Also this week: why you might love a job at a teaching college, how to herd
cats faculty, and more.
Why you might love a faculty position at a teaching college. (ht Small Pond Science, where Terry McGlynn notes that at many teaching colleges it is still possible to do research as well, though obviously not with grad students if the college lacks a graduate program.)
Tips for university administrators looking to manage faculty who hate admin buzzwords. Which is all faculty. (ht Small Pond Science. Dynamic Ecology: we read Small Pond Science in case you forgot.)
Dan Kahan on how non-scientists learn about the science relevant to their everyday decision-making, and why those heuristics sometimes fail when it comes to persistently-controversial, politically-salient issues. Kahan argues that those failures are not primarily attributable to organized deception, and you cannot fix them via more or better science instruction in school, or via having more scientists explain their own technical knowledge better. (ht Andrew Gelman)
A while back I asked at what career stage do scientists typically do their best work, and linked to some data addressing this question. Writing in Science, Sinatra et al. find that, on a per-paper basis (a crucial qualifier), scientists are equally likely to publish their best work at any age, where “best” is operationally defined as “most cited”. But older scientists publish less, and so scientists are most likely to do their most-cited work when young. I leave it to you to decide if this is just another way of saying that the number of citations a given paper receives is really noisy.
NSF full proposal tips from a recent panelist.
Stephen Heard and I have a laughably big disagreement over a laughably small thing (link goes to his post, see the comments over there for my response).
Accidental aRt is still going strong.
And finally (ht @dandrezner):