previous point: [0] and [1] . This post, like those two, and 'of no interest to people outside the academic world.
-game story that sums it all in a fun but not overly exaggerated
A letter written by some of my friends (now made the rounds the university, but I have the honor of having read a preliminary draft before it was sent to newspapers):
(A testimony to the fact that there is 'hope for the future, and this letter' was viciously attacked by a significant part of the precarious world of research. A demonstration of the fact that those who are 'in' list waiting ", that is precisely what 'convincingly that the authors of the letter indicate that the crux of the problem, has no interest in changing the system: it only takes a todos caballeros the most' as soon as possible. Expatriates tend to appreciate instead.)
On this issue, the question asked here and 'far fetched:
Why, for example, an Italian professor of physics essentially indistinguishable in terms of integrity' and scientific reputation by his fellow French, English or American, does not seem to behave the same way when it participates in the recruitment system of the universities' Italian?
The simplistic answer is that a lot of damage and ' the difference in mentality' . But in this as in other fields, this argument does not convince me never to the full.
Right now I'm applying for a permanent position in France (exactly the same entity that has suffered the ' Italian invasion of recent years, and referred to the experience of the authors of the letter). And about how, with the help of people who know that system (for winning the contest lately, or to be in positions of power in the French system), I came to this conclusion: the French position of power behave just as the Italian mafia and Aumm Aumm in positions of power, but the system is' designed in such a way that is in their interest choose the best candidates. The mafia 'is exercised in the low blows with each other to make sure that a new employee of the institution is allocated to their group (the competition and' national, and winners may be intended, at least in principle, to any location within the country), while in the Italian system one of the mechanisms through which power is exercised and 'right to impose their candidates, regardless of merit (although there are also large inhomogeneities', between the field and the field, on what is important about the stadium previous selection, or PhD and postdoctoral fellowships, where there 'competition with foreigners has a good quality').
I describe briefly the system:
-
This is an open competition. In this and 'like the Italian system, and unlike the Anglo-Saxon model, where instead you make selections similar to those of the private sector. My opinion, expressed for instance here, and 'that the public contribution to Anglo-Saxon model is preferable to /, for various reasons. This my opinion and 'are a minority in my field, and even among the French (who have a system that works very well in my opinion) and' habitual say that competitions are an anachronistic system, and push for anglosassonizzazione system.
-
The competition and the 'national, that' one commission will examine 'the candidates in a single day in one location, no places will be allocated on a national basis and then distributed among the different locations depending on demand. In this and 'other than the Italian system, where each site is organizing the places they need, regardless of other locations, and the board' consists of two members inside and outside. This will change 'part of the reform Mussi. The initial statements were Mussi that the competition would become national (with a certain number of commissioners from abroad), ongoing, and the law 'has been greatly altered, so the law passed (which will come' soon in force) provides two levels of assessment, a national and then a local. That and 'at least one step forward (the garbage more' extreme will be much more 'unlikely) but basically ensures that in most cases will not change' anything, as the last word will 'local committee.
Opponents of the national competition and say the problem 'that the national academic mafia decide the recruitment of all branches and self-perpetuating through what'. This statement is' true, but who makes autoqualifica in bad faith as a person who prefers local academic mafias (which obviously has more 'benefits from the national ones) for which the speech and' equally valid, word for word.
I personally am in favor of the national competition since 2005 when I participated in a national competition of Italian organization. Despite losing, and although it has not considered free from considerations of power (in fact, many competitors are also fun to make statistical analysis of the results, finding many statistical anomalies), I found that some of the results were "surprising" . That 's just impossible in a local contest.
Now comes the crucial part, that 'behind the scenes.
- The committee, after a skimming of the best candidates, contact the directors of several private labs, asking if they know any of these candidates and what they think him.
- The Directors bounce the question to the heads of local research groups.
's inevitable to think that each of these steps was an enormous risk of nepotism, cronyism, etc.. For which' really surprising that the result is based on merit. That is, that given the choice for those who spend their influence, to spend the big shots who sincerely consider valid. But let's move on.
- The local research groups have previously discussed (often very light on) on those who want to support. Candidates therefore, to have a good chance in the competition, need to think about earning the support of some offices, as well as to go well with the competition (which, however, unlike in Italy, and ' important: it seems to be less than brilliant in conversation it means to be discarded without mercy, 'and never come to this stage where the supports come into play authoritative).
- E 'and then practice in France, that the candidates do in the first months of the year (the competition and' in May) a self-promotional tour of seminars in various locations, to be known. The seminar and 'normal science workshop, and we really need to get it right' cause the decision based on who supports and 'usually quite democratic, and should convince most of the audience and that' really good people. And most people do not have a priori preferences, so there 's always hope.
- At the end of the seminar pero 'e' recommended going to talk privately with the local leader, to discuss what it would do if you finish the work '. Shake hands with the director and 'well recommended.
- It 'still advised to contact before the people, to show interest and try to understand how enthusiastically respond to your interest.
Much of all this 'me' s a bit of revulsion (in particular, all the part where you have to talk privately with people). But then I think of far more 'disgusting Italian competitions (which I will continue' to do until I'll have 'a fixed place), and shooting first.
The French system seems to work. E 'merit, and is' open to the outside (such as shows the high percentage, even in the majority of foreigners recruited in recent years).
I say, as a possible explanation, that the system of evaluation of the various institutions (and within individual institutions, the various groups) is very strict, and taken seriously. And this is the difference with Italy: use criteria would not merit self-defeating for those who take the chair. It could be an indication on the way forward.
0 comments:
Post a Comment