Re:What we learned doing Fast Grants
by fuzzfactor on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:28AM
(#27524913)
Seems like funding awarded by a panel of 'early-career individuals from top universities' would be a success-prone screening process.
But compared against the rigid and bureaucratic obstacles to conventional funding, it is actually closer to being a random application of criteria than what was otherwise available to the grantees.
The sad part about the mainstream academic institutions is that a more random award process is more sensible than what most researchers are normally facing these days.
No doubt 'late-career individuals who did top things even though they went to schools that were not well-known' would be a good qualification for a different success-prone panel, but you would expect the outcome to be vastly different.
Either way it gives some researchers a chance who would not otherwise have any near-term or appropriate opportunities.
But compared against the rigid and bureaucratic obstacles to conventional funding, it is actually closer to being a random application of criteria than what was otherwise available to the grantees.
The sad part about the mainstream academic institutions is that a more random award process is more sensible than what most researchers are normally facing these days.
No doubt 'late-career individuals who did top things even though they went to schools that were not well-known' would be a good qualification for a different success-prone panel, but you would expect the outcome to be vastly different.
Either way it gives some researchers a chance who would not otherwise have any near-term or appropriate opportunities.
Just different researchers.