This is quiet a scary thought, how many talented people are we losing because they don't meet modern productivity metrics?
Furthermore, scientists who are preoccupied chasing grants and citations lose opportunities for careful contemplation and deep exploration, which are necessary to uncover complex truths. Peter Higgs, the British theoretical physicist who in 1964 predicted the existence of the Higgs boson particle, told the Guardian upon receiving the Nobel Prize in 2013 that he would never have been able to make his breakthrough in the current academic environment.
“It’s difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964,” Higgs said. “Today I wouldn’t get an academic job. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think I would be regarded as productive enough.”
Later in his career Higgs said he became “an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises.” The physics department at Edinburgh University would send around a message saying, ‘Please give a list of your recent publications.’ … I would send back a statement: ‘None.’” Higgs said the university kept him around despite his insufficient productivity solely in the hopes that he would win the Nobel Prize, which would be a boon to the university in the contemporary sink-or-swim environment.
This is quiet a scary thought, how many talented people are we losing because they don't meet modern productivity metrics?
This is precisely what I mean when I spout off about how we've been defunding education since the 60s. We don't provide an environment for research to happen. Today it's all about proving that...
This is precisely what I mean when I spout off about how we've been defunding education since the 60s. We don't provide an environment for research to happen. Today it's all about proving that your research will provide the best "bang for the buck", which I understand, but disagree with. Many of the most important scientific inventions and advancements were discovered by accident.
Maybe a quick solution would be to set aside a portion of how much we put into research and do a lottery system. Maybe 25% of the money is given randomly to grant requests that come into the NIH or other large research institutions that meet some basic application criteria. This way we can still fund unconventional innovation.
The next solution, of course, is actually investing in science again. Most of our investments to science go into defense contracts nowadays, and total spending on science research as a percent of budget in the US is down.
Public higher education funding has certainly not fallen since the 60's. In fact, it has increased rather markedly over time, though apparently since 2009 it has only gone up by 2% because of the...
Public higher education funding has certainly not fallen since the 60's. In fact, it has increased rather markedly over time, though apparently since 2009 it has only gone up by 2% because of the great recession. The issue is that enrollment has increased faster than funding. As the article notes:
Changes in per-student funding are the result of changes in total funding levels and enrollment patterns. Between 2005-06 and 2010-11, total funding rose by 2%, from $75.6 billion (in 2015 dollars) to $77.3 billion. At the same time, enrollment increased by 19%, generating a 14% decline in per-student funding over these five years.
Elementary and secondary education funding has also increased, even on per-student basis, though like higher education funding has decreased a bit since the recession.
The real issue is that our marginal productivity per dollar spent has fallen to practically zero.
My entire post was qualifying that I was speaking about research funding. I wasn't talking about "public higher education funding" or "elementary and secondary education funding".
My entire post was qualifying that I was speaking about research funding. I wasn't talking about "public higher education funding" or "elementary and secondary education funding".
Sorry, I misread this comment: But a cursory search shows that research funding has also markedly increased since the 60's, though federal funding has grown stagnant since 2005 while corporate...
Sorry, I misread this comment:
This is precisely what I mean when I spout off about how we've been defunding education since the 60s.
But a cursory search shows that research funding has also markedly increased since the 60's, though federal funding has grown stagnant since 2005 while corporate funding has grown dramatically. Though I don't have the data on this, I would posit the underlying problem, like with higher education funding as a whole, is a huge increase in the number of people competing for grant money, lowering the grant money available per researcher.
Source not adjusted for inflation or population growth. Literally the second and third sentences of your linked article shows not stagnation, but decline
But a cursory search shows that research funding has also markedly increased since the 60's
Source not adjusted for inflation or population growth.
federal funding has grown stagnant since 2005
Literally the second and third sentences of your linked article shows not stagnation, but decline
Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and ’70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.
A drop in percentage of all grant money, not in grant money offered. Federal funding has been stagnant since '05 while corporate funding has increased, so federal funding makes a smaller share of...
A drop in percentage of all grant money, not in grant money offered. Federal funding has been stagnant since '05 while corporate funding has increased, so federal funding makes a smaller share of the total. Either way, there has not been a decrease in federal money available.
