Last year, despite efforts made to reduce bias, proposals for medium and large programs on the Hubble Space Telescope had an acceptance rate of 24% for programs led by men and 13% for programs led by women, an imbalance largely in keeping with the telescope's history. This year, in one of the most competitive cycles ever, that suddenly changed to a near-equivalent 8.7% acceptance rate for women and an 8.0% acceptance rate for men, reversing the trend seen over the past 15 cycles. What happened? Anonymized proposals.
Interesting but unsurprising. I'd be more interested to see what happens with regards to prominent researchers versus novices. Are people being awarded time essentially because they've already been awarded time, or are they more successful simply because they write better proposals ? My guess would be more variability in the proposal quality of famous researchers. That is, if you're well-known, you probably do have a better chance of getting a lower-quality proposal accepted, but on average your proposals tend to be better.
https://www.metafilter.com/178225/Focus-on-the-Science-Not-the-Scientist
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Review : Human Kind
I suppose I really should review Bregman's Human Kind : A Hopeful History , though I'm not sure I want to. This was a deeply frustra...
-
This is nice video which attempts to solve why the world is sometimes such a crappy place and obvious solutions don't get implemented. I...
-
"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack o...
-
Three rules for any article on AI : 1) AI does not yet have the the same kind of understanding as human intelligence. 2) There is no guar...
Nepotism in the scientific world? Say it isn't so!
ReplyDelete