Rannis frustrations pt. 1

I just finished reviewing some applications for student funding for Rannis.  Of course, as soon as I took on the task I was reminded why I had sworn not to do more reviews for Rannis: Reviews aren't anonymous.  Now, personally, I don't really care too much about potentially upsetting people but, then again, I'm a few thousand kilometers away and I feel fairly safe that I won't run into any of them anytime soon.  But in general I think this policy is little short of insane.  It is simply unreasonable to expect people to give their honest assessment of their colleagues (i.e., you are asked to assess the research activity/output of the advisor as well) when, at best, it may result in some awkward moments at work and, at worst, have real implications when it comes to promotions etc.  Of course, one would hope that everyone was able to rise above such things or chalk them down to academic differences but I think it is a very optimistic view to assume that is the case.

 

At any rate, for the second year in row, I made a note of this when turning in my reviews.  If you agree that this policy is idiotic (or just not that good) I encourage you to do the same.


« Síđasta fćrsla | Nćsta fćrsla »

Bćta viđ athugasemd

Hver er summan af fimm og tveimur?
Nota HTML-ham

Innskráning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveikiđ á Javascript til ađ hefja innskráningu.

Hafđu samband