tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.comments2023-09-23T07:26:31.797-07:00Recherche et enseignement supérieurJean-Marc Schlenkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10063463243476870669noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-18890656957791190742013-01-31T14:17:38.158-08:002013-01-31T14:17:38.158-08:00Une idee, assez naturelle, mais que j'ai jamai...Une idee, assez naturelle, mais que j'ai jamais vu nulle part (?) ponderer par les citations IF etc. par les citations IF des articles qui citent. Je veux dire faire quelque chose d'un peu recursif, sur le principe "etre cite par un article mal cite rapporte moins". Ca arrangerrait pas mal de choses, mais j'imagine c'est assez dur de mettre en place, beaucoup de calculs etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-2441000498575662252011-04-07T06:58:25.524-07:002011-04-07T06:58:25.524-07:00enfin de compte ceci doit bien arranger quelques u...enfin de compte ceci doit bien arranger quelques un, car n'es pas à quoi certain de nos décidant voulait y arriver à tout prix c-à-d "Quantifier le travaille du chercheur" même au dépend de la recherche en le réduisant au simple rapport<br />(publications/total de publication) x facteur = prime (ironique :) )<br /><br />on finira par tendre vers le monde des journalistes, là ou un bon article ça se déniche (stars ou paria a vous de choisir)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-68532150029393456682011-01-16T02:12:01.674-08:002011-01-16T02:12:01.674-08:00MathOMan: c'est possible mais pas si sûr. Le f...MathOMan: c'est possible mais pas si sûr. Le fait est que le nombre de candidats a fortement baissé cette année, mais il y a plusieurs raisons possible à cela. Probablement la plus faible attractivité du métier d'enseignant, mais aussi le passage à bac+5 du capes, qui crée un "trou" dans les candidats -- ceux qui "auraient dû" arriver au concours cette année sont retardés d'un an et n'arriveront que l'année prochaine. <br /><br />Pour savoir quel est l'importance respective des deux facteurs il faut attendre l'année prochaine ou les suivantes, quand on sera à nouveau en régime stationnaire. <br /><br />Ceci dit il me semble évident qu'il faut faire un effort important pour rendre l'enseignement plus attirant, et plus facile pour les jeunes recrutés. La première chose à faire serait de cesser de leur confier les classes les plus dures dans les collèges les plus défavorisés, là où leurs collègues plus expérimentés ne veulent pas aller.Jean-Marc Schlenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063463243476870669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-73847933356303788362011-01-16T01:04:00.748-08:002011-01-16T01:04:00.748-08:00Si on veut être réaliste (et méchant), on pourra r...Si on veut être réaliste (et méchant), on pourra remarquer que la question des concours de Capes ne se posera plus dans un futur proche. En effet, dans certaines disciplines le nombre de candidats a commencé à chuter fortement, de sorte qu'il n'est plus défendable de mobiliser et payer un jury pour éliminer cent candidats sur mille... Bientôt il y aura peut-être moins de candidats que de postes.MathOManhttp://www.mathoman.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-18118104648552041092011-01-06T03:35:17.013-08:002011-01-06T03:35:17.013-08:00Greg -- the promotion system in France is probably...Greg -- the promotion system in France is probably much worse than in the US, if you look beyond mathematics. For people with university (rather than cnrs) positions, it has two parts, one in the universities, another at the national level for each field. Note that the system is different from the US in that all positions (starting at MCF) are permanent, but to go from MCF to Professor one has to apply again (like in germany) and there is no analog of a tenure-track job.<br /><br />The general idea, among the colleagues I know at least, is that what happens at the university level is often totally dysfunctional. At the national level it varies a lot between the fields, I think that for maths it's reasonable, but for instance nobody ever asks for a reference letter from an expert. <br /><br />As for the job market a version of it works in some fields but not in others, where people are often hired where they have prepared their PhD and most people get a senior position in the place where they have junior one (which, in principle, is not done in maths).<br /><br />As for your last paragraph, we were talking about different things; it's true that we have a specific problem at the level of university administrations, for reasons that need analyzing (but it would take time).Jean-Marc Schlenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063463243476870669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-5533019390474847842011-01-05T04:28:47.382-08:002011-01-05T04:28:47.382-08:00I have to say, the regular promotion system in the...I have to say, the regular promotion system in the United States is somewhat self-serving and mediocre. When the same people evaluate each other year after year, the evaluations fall into routines and biases develop. Some of these biases are very primitive, things like simply counting publications. Others are more insidious, like being biased in favor of one particular research topic. You might hope that people read each others' papers, but often they don't or can't, for various reasons.<br /><br />What saves the system is the job market. Search committees tend to do a better job than promotion committees. Departments also compensate for each others' mistakes, because if one department passes over a good candidate, he's then "money lying on the table" for another department. Departments tend to be competitive and jealous, and this is mostly a good thing. Also the NSF does a better job evaluating research than most promotion committees.<br /><br />I think that France generally does a good job of evaluating individual faculty members. I don't know the details very well, but the overall results look good to me. Rather, I think that the administrations themselves could take advice from (competent) consultants. It's not exactly that they are reinventing the wheel. Rather there is a certain pessimism, a sense of not expecting very much at the most ordinary level, for things like web sites and building renovations and course schedules.Greg Kuperberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16655664043505766628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-91314914259649253422011-01-04T12:48:19.191-08:002011-01-04T12:48:19.191-08:00Greg, thanks for your comment.
