Can I add into the mix of things you weren't discussing 'moment choosing'. That is, tackling a problem at the moment when it goes from being impossible to merely difficult. Been really important for me, entirely through luck of course rather than design.
-
This kind of thing bugs the hell out of me, to put it mildly: https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1103503007126179840 …. Even if you have a vastly better model, not clear it'll matter.
(Oops, TBC, by "bugs the hell out of me" I certainly don't mean the thing you sent Cameron! Belatedly realize that is unclear 
)
-
-
The question "How strong is your growth (and death) model for better (or worse) institutions seems like a fundamental institutional question, to me." The academic model is terrible, and there is absolutely _zero_ chance it will be changed internally, IMO (sorry, Cameron).
-
Why can't two grad students with a good idea start a University in their garage? Or a grant agency? If their idea is genuinely better than existing models, they should grow to replace Harvard (or the NIH) in 10 years. But there is no growth model like this.
-
It's why the system is so incredibly stagnant. I don't believe that stagnation is an accident: I think it's effectively a product of design; it's what universities effectively collectively want. The only chance of a change is from outside.
-
Related: if things like Xerox PARC in the 1970s are so great - & I believe they were - then why didn't the NSF acquire them? It would have fit the NSF's supposed mission, and would have provided a growth model for a better way of doing things.
-
The obvious answer is that the NSF effectively - not necessarily as the result of any individual choice or error - isn't really serious about its supposed mission. It's really about something else.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.