"The recognition that failure needs to be normalized for postdocs and PhD students has gained traction over the past decade, with highly successful scientists and researchers publishing their ‘CVs of failure’."
@katejjeffery I like systems that introduce a lottery step (after a selection step), to counteract the Matthew Effect.
@cyrilpedia I do too, for applications around the funding boundary. Going into a lottery would therefore be something you could put on a cv even if you didn't get funded
@katejjeffery My experience in selection committees, which I think matches most people's, is that the very top and the very bottom candidates are clear. But when you start scoring decimal points around the cutoff, it becomes incredibly subjective.
@katejjeffery @cyrilpedia very true! There is no balance in a system where failure is the norm. Also because funding rates are too low, i.e. in lottery territory, feedback becomes borderline useless for the highest ranked, with reviews outcomes generally 'excellent' on all counts.
I also agree though that a culture where people expect to succeed whatever they do is not healthy and leads to bitter disappointment.
Balance is the key! Funding success rates should never be lower than 25/30%
@cyrilpedia Maybe instead we could focus on creating a system that doesn't set young researchers up to fail? Grant funding rates are abysmal - it makes it hard to learn from feedback when you don't get an early success, and it's demoralising +++