Oddbean

@8599d6ab The root of the issue is the model of academic funding, positions and evaluation. 2 or 3 year grants are ridiculous, particularly if it takes another 2 or 3 years to even get them to begin with. Even 5 year grants are ridiculous. Abolish grants. If an experimentalist faculty position doesn't come with core funding to begin with, it's like a guarantee of wasted time and effort. Just like grants don't need to be big, core funding doesn't need to be big either. Large sums stifle innovation, prevent creativity, foster more of the same at scale rather than new approaches. Large sums in research are like hidden transfers of research funds to companies, i.e., to purchase large equipment or contract out software engineering, instead of clever yet slow development in house. Lean teams with the freedom and security to be able to run for years please. Spread the risk, diversify the portfolio, remain focused on core competencies. If 19 professors don't accomplish much other than reasonably good undergraduate teaching and modest research findings or none at all, and the 20th hits it big enough to pay back for the whole lot of them and beyond: that's a win. Universities are meant to teach in the first place. Patents and discoveries are a plus. Stop the metrics. Not only they've long fallen prey to Goodhart's law, it's also that, fundamentally, the number of publications doesn't matter. And citations of a publication don't matter. What matters is real world impact, which takes time, and can't be measured with convenient yet short-term focused and profoundly misleading tools that the likes of #RELX peddle to academic departments, relying heavily on numbers of publications and citations. #academia