besser wäre wohl „leisten“ statt „können“
German Market
-
warum sollen leute in passau auf top5 achten? dort muss man unterrichten und ein paar sitzungen hinter sich bringen. was soll jemand, der davon träumt eigentlich nach harvard zu gehören, dort?
Dafür gibt's dann aber doch zu viel Geld und Freiheiten.
Das bestreite ich gar nicht. Aber für diese Freiheiten muss man andere Sachen können als top5. Das wird hier beständig ignoriert.
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.
Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"You're saying that mediocre insiders do not want to hire good researchers as new colleagues because but they rather prefer to hire someone mediocre on whom they can load admin work.
In other words, the selfish interests of low-quality insiders keep the university from hiring good people.
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.
Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"You're saying that mediocre insiders do not want to hire good researchers as new colleagues because but they rather prefer to hire someone mediocre on whom they can load admin work.
In other words, the selfish interests of low-quality insiders keep the university from hiring good people.
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.What makes you think that the 'insiders' who control the top journals behave any differently?
-
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.
Not an equilibrium:
Lots of researchers that are really pushing out one Top 5 after the other, but no one teaches the large classes, no one heads the hiring comittees, no one organizes the seminars, no one deals with student lawsuits, no one manages the department, no one goes to the Senate meetings, etc.
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.
Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"You're saying that mediocre insiders do not want to hire good researchers as new colleagues because but they rather prefer to hire someone mediocre on whom they can load admin work.
In other words, the selfish interests of low-quality insiders keep the university from hiring good people.
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.Surprised that faculties hire colleagues not publication records? There is no point in hiring someone who is a) absent (besides teaching) and b) is going to leave in year or two.
I know of a case at a top german econ faculty where professors mobbed another colleague because of a) until he left.
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.
Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"You're saying that mediocre insiders do not want to hire good researchers as new colleagues because but they rather prefer to hire someone mediocre on whom they can load admin work.
In other words, the selfish interests of low-quality insiders keep the university from hiring good people.
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.Surprised that faculties hire colleagues not publication records? There is no point in hiring someone who is a) absent (besides teaching) and b) is going to leave in year or two.
I know of a case at a top german econ faculty where professors mobbed another colleague because of a) until he left.A professor on a german lehrstuhl is paid for teaching, admin work, and publications. The weight of those three is unclear but I do not think one dominates the other. So somebody who is purely interesting in publications is not an ideal candidate in the German system. It has some merit because teaching might be more valuable for society than most publications. That is the harsh reality
-
the mere problem is that this profile of the job is not really communicated before. In the post-doc phase it is all publications, and you made feel a superstar economists if you hit Economics Letters, and you are made to feel distain for those who teach and do admin besides a decent record in research. Too many of you arrive at the belief that this is really academic life. Even in the US outside top 10 or so, it is not so different form the typical German uni.
-
A professor on a german lehrstuhl is paid for teaching, admin work, and publications. The weight of those three is unclear but I do not think one dominates the other.
Spot on.
So somebody who is purely interested in any one of those three tasks is not an ideal candidate in the German system.
FTFY
It has some merit because teaching might be more valuable for society than most publications.
And there's the problem: Doing research at the cutting edge of your field is an important determinant of your teaching quality. This is the whole point of universities. If we don't believe in this effect, we can just convert all universities into Berufsschulen and a few research institutions.
However, if we agree that the effect of research activity on teaching is existing and important, then it might be true that you influence more people and real-world decisions with your teaching than with your research, but reducing your research activity would not simply shift resources from a "less productive" to a "more productive" activity, but would also reduce the value of the "more productive" activity.
On an entirely different note, another logical fallacy is the widespread (among under-performers) argument that people who are rubbish at research are automatically brilliant teachers and administrators. That's not true. Most of them are just slackers. That's also part of the reason why they suck at research.
-
On an entirely different note, another logical fallacy is the widespread (among under-performers) argument that people who are rubbish at research are automatically brilliant teachers and administrators. That's not true. Most of them are just slackers. That's also part of the reason why they suck at research.
this
-
And there's the problem: Doing research at the cutting edge of your field is an important determinant of your teaching quality. This is the whole point of universities. If we don't believe in this effect, we can just convert all universities into Berufsschulen and a few research institutions.
However, if we agree that the effect of research activity on teaching is existing and important, then it might be true that you influence more people and real-world decisions with your teaching than with your research, but reducing your research activity would not simply shift resources from a "less productive" to a "more productive" activity, but would also reduce the value of the "more productive" activity.
On an entirely different note, another logical fallacy is the widespread (among under-performers) argument that people who are rubbish at research are automatically brilliant teachers and administrators. That's not true. Most of them are just slackers. That's also part of the reason why they suck at research.This!
-
Aber warum sollten jene, die in top 5 publizieren, diese Sachen nicht können?
