Post #1863648
2026-03-02 23:19 UTC
@JubalBarca I think we'd actually get significantly better results because what we're testing right now is how good you are at writing a grant which... might not be orthogonal to how skilled you are as a researcher, but I don't think the two skills have a strong correlation.
plus, there's such an emphasis on arguing for real world impact in your grants that I feel a lot of important lines of research are ignored
Replies (1)
-
@JubalBarca@scholar.social 2026-03-02 23:22
@Canageek Mm, yes, those are fair points. I think I'd think of it as more "similar results to random" because I think that usually for my sort of work whose desk a grant lands on to review and what mood they're in when they do it is often more important than how good the writing is, so that adds a pseudorandom component separate to testing the grant writing skill-set.