i****l
发帖数: 287 | 1 Just received this from 80-20, true?
3) Why do AsAm PIs have the lowest success rate in NSF proposals funding
rate, although they may have the higher perhaps even the highest average
publication rate?
NSF just released the following report (See middle of p. 2): The
success rate for proposals from PIs was White 24%; from Hispanics or Latin
PIs was 20%; from Black/African-Am. PIs was 18%; from Asian PIs was 17%. We
are always the last!
Why? Why? Why? Because the House, Senate and White House Committees of
science that are supposed to monitor NSF, didn't find such a statistical
result abnormal. In other words: SANCTIONED BY
GOVERNMENT!
If one of the committee chairs would ask a question such as that posed
in 3) and request a special report on these success rates next year, if the
same pattern holds, chances are NSF will begin doing internal adjustments to
be more fair to AsAm PIs right away. 80-20 EF, which is always extremely
busy, may work towards that goal, if we can find time, and if many of you
will write in to request it. | n******g
发帖数: 2201 | 2 因为男亚裔太多 拉低了命中率 解决办法只招女亚裔
[在 ilmpnl (pure) 的大作中提到：]
:Just received this from 80-20, true?
:rate, although they may have the higher perhaps even the highest average
:publication rate?
We are always the last!
of science that are supposed to monitor NSF, didn't find such a
statistical | T*********s
发帖数: 20444 | | g******t
发帖数: 11249 | 4 而且应该是鸟不拉屎的地方的
只能挤NSF
周边没有办法横向合作
【在 T*********s 的大作中提到】
: 因为烂校的老中教授太多啦
| d*******h
发帖数: 2146 | 5 可以理解吧
80-90%都是亚裔投的
然后华人和印度人胡搞胡混的比例又挺高
美国佬写的有水平很差的但态度上胡写的比例比较低
比较掉眼镜的是咱华人有很多大牛就随便拼凑点投来了
We
【在 i****l 的大作中提到】
: Just received this from 80-20, true?
: 3) Why do AsAm PIs have the lowest success rate in NSF proposals funding
: rate, although they may have the higher perhaps even the highest average
: publication rate?
: NSF just released the following report (See middle of p. 2): The
: success rate for proposals from PIs was White 24%; from Hispanics or Latin
: PIs was 20%; from Black/African-Am. PIs was 18%; from Asian PIs was 17%. We
: are always the last!
: Why? Why? Why? Because the House, Senate and White House Committees of
: science that are supposed to monitor NSF, didn't find such a statistical
|
|
