Nice summary. OTOH, underlying problem is that the shape of good scientific work (high risk, long-term orientation) doesn’t fit the shape of individual careers in any currently plausible institutional framework. No full near-term solution is possible. https://twitter.com/jayvanbavel/status/998307085791064064 …
-
-
Yes. Very fine article, and the university system (including academic science) seems near the cusp of collapse on multiple fronts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Brilliant scientist recognizes another brilliant scientist" probably has higher true positive performance than any other metric, but a) it doesn't scale at all b) it's incredibly punitive to people who are not in the 'right' social networks
-
It can also go horribly wrong if the people that end up in the selection committees turn it into a system of patronage for their own protege (see a huge percentage of Italian academia, with the so called 'Baroni': https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/09/25/universita-concorsi-truccati-se-fai-ricorso-ti-giochi-la-carriera-la-logica-di-scambio-dei-professori-indagati/3876949/ …).
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"Objectivity" only works if the model generating the metrics is *objectively* correct. In these domains, it rarely is. More specifically, I argued that ignoring trust and replacing intuition with metrics is a key failure point:https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/06/09/goodharts-law-and-why-measurement-is-hard/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interesting side effect of trying to be objectively fair. Goodhart’s law basically seems impossible to beat
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.