Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials

User Tools


aaac:apr27

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
aaac:apr27 [2015/04/27 14:07] – [Agenda April 27, 2015] priscaaaac:apr27 [2015/05/25 13:24] (current) prisca
Line 1: Line 1:
 ==== Agenda April 27, 2015 ==== ==== Agenda April 27, 2015 ====
   * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel on the article and its survey. Linked at [[aaac:resources|RESOURCES]]   * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel on the article and its survey. Linked at [[aaac:resources|RESOURCES]]
-  * Discussion: See below for a list of possible survey questions +  * Discussion: See below.
   * Moving forward with Agency Statistics and Analysis.  The {{:aaac:aaacdemosection_long.docx|Longer report on Proposal Pressures}} that was not in finished form by the March 2015 AAAC report, may be a good place to start.  What are the questions not yet answered, what additional information is required to make a case.   * Moving forward with Agency Statistics and Analysis.  The {{:aaac:aaacdemosection_long.docx|Longer report on Proposal Pressures}} that was not in finished form by the March 2015 AAAC report, may be a good place to start.  What are the questions not yet answered, what additional information is required to make a case.
   * Next Teleconference - AOB   * Next Teleconference - AOB
Line 44: Line 44:
       "not an expectation".       "not an expectation".
  
- 
- 
-==== Sample questions that go beyond the Von Hippel Survey ==== 
-== Important note:  This list is far too long and we would clearly need to reduce the number of questions,  The ones listed are just examples == 
- 
-=== Answer these questions with a scale:  strongly agree <--> neutral <--> strongly disagree) === 
-  * How would the following actions by the funding agencies affect you? 
-    * Limiting applicants to one PI or CoI proposal per year: 
-      * would increase the time I could spend on my research 
-      * would reduce my chances for tenure. 
-      * would cause me to leave the field. 
-      * would reduce the number of proposals I submit.  
-      * would improve the quality of those proposals I submit 
-      * would reduce the size of my research group 
-    * Calling for proposals every other year 
-      * Etc.. 
-    * Introducing a pre-proposal stage. 
-      * Etc... 
-    * Reducing the amount of funding for individual proposals 
-      * Etc.. 
-    * Creating smaller research grants for exploratory research, with an expectation that successful proposals are likely to be funded in the following year 
- 
-  * Proposals to non-governmental research funds are easier to get funded (or "are available to me" ) 
-  * There are too many scientists in the field of astrophysics and the low success rate is an appropriate method of population control 
- 
-=== Other questions === 
- 
-  * If my proposal is rejected, (choose one answer that best represents your action) 
-    * I resubmit the same proposal the next year 
-    * I submit a different type of proposal the next year 
-    * I support my research on someone else's grant 
-    * I submit a similar proposal to a different federal funding source 
-    * I submit a similar proposal to a private funding source 
-    * I concentrate on other aspects of my job (e.g. teaching)  
  
  
  
aaac/apr27.1430161667.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/04/27 14:07 by prisca