{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@RARohde The policy did not change. But the high percentage of cases where we had to write emails to ask for clarifications dropped substantially, which was very welcome.

Also the still very high percentage of signups that do not give a publication list have started writing more informative applications on their studies or the labs where they do their thesis.

The previous longer text was mostly ignored as fine print not to be read.

@icesheetmike @FrankSonntag @steve

2
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
Mike MacFerrin

@VictorVenema
If the stated policy is more restrictive than the enforced policy, and the key to getting in (for instance, for an MS student or an undergrad RA working in a lab) is to implicitly “know to ask for an exception”, then that is a barrier to diversity. It creates an insider club, between those who know the unwritten rules vs those who don’t. There are too many “unwritten rules”in academia already.

Stated policy can (and should) be written honestly, imo.

@RARohde @steve @FrankSonntag

0
2y
Dan Killam

@VictorVenema @RARohde @icesheetmike @FrankSonntag @steve Looking back to my time as a young, unpublished undergrad/grad student, the convos I had with senior researchers where they talked to me as peers are the ones thay really helped me realize I too could do this. Hope there could be a way to word the requirements to make it clear to those who may unjustly see themselves as impostors based on that bad review on first paper, that they also qualify for your noble server.

1
2y
Replies