tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post4663050850336529314..comments2024-03-28T17:13:01.117+10:00Comments on Condensed concepts: Careers should be driven by scientific reality not metricsRoss H. McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-61344175352680815922012-02-08T07:01:14.576+10:002012-02-08T07:01:14.576+10:00My question is not why are scientific careers now ...My question is not why are scientific careers now like this, but why were they ever not? A theoretical physics professor could easily graduate 20 PhD students before retiring. This means that there is only an average of one faculty opening available for every O(20) PhD students. Even if some PhD students don't plan on an academic career (though my experience is that most physicists, unlike many engineers, do), and the field is growing so there are new positions available as well as openings, there still seems to be a huge excess of capable young scientists over jobs for them all. I think a tendency to hyperfocus on what is easily measured is inevitable in such a situation, to give oneself any chance of finding a job in a crowded market.<br /><br />Is this background situation going to change? I believe not in any hurry. Life as a PhD student is, overall, pleasant enough that there will be plenty of applicants to fill the positions offered. PhD students are valuable enough to universities that there will always be many positions available. So I think we'll be dealing with the current pigeonhole problem for many years to come.<br /><br />So, given the large number of applicants for academic positions, can we do better than encouraging everyone to compete against each other in certain metrics and hence devalue the metrics? I'm optimistic enough to think it's possible. Fields of science are small enough that a small group of committed people can make a change, if they work out what change is needed. Is it possible for faculty to make hiring decisions based on more substantial estimations of applicants' scientific ability than how many papers they've published in which journals? I would hope so!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-84697982938733261012012-01-04T16:43:23.698+10:002012-01-04T16:43:23.698+10:00I do not think the h-index is of much value for ev...I do not think the h-index is of much value for evaluating junior scientists. Sorry, if I ever gave that impression.<br />Hirsch designed it to evaluate "life-time" achievement. I do personally find it helpful as a filter for pre-evaluation of large numbers of applications from senior and mid-career scientists. It gives me some idea of which applications I should consider more seriously and carefully than others. <br /><br />The original post is below<br /><br />condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-use-h-index.htmlRoss H. McKenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09950455939572097456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5439168179960787195.post-82574918585979197412011-12-30T07:50:06.477+10:002011-12-30T07:50:06.477+10:00How do you reconcile these statements with those m...How do you reconcile these statements with those made earlier on this blog regarding the use of H-indices when evaluating applications from junior researchers?Seth Olsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09304457461800104790noreply@blogger.com