See also and also.

I gotta folder fulla articles like this. Google the name: John Ioannidis

It sounds like the admin staff is not realizing that noise does not always have a signal in it.

Absolutely!

I teach at the middle school level. We are required to collaborate and produce items that prove that we are reflecting on our teaching. Sometimes, the process and paperwork is so overwhelming that we can't really do the processes that are encouraged. We are simply too busy for that.

These formal rituals really never seem to lead to the breakthroughs that they are encouraging. Those seem to come from my mind when I am more relaxed. Deep thinking takes time.

It is far more important to be SEEN to be working than to be actually working

Part of this is the idea that collaboration, essentialy decision by committee, will bring you a breakthrough...
the other part, as in Higgs case, is the idea that thinkin' about stuff is both straightforward and predictable. Only a technocrat can look at a thinker and say: "the schedule says that your preliminary hypothesis is due today at noon... where is it?"

This is the crux between just-in-time factory production, with the large scale cost savings it brings... AND the breakthrough thinking process that overcomes or produces something new.

One has a yardstick called 'metrics' where you can measure every little thing.

the other wakes you out of a dream wondering if gravity itself is just the effect of another force... and suddenly you are off scribbling on pizza boxes.

I might add that everyone can collaborate. They even start in grade school with group projects. Not everyone can make stuff up, and that has ALWAYS irked those that like to collaborate.

Guess who is winning?

full disclosure: group projects give me hives...

I totally get what he is saying; but, on the other side of the coin - how does one determine who should be kept on board and who is nothing but a dead weight on the university?

Without some sort of measurable goals such decisions can seem very arbitrary and that could lead to lawsuits.

So, it seem to me, that it is a damned if you do damned if you don't type of situation.

Without some sort of measurable goals such decisions can seem very arbitrary and that could lead to lawsuits.

Problem is even with such "measurable" goals the decisions are just as arbitrary

"I totally get what he is saying; but, on the other side of the coin - how does one determine who should be kept on board and who is nothing but a dead weight on the university?"

SInce it is a university, how about it having something to do with classes you are teaching, how well students are learning not how many papers you publish.
It really shows the problem with universities, when, what they use to judge professors has nothing to do with teaching, students, or classes.

Moar

þ: Cosh

Lujlp; I totally agree that even such measurable goals can, and often are, very arbitrary. Even the publish or perish method doesn't take into account if the papers publish are worthy or junk.

Joe J; the problem is also that some universities (and I believe Edinburgh University is one of them) are "reasearch" universites, not just for teaching; but also for conducting research. Those universities are more notorious for the publish or perish method of deciding who gets to stay and who gets to go.

Here's a simple fact to consider: Prior to WWII, less than 2 percent of the US population had attended college - the percent with degrees was even lower. The GI bill changed all that - returning WWII vets attended college in record numbers. Today, their children and grandchildren with college degrees are nearly 30 percent of the population. That's one of the reasons for college admissions and professorships to be more competative.

Granted Peter Higgs is in the UK, so the numbers I just stated don't apply exactly; but I'll bet the percent of college degrees has also risen in the UK after WWII. Colleges and universites in the UK don't just pull from the upper classes any more.

So, the question is, with such a larger pool of candidates to choose from; just how does a school decide who should be among its research professors and who should be teaching? (Sorry, I really don't have an answer myself)

Only a technocrat can look at a thinker and say: "the schedule says that your preliminary hypothesis is due today at noon... where is it?" -- SwissArmyD at December 7, 2013 10:20 AM

I've always been a project type programmer i.e. I am given "here is what you are starting with" and "this is what we want" on the other end. Basically not really a team to program it up. Currently I am the chief programmer for extracting data from our two software programs to put into the SW of the company that bought us.

At the beginning, because SW A could have one resident ID and SW B a different one, we said that SW A would be the resident ID of choice and we would change SW B data to match. So I built all the conversion tools that way.

Friday morning I get a request that one of our customers wants the SW B Id to be primary. I said verbally "No problem," but my mind was stuttering all day Friday and a chunk of today. Then while I was in the shower 24+ hours later it finally occurred how I could do it easily. But if I had been required to do it immediately or even end of day Friday, I would have been fucked.

There is no way to control the muse.

Does he need a prof job to make any discovery? Eons ago, people who made discoveries were not profs. And in most cases, even today, most people who discover things are not profs. Of course, he may not have access to some high power microscopes or colliders or cyclotrons or whatever helped him make the discovery unless he became a prof. The simple way out of this is to just pay people for teaching and if they make some major discovery which people consider worthwhile they can get rewards or money for it from whoever is willing to pay for it rather than being forced to churn out papers in exchange for very high pay. If people say that unless the pay is very high, there will be no discoveries, then let it be. I am really not sure how much difference all these discoveries have made to our lives anyway. Most of the discoveries and inventions that seem to have made any difference seem to have come from industry rather than academia anyway and taken as a whole, contribution of academia to knowledge, discoveries and inventions would probably be in single digit percentages.

*CREDENTIALS!*
credentials by and large make sense. Would you want a fly by night organization that may vanish into thin air to build a bridge or an organization w/ licensed engineers, who could be held responsible?

Would you want a fly by night organization that may vanish into thin air to build a bridge or an organization w/ licensed engineers, who could be held responsible? -- Stinky the Clown at December 8, 2013 12:05 PM

Have you ever ridden on a Greyhound bus? Do trust the guy that has a 150 hours driving a bus with a CDL compared to the truck driver that has been a driver for 20 plus years that you would hitchhike with?

@Stinky - you think an organization with licensed engineers all of whom have just received their license has any credibility? It is also the history of the organization, the number of years of experience of the top engineers, past track record and a host of other parameters over an extended period of time which makes the organization credible. A bunch of fresh college graduates with engineering degrees and licenses can form an organization, but that organization will not get a contract to build a bridge

@redrajesh
Most of the discoveries and inventions that seem to have made any difference seem to have come from industry rather than academia anyway

I assume you wrote of ignorance, so I'll give you two examples:
+ Dr. Jonas salk, 1955, at U of pittsburg find a vaccine for Polio, give it for free to the world and save millions.
+ HIV, for 20 years the only treatment belonged to GlaxoSmithKline (by lawfull patent). The ones that had enough money to pay an overpriced drug (due to monopole) survived, the other not.

so industry much better than academia?

BTW, this internet that you are using exists only because of DARPA, any second thought R?

Open your mind.

As with most anything credentials can be abused. There is a reason that the Manhattan project was run by credentialed people. Of course, neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs was "credentialed" and of course the Philadelphia abortion doctor was "credentialed". However, if you don't think credentials mean anything, watch the movie "Catch me if you can". Reputation is also a form of "credential".

I am really not sure how much difference all these discoveries have made to our lives anyway.

Go live with one of the few stone age tribe still in existence for a year or two and I'm sure you'll figure it out