Yes! And, conversely, feeling for when your field is running out of momentum and it’s time to look for something else that may be opening out
-
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 -
-
-
My counter is that they’re deliberately stagnant in quite specific ways and deliberately open in others. Stability (even stagnation) is important to create the safety that underpins creativity/diversity/knowledge making. Challenge lies in managing the tension.
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.