Weil sie das machen, was ihnen Spass macht. Und zudem kostet das viel Zeit... Und wenn der Neue/Kollege die administrativen Aufgaben nicht angeht, weil er forschen möchte - dann rate mal, wer den Mehraufwand hat?
Auch weil der administrative Aufwand mitunter immens ist, werden die Kollegen eher jemanden suchen, der wirklich zeigen kann, dass er gewillt ist, auch diese "unangenehmen" Aufgaben zu übernehmen.
Also lügt beim Vorsingen so gut ihr könnt, wenn ihr wirklich hauptsächlich ans Forschen denkt. Und bewerbt euch bei Fakultäten, die schon auf 1-2 solche Personen hereingefallen sind. Die sind "restlos bedient"You're saying that mediocre insiders do not want to hire good researchers as new colleagues because but they rather prefer to hire someone mediocre on whom they can load admin work.
In other words, the selfish interests of low-quality insiders keep the university from hiring good people.
I hope your post is meant as a description of this situation, and not in defense of this bad equilibrium.It is no defense - it is the current situation. And the digitization even increased administrative burden rather than decreasing it.
-
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Being at the cutting edge of research is paramount for PhD-level education, it is helpful for master-level education, but is (at best) without value for bachelor-level education. Since bachelor-level students make up 70% of the student body at most places and master-level students another 25%, being a cutting edge researcher is not that important. Now, in physics, for example, the relative weight that universities put on graduate education (despite the student body size) is very high. Producing strong PhD students who can help running cutting edge research projects are extremely valuable for universities in attracting funding etc. In economics, producing strong PhD students who should have a solo authored JMP and are then sold off to better/other places is almost without value to most German universities. They rather have great educational quality at the bachelor and master-level and sell those people off to the Big 4 or similar institutions.
And there's the problem: Doing research at the cutting edge of your field is an important determinant of your teaching quality. This is the whole point of universities. If we don't believe in this effect, we can just convert all universities into Berufsschulen and a few research institutions.
-
Sorry, last paragraph was supposed to be a quote from 1a5c.
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Being at the cutting edge of research is paramount for PhD-level education, it is helpful for master-level education, but is (at best) without value for bachelor-level education. Since bachelor-level students make up 70% of the student body at most places and master-level students another 25%, being a cutting edge researcher is not that important. Now, in physics, for example, the relative weight that universities put on graduate education (despite the student body size) is very high. Producing strong PhD students who can help running cutting edge research projects are extremely valuable for universities in attracting funding etc. In economics, producing strong PhD students who should have a solo authored JMP and are then sold off to better/other places is almost without value to most German universities. They rather have great educational quality at the bachelor and master-level and sell those people off to the Big 4 or similar institutions.
And there's the problem: Doing research at the cutting edge of your field is an important determinant of your teaching quality. This is the whole point of universities. If we don't believe in this effect, we can just convert all universities into Berufsschulen and a few research institutions. -
Being at the cutting edge of research [...] is (at best) without value for bachelor-level education.
1a5c here: That's where we disagree, so there is no point in discussing the remainder of your post. As I wrote before, most people seem to side with me (that this value is strictly positive), as evidenced by the way in which the overwhelming majority of developed countries have organised their university system. If, as you suggest, the value of quality research for Bachelor-level teaching was weakly negative, we would expect most countries to move Bachelor education to pure teaching institutions.
-
Being at the cutting edge of research [...] is (at best) without value for bachelor-level education.
If, as you suggest, the value of quality research for Bachelor-level teaching was weakly negative, we would expect most countries to move Bachelor education to pure teaching institutions.
And how is this not what we see? In the US, most of the teaching is done by cheap adjuncts and rates are increasing. So yes, cutting edge research on Top5 level (as opposed to some research at all) cannot be a huge influence on undergraduate teaching. We like to believe it has, but show me some evidence of this...
-
Being at the cutting edge of research [...] is (at best) without value for bachelor-level education.
If, as you suggest, the value of quality research for Bachelor-level teaching was weakly negative, we would expect most countries to move Bachelor education to pure teaching institutions.
And how is this not what we see? In the US, most of the teaching is done by cheap adjuncts and rates are increasing. So yes, cutting edge research on Top5 level (as opposed to some research at all) cannot be a huge influence on undergraduate teaching. We like to believe it has, but show me some evidence of this...
I agreee - the most valuable during my times as an undergraduate were the profs doing policy counselling. They had nice stories to tell - and did not only talk about math and assumptions. Of course, we need the math and to know about assumptions, but the package was easier to assess in those little stories those people told. Other "capable" researchers often did a poor job in teaching - because they had no stories to tell, but did pure math.
In fact, we need the mixture of inspiring teachers and gifted researchers. But to be honest - a lot of good researchers are socio paths and good in pulishing papers, but completely fade out the reality. I am glad that not all profs are alike! The mixure is important