This conversation is closed.
Is the academic promotion system inherently flawed?
Is Academia Getting In the Way of Today’s Geniuses?
Should citations alone be used to judge scholarly performance? Or should merit include a qualitative review of a scholar’s work by their peers?
'...two of this year’s laureates have stepped forward, alleging that the academic publishing and promotion system is inherently flawed. Whatever your career, everyone wants to advance further and see financial rewards for their hard work. But according to Peter Higgs and Randy Shekman, the academic game isn’t as much about merit as it is about quotas. If their argument is valid, it implies career-changing consequences for the scholars of today.
'Peter Higgs was already famous before winning his Nobel, as one of the researchers who discovered the origin of mass. In an interview with “The Guardian,” Higgs says he wouldn’t even be employable at a university today because he’s not considered productive enough for the system...'