My impression is ...Greg, thanks for your comment. <br /><br />My impression is that in the US you're mostly protected from the abuse of bibliometric indicators (eg for individual evaluation), mostly because you have a strong tradition of scientific evaluation with panels, people who actually read the papers, etc. The problem is rather in countries with a less established scientific tradition, like China or Romania (but the UK is an counter-example). <br /><br />I also completely agree that researchers need to be evaluated. Actually I think that for larger research units, or universities, bibliometric indicators can be useful (but they should be handled with care). For individuals, though, an evaluation by a panel of well-chosen experts (possibly helped by reference letters) is the only serious choice. Of course the experts' opinions are strongly correlated with some bibliometric indicators, but (a) they know the specificities of the subfield they're dealing with (b) they can correct some anomalies, like very good paper published in obscure journals (c) being evaluated by a panel of experts gives better incentives -- you can't cheat them like the indicators. <br /><br />As for your last comment I completely agree! Here in France we tend to constantly try to reinvent the wheel, rather than looking abroad for examples and ideas that have been tried and tested.Jean-Marc Schlenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063463243476870669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-65582999027834486092011-01-03T14:10:39.597-08:002011-01-03T14:10:39.597-08:00Certainly there is the same discussion in the US f...Certainly there is the same discussion in the US from time to time. Clearly certain bureaucratic forces, including both some administrators and some journal publishers, abuse these so-called "performance metrics". To the extent that these metrics are meant as a substitute for peer review, they obviously won't work.<br /><br />On other other hand (1), researchers should be evaluated from time to time somehow. It really bugs me when evaluators claim to be against shallow performance metrics, yet in actual practice are heavily influenced by the crudest and most obvious metric of all, simply counting publications. If they deny it, then you can't get them to do something better. In any case, it seems okay, maybe also inevitable, to use some performance metrics to assist with peer review. (Again, definitely not to replace peer review.) If so, why not try to refine them.<br /><br />On the other hand (2), the New York Review of Books takes a tone of blaming American management theories and consulting firms, and summarizes these American methods as "bureaucratization". Yes, American consultants and managers are a source of all sorts of bad ideas. But they can also be a source of good ideas; in particular, they sometimes offer good advice to reduce rather than increase bureaucracy. For instance, in my year here in France, I do wonder why there are so many unfinished new buildings and building renovations. People here tend to shrug it off as bureaucratic dysfunction. Maybe I'm in denial about American universities, but my impression is that they have less patience for unfinished construction work. It could be a mistake to circle the wagons and say, "we're a university, so outsiders can't give us any good advice".<br /><br />Finally, I should say that I am having a wonderful time in France in so many ways, both professionally and otherwise. I do not mean to sound like I'm complaining.Greg Kuperberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16655664043505766628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-90954468279239361092010-12-27T01:22:44.149-08:002010-12-27T01:22:44.149-08:00Réponse à Anonyme : désolé de trouver ce commentai...Réponse à Anonyme : désolé de trouver ce commentaire si tard. La référence précise a été supprimée lors de la publication de l'article par La Tribune, c'était : "Social Networks in the Boardroom", Francis Kramarz, David Thesmar, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1940, janvier 2006.Jean-Marc Schlenkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10063463243476870669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-12894513158858374372010-10-17T07:50:05.493-07:002010-10-17T07:50:05.493-07:00"sont", bien sur. Pardon."sont", bien sur. Pardon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1341169208110303344.post-64566661738558898962010-10-17T07:48:42.296-07:002010-10-17T07:48:42.296-07:00Pourrait-on connaître les références des études éc...Pourrait-on connaître les références des études économétriques qui démontrent que les entreprises dirigées par des "anciens élèves de" son médiocrement gérées ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com