large amount of time spent is from people polishing and re-submitting stuff that's good but not "great", or whether it comes from the initial stages of getting something to that good quality to start. In my experience, it's the latter. And if that's typical, then I don't see how the lottery helps.
- lmm 4y ago
  > But if we're going to eliminate 50% of the proposals, is that really going to reduce the amount of time people spend on them? It should do - if you're only aiming for the top 50% of proposals rather than aiming to be the best, then you can submit a proposal that's "good enough" rather than putting in a lot of time squeezing out the final few percent of marginal improvement.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    If it’s a lottery you don’t need to make a hard cut off of 50%. You just pass all proposals that meet the criteria. That means you only have to design the proposal so it meets those criteria and any extra work on it is useless since it will be ignored and just get thrown in the same pile to be randomly chosen.
HardlyCurious 4y ago
What happens when, and I know this will be rare, our ideas of reasonable are wrong? Seems like that ends up being a dead end where the research needed to correct our misunderstanding can't get funded.

fiprofessor 4y ago

Yes, I agree that it's the fine distinctions at the upper end that are hard to make. But if we're going to eliminate 50% of the proposals, is that really going to reduce the amount of time people spend on them? It might reduce reviewer time (which would certainly be welcome!), but I'm not so sure it reduces the submitter's time. It comes down to whether the large amount of time spent is from people polishing and re-submitting stuff that's good but not "great", or whether it comes from the initial stages of getting something to that good quality to start. In my experience, it's the latter. And if that's typical, then I don't see how the lottery helps.

lmm 4y ago
> But if we're going to eliminate 50% of the proposals, is that really going to reduce the amount of time people spend on them? It should do - if you're only aiming for the top 50% of proposals rather than aiming to be the best, then you can submit a proposal that's "good enough" rather than putting in a lot of time squeezing out the final few percent of marginal improvement.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  If it’s a lottery you don’t need to make a hard cut off of 50%. You just pass all proposals that meet the criteria. That means you only have to design the proposal so it meets those criteria and any extra work on it is useless since it will be ignored and just get thrown in the same pile to be randomly chosen.

HardlyCurious 4y ago

What happens when, and I know this will be rare, our ideas of reasonable are wrong? Seems like that ends up being a dead end where the research needed to correct our misunderstanding can't get funded.