26 ms·
I often think the same, in fact in my todo list is (in the background) think of more ways to reduce the bureaucracy I face on a daily basis, which takes many fo
by sideshowb 3y ago
I often think the same, in fact in my todo list is (in the background) think of more ways to reduce the bureaucracy I face on a daily basis, which takes many forms - from arguing with reviewer #2 over whether or not my finding is notable, to trying to convince a panel that my idea is worth funding.
From a system design perspective, alas resources are limited and have to be allocated somehow, and in the absence of any metrics at all as you suggest, it would ultimately come back to who can tell the better story about their work. This is still at best only weakly correlated with the actual quality of the work.
And so we run up against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Pournelle's_iron_law_of_bureaucracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Pournelle's_ir...
The situation could definitely be better than the current one, but alas I don't have any magic solution.
- godelski 3y agoExactly. But I think if we at least recognized that metrics are guides rather than targets we could get reviewer 2 to stop wasting everyone's time or get an AC to tell them to shut up. It wastes a lot of tax payers money. Similarly I think we need to recognize academic funding as that of long term investments. You can be highly risky and should be. In reality our total investment into this sector is very low, we aren't even investing a penny from our dollar. And I could go on about the scam of "peer reviewer" which just seems like a way to extract government money, using another players workforce, and providing at best a trivial amount of utility