-
reading the latest @TheWhitePube piece ("What should an art festival look like?" : thewhitepube.co.uk/what-should-an-art-festival, obv relevant to me) and point 5 reminds me of a thing i read but haven't been able to track down, about academic research funding...
-
it said, basically: the current model is to fund "excellence", but this leads to a narrowing of possibilities , perverse incentives and lack of diversity - it'd be much better to fund everyone who demonstrates a reasonable level of competence instead
-
how to encourage the world-changing, brilliant stuff? a broad base of people secure enough to explore, to take risks, to do things you don't quite understand (that they maybe don't quite understand yet). artists & scientists don't do good work in order to get paid more for it.
-
anyway: idk what to do with this thought, but it's an interesting thing to chew on.
-
I still hate the stifling, limiting, crabs in buckets, "all above average" way that the word "excellence" works when it comes to funding. Well, guess what: @siennamarla/1443118483261231105?s=19
-
"excellence" says "standardised metrics that funding is contingent on" to me
-
and the problem with that is that the people setting the standards are so focused in making sure they're rewarding the right people, in having control over the system, that they neglect to think of all the wasted work put into preparing for those metrics, writing reports, etc
-
"excellence" is the opposite of trust
-
it's an invitation to Goodhart's Law @v21/1435174607846264836?s=19
-
whenever you hear "centre of excellence" you know you're in trouble @nachimir/1443138035953061901?s=19
-
it's the same pattern as means testing every bit of welfare. an absolute fear of accidentally giving someone assistance if they aren't the absolutely most on paper deserving of it. even if that means you have to invent a lot of pieces of paper to judge it @v21/1443136808402014217?s=19
-
efficiency is not achieved through a scarcity mindset