I think we agree on that last point though, since I did say the problem is probably with the growth in population of grant applications, lowering the grant money available per researcher.
That's not the only problem - a lot of what gets funded is what's often referred to as "gold standard" studies. These are exceptionally expensive, but often deliver very strong results. However,...
I think we agree on that last point though, since I did say the problem is probably with the growth in population of grant applications, lowering the grant money available per researcher.
That's not the only problem - a lot of what gets funded is what's often referred to as "gold standard" studies. These are exceptionally expensive, but often deliver very strong results.
However, modern statistical methods can allow for smaller scale cross-over studies which can deliver just as strong results, but are not "gold standard". A lot of these funding institutions act very much like "good ol' boy" groups, where they fund the same places repeatedly for the same kind of study and stifle innovation. Modern methods have no place among limited funding and a results focused funding methodology. Especially if some of the funding has to come from corporate sources.
Probably quite a few. I have no idea if I'd personally be talented at research, but one of the many factors that discouraged me from doing a PhD was knowing I could never keep up with the workload...
how many talented people are we losing because they don't meet modern productivity metrics?
Probably quite a few. I have no idea if I'd personally be talented at research, but one of the many factors that discouraged me from doing a PhD was knowing I could never keep up with the workload as a disabled student who had to do undergrad part time.
Not to defend capitalism, but when I hear about stuff like productivity metrics putting workers under unreasonable pressure I can't help but think that Taylorism is ruining science, just as it's...
Not to defend capitalism, but when I hear about stuff like productivity metrics putting workers under unreasonable pressure I can't help but think that Taylorism is ruining science, just as it's also ruining capitalism, art, and everything else. It's just that we don't call it "Taylorism" nowadays.
What aspect of Taylorism are you referencing here? It seems like a natural development of capitalism, not an adversarial tendency that could "ruin" capitalism. I always thought the reason we no...
What aspect of Taylorism are you referencing here? It seems like a natural development of capitalism, not an adversarial tendency that could "ruin" capitalism. I always thought the reason we no longer use the word "Taylorism" is just that its basic ideas (efficiency improves profits, labor should be replaceable whenever possible) are so obvious and natural in a capitalist system that they aren't worth naming.
From that view, where capitalism leads to Taylorism, as opposed to Taylorism having an external cause, it seems that Taylorism is just one instance of capitalism ruining labor. Just like it ruins art, science, and everything else, sometimes in analogous ways involving productivity metrics, but none of those ways are specifically Taylorist.
I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism. It seems like the issue is with how grants are handed out, right? And doesn't most, or a large percentage, of grant funding come from...
I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism. It seems like the issue is with how grants are handed out, right? And doesn't most, or a large percentage, of grant funding come from public sources? Reform grants and the current rush towards prestige idealized in the 'publish or perish' mode of thinking and you fix the issue. Both of these seem like problems that would exist even if all grant money came from the state.
Grant money from the state has a bit more flexibility than private funding, but most of it is still ultimately driven by profit motives. (I'm pretty sure the Obama admin. explicitly shifted...
Grant money from the state has a bit more flexibility than private funding, but most of it is still ultimately driven by profit motives. (I'm pretty sure the Obama admin. explicitly shifted funding to be focused on "useful" research rather than theory building). You have to remember that the state is an inherently capitalist construction, and as such is going to be constantly searching for return on its investment.
I'm not well-versed on communist theory, so I'll take your word for it. I'm surprised Obama did that though! If the state truly does add a ROI qualifier on their grant money I would definitely...
You have to remember that the state is an inherently capitalist construction
I'm not well-versed on communist theory, so I'll take your word for it.
I'm surprised Obama did that though! If the state truly does add a ROI qualifier on their grant money I would definitely support getting rid of that qualifier.
This is quiet a scary thought, how many talented people are we losing because they don't meet modern productivity metrics?
This is precisely what I mean when I spout off about how we've been defunding education since the 60s. We don't provide an environment for research to happen. Today it's all about proving that your research will provide the best "bang for the buck", which I understand, but disagree with. Many of the most important scientific inventions and advancements were discovered by accident.
