11–20 of 361 posts
UPenn is in the news again. Something tells me the fish stinks from the head.
I have no idea how to fix this, but competition needs to be reduced, probably by more guaranteed funding for positions, not just projects, as grants are. This latest military aid package is 2x the entire NIH budget, so surely there is more money for science out there.
Just a reminder Einstien who was the most revolutionary scientist since Newton was unable to secure a teaching position prior to publishing 3 nobel prize worthy papers in 1 year. Why do we think academia has suddenly magically changed?
UPenn is in the news again. Something tells me the fish stinks from the head.
Your comment made me curious to look up their leadership page. As of this post, Katalin Karikó is featured very prominently on the president's page, above even the president herself. That's a pretty big mea culpa. https://president.upenn.edu/
UPenn is in the news again. Something tells me the fish stinks from the head.
Your comment made me curious to look up their leadership page. As of this post, Katalin Karikó is featured very prominently on the president's page, above even the president herself. That's a pretty big mea culpa. https://president.upenn.edu/
Just a reminder Einstien who was the most revolutionary scientist since Newton was unable to secure a teaching position prior to publishing 3 nobel prize worthy papers in 1 year. Why do we think academia has suddenly magically changed?
Was he a good teacher?
It would tell us who to listen to and who yo shun.
I had hopes that Internet forums would be that record, but the nukers destroyed that.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...
Academia does not value quality, but quantity. It selects for scientists who are the best at marketing and networking, not necessarily doing quality science, though they can also be. I have no idea how to fix this, but competition needs to be reduced, probably by more guaranteed funding for positions, not just projects, as grants are. This latest military aid package is 2x the entire NIH budget, so surely there is mo…
The root problem is that (particularly in R1's) the job of raising money to perform the science has devolved somewhat to the level of individual labs and PI's, which creates an incentive that rewards good fundraisers in a much more predictable way than good researchers. In theory this could be addressed by more rigor in the funding agencies review processes, but they aren't resourced to really handle that.
It's like a baby (both in size and impact) version of the problem in US Congress & Senate.
If only there were a way to document disagreements publicly so they could be reviewed at a later date.
I had hopes that Internet discussion forums would be that, but the nukers destroyed that along with most training materials for LLMs.