The whole thing in macroeconomic policy about optimizing economies for "GDP growth" is similar. Spend a million on healthcare, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on science, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on war, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on building a giant mountain out of rubber dog shit, GDP goes up by a million. See the problem? GDP is a value-neutral statistic.
The quantity-not-quality publish-or-perish mentality in academia is exactly the same. Quantity and impact of publication is a value-neutral opaque statistic like GDP, and optimizing for such statistics yields economies of ritualized masturbation.
To make matter worse, optimizing for GDP growth in economics or for quantity/impact of publications in science might be like measuring the quality of a computer programmer by lines of code written. Wouldn't an economy that can deliver an equivalent standard of living using less money be a better economy? It would be more efficient, more sustainable, etc. I know a scientist who authors a few awesome ground-breaking papers is a lot more interesting than a scientist that churns out endless papers about minutia.
Agreed. This is from a book that describes how professionals are made, how they are indoctrinated (which isn't a too harsh word to use about the educational system). Yet, the educational system is also about creating individuals who will follow their employer's outlook and doctrine thereby working to create profit.
2 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 12.4 ms ] threadThe whole thing in macroeconomic policy about optimizing economies for "GDP growth" is similar. Spend a million on healthcare, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on science, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on war, GDP goes up by a million. Spend a million on building a giant mountain out of rubber dog shit, GDP goes up by a million. See the problem? GDP is a value-neutral statistic.
The quantity-not-quality publish-or-perish mentality in academia is exactly the same. Quantity and impact of publication is a value-neutral opaque statistic like GDP, and optimizing for such statistics yields economies of ritualized masturbation.
To make matter worse, optimizing for GDP growth in economics or for quantity/impact of publications in science might be like measuring the quality of a computer programmer by lines of code written. Wouldn't an economy that can deliver an equivalent standard of living using less money be a better economy? It would be more efficient, more sustainable, etc. I know a scientist who authors a few awesome ground-breaking papers is a lot more interesting than a scientist that churns out endless papers about minutia.
It's all about the money. Sadly.