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

User Tools

Trace:
aaac:may26

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
aaac:may26 [2015/05/25 13:24] – created priscaaaac:may26 [2015/05/26 14:09] (current) – prisca
Line 1: Line 1:
-==== Agenda May 26, 2015 ==== +===== Agenda May 26, 2015 =====
-  * Presentation by Ted Von Hippel on the article and its survey. Linked at +
-  * 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.+
  
- +=== Work Plan === 
- +  - Prepare a short paper outline which could be done by //-- insert date  --// (determined by mid-decadal planning schedule)  (Keivan)   
- +    * From Paul Hertz: The mid-decade review committee should be announced soon.  They will be starting their work in June 2015 and delivering their report by the end of April 2016. 
-==== Sample questions that go beyond the Von Hippel Survey ==== +  - Use the data already collected and mine it for some more specific questions and data-driven scenarios 
-== 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 == +    * Ted and Keivan present extensions to models of "time until proposal exhaustion" {{:aaac:estimates_for_aaac_disussion.docx|New Models}} 
- +  - Submit a new survey 
-=== Answer these questions with a scale:  strongly agree <--> neutral <--> strongly disagree) === +    * Determine what information didn't make it into the original survey and incorporate it in the new one. Go over questions below today and create small "survey ideas group" to prepare new survey and report to larger group. 
-  * How would the following actions by the funding agencies affect you? +    * Practical issues: Identify point people to coordinate with Joel and with the survey ideas group. 
-    * Limiting applicants to one PI or CoI proposal per year: +    * What is an Institutional Review Board and why do we need one?  
-      * would increase the time I could spend on my research +  - Drill down and fill in the gaps on Agency Statistics 
-      * would reduce my chances for tenure. +    * Create subgroup to follow through on this.  Agency liaison model. Report back to whole group.
-      * 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/may26.1432578245.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/05/25 13:24 by prisca

Page Tools