Maybe a quick solution would be to set aside a portion of how much we put into research and do a lottery system. Maybe 25% of the money is given randomly to grant requests that come into the NIH or other large research institutions that meet some basic application criteria. This way we can still fund unconventional innovation.
The next solution, of course, is actually investing in science again. Most of our investments to science go into defense contracts nowadays, and total spending on science research as a percent of budget in the US is down.
Public higher education funding has certainly not fallen since the 60's. In fact, it has increased rather markedly over time, though apparently since 2009 it has only gone up by 2% because of the great recession. The issue is that enrollment has increased faster than funding. As the article notes:
Elementary and secondary education funding has also increased, even on per-student basis, though like higher education funding has decreased a bit since the recession.
The real issue is that our marginal productivity per dollar spent has fallen to practically zero.
My entire post was qualifying that I was speaking about research funding. I wasn't talking about "public higher education funding" or "elementary and secondary education funding".
Sorry, I misread this comment:
But a cursory search shows that research funding has also markedly increased since the 60's, though federal funding has grown stagnant since 2005 while corporate funding has grown dramatically. Though I don't have the data on this, I would posit the underlying problem, like with higher education funding as a whole, is a huge increase in the number of people competing for grant money, lowering the grant money available per researcher.
Source not adjusted for inflation or population growth.
Literally the second and third sentences of your linked article shows not stagnation, but decline
A drop in percentage of all grant money, not in grant money offered. Federal funding has been stagnant since '05 while corporate funding has increased, so federal funding makes a smaller share of the total. Either way, there has not been a decrease in federal money available.
I think we agree on that last point though, since I did say the problem is probably with the growth in population of grant applications, lowering the grant money available per researcher.
That's not the only problem - a lot of what gets funded is what's often referred to as "gold standard" studies. These are exceptionally expensive, but often deliver very strong results.
However, modern statistical methods can allow for smaller scale cross-over studies which can deliver just as strong results, but are not "gold standard". A lot of these funding institutions act very much like "good ol' boy" groups, where they fund the same places repeatedly for the same kind of study and stifle innovation. Modern methods have no place among limited funding and a results focused funding methodology. Especially if some of the funding has to come from corporate sources.
Yeah, the whole grant system is in dire need of reform.
Probably quite a few. I have no idea if I'd personally be talented at research, but one of the many factors that discouraged me from doing a PhD was knowing I could never keep up with the workload as a disabled student who had to do undergrad part time.
Not to defend capitalism, but when I hear about stuff like productivity metrics putting workers under unreasonable pressure I can't help but think that Taylorism is ruining science, just as it's also ruining capitalism, art, and everything else. It's just that we don't call it "Taylorism" nowadays.
What aspect of Taylorism are you referencing here? It seems like a natural development of capitalism, not an adversarial tendency that could "ruin" capitalism. I always thought the reason we no longer use the word "Taylorism" is just that its basic ideas (efficiency improves profits, labor should be replaceable whenever possible) are so obvious and natural in a capitalist system that they aren't worth naming.
From that view, where capitalism leads to Taylorism, as opposed to Taylorism having an external cause, it seems that Taylorism is just one instance of capitalism ruining labor. Just like it ruins art, science, and everything else, sometimes in analogous ways involving productivity metrics, but none of those ways are specifically Taylorist.
Capitalism was shitty before Taylorism, but Taylorism only made matters worse.
I don't see how this has anything to do with capitalism. It seems like the issue is with how grants are handed out, right? And doesn't most, or a large percentage, of grant funding come from public sources? Reform grants and the current rush towards prestige idealized in the 'publish or perish' mode of thinking and you fix the issue. Both of these seem like problems that would exist even if all grant money came from the state.
Grant money from the state has a bit more flexibility than private funding, but most of it is still ultimately driven by profit motives. (I'm pretty sure the Obama admin. explicitly shifted funding to be focused on "useful" research rather than theory building). You have to remember that the state is an inherently capitalist construction, and as such is going to be constantly searching for return on its investment.
I'm not well-versed on communist theory, so I'll take your word for it.
I'm surprised Obama did that though! If the state truly does add a ROI qualifier on their grant money I would definitely support getting rid of that qualifier.