隴山隴西郡
寧靜純我心 感得事物人 寫樸實清新. 閑書閑話養閑心,閑筆閑寫記閑人;人生無虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。
新出版的研究：各種考試考核無法預測成功人士(神秘的成才規律)!
|| 推薦到群組
新出版的研究：各種考試考核也無法預測成功人士(神秘的成才規律)!
My take was: 神秘的成才規律. 市麵充斥成功人士成功學,但成功無法預測.各種考試考核也無預測成功人士.
有點天意: 寒門子弟就有機會！ If you can duplicate your success, life repeats itself - your dad is billionaire, you're; your dad is Nobel, you're - nothing left for those without such dad. Some like dad, like son - that's ok. But if you can machinery duplicate - that's problematic.
"這些論文增加了越來越多的信息，表明廣泛使用的“客觀”入學措施，如GRE考試成績和GPA，正是錯誤的方式來挑選未來的科學進步貢獻者。然而，GRE考試成績和GPA繼續強烈地影響招生委員會，可能是損害個人有誌於科學家的人，盡管他們天賜聰明的科學家的輝煌，在紙上考試成績不看好。"
""Posselt在篩選過程中特別是與精英研究生部門有關的另一個客觀標準是申請人的本科學校的地位。 但是，舊金山加利福尼亞大學（UC）教授的2014年研究發現，這一指標也被淘汰出來，作為研究生表現的預測因子。 即使是美國新聞與世界報道“十大生命科學大學”之一的學士學位也沒有明顯差異。""
""Yitang "Tom" Zhang (Chinese: 張益唐): 同行評議的出版物無論文發表長達13年。任輔導教學 - 從接受博士學位的時候(2000年)，在2013年他57歲，他提出了一個令人震驚數學世界的論文，解決了數學理論中長期存在的問題。現在被譽為“天才”和“名人”，此後，他獲得了無數次大獎和兩位教授的任命，首先是新罕布什爾大學，然後是加州聖巴巴拉分校。""
** Ref.**
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/06/gres-dont-predict-grad-school-success-what-does
這些論文增加了越來越多的信息，表明廣泛使用的“客觀”入學措施，如GRE考試成績和GPA，正是錯誤的方式來挑選未來的科學進步貢獻者。然而，GRE考試成績和GPA繼續強烈地影響招生委員會，可能是損害個人有誌於科學家的人，盡管他們天賜聰明的科學家的輝煌，在紙上考試成績不看好。
"These papers add to a growing body of information suggesting that widely used “objective” admissions measures, such as GRE test scores and GPA, are exactly the wrong way to go about picking future contributors to scientific progress. Yet, they continue to strongly influence admissions committees—probably to the detriment of individual aspiring scientists who, despite their brilliance, may not look good on paper, and of the entire scientific enterprise."
"admissions committees often assume that “typical selection criteria [such as] standardized test scores, undergraduate GPA, letters of recommendation, a resume and/or personal statement highlighting relevant research or professional experience, and feedback from interviews with training faculty … correlate with research success in graduate school.”"
然而，UNC和範德比爾特的研究都發現，沒有一個可以客觀認可的資料預示著科學的生產力，而不是第一作者的出版物，會議介紹，獎學金或贈與，完成博士學位，通過資格考試，或者迅速進入論文防禦或程度。作者報道，範德比爾特（Vanderbilt）樣本中，GRE成績僅為“第一學期成績的中度預測因子”和“研究生GPA的弱至中度預測因子”。他們寫道，沒有一個令人信服的證據表明，一般GRE成績和研究生在生物醫學研究方麵的成功之間的關係。在UNC，成績，以前的研究經驗的數量（所有至少有一些研究經驗的學生）和教師麵試評分都未能預示研究生生產力。
Yet, both the UNC and Vanderbilt studies found that none of the supposedly objective credentials predicted anything recognizable as scientific productivity—not first-author publications, conference presentations, fellowships or grants won, completing the Ph.D., passing the qualifying exam, or proceeding swiftly to dissertation defense or to the degree. Among the Vanderbilt sample, GRE scores turned out to be only “moderate predictors of first semester grades” and “weak to moderate predictors of graduate GPA,” the authors report. There is no convincing evidence of a “relationship between general GRE scores and graduate student success in biomedical research,” they write. At UNC, grades, amount of previous research experience (among students who all had at least some research experience), and faculty interview ratings all failed to foretell grad school productivity.
Posselt在篩選過程中特別是與精英研究生部門有關的另一個客觀標準是申請人的本科學校的地位。 但是，舊金山加利福尼亞大學（UC）教授的2014年研究發現，這一指標也被淘汰出來，作為研究生表現的預測因子。 即使是美國新聞與世界報道“十大生命科學大學”之一的學士學位也沒有明顯差異。
Another supposedly objective criterion that Posselt found to be influential during the screening process, especially with elite graduate departments, is the standing of an applicant’s undergraduate school. But a 2014 study from a professor at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, found that this metric also washed out as a predictor of grad school performance. Even a bachelor’s degree from one of the U.S. News & World Report “top 10 life sciences universities” made no discernible difference.
**
如何發現人才
如果這些廣泛使用的措施不行，那是什麽呢？研究人員研究人員研究人員研究人員和成功研究人員在2012年寫道：“預測科學家未來成功的最佳方式是讓同行評價科學貢獻和研究深度。”他們將他們開發的統計方法視為“有用的“到”資助機構，同行評審員和招聘委員會“。但是即使如此，他們也明確表示，為了詮釋出優秀科學表現的”空氣淨化“，與經驗豐富的研究人員的主觀質量判斷無關。
這種對專家意見的強調也恰好與研究結論一致。 UNC研究和加州大學舊金山分校成果最為強大的預測因子是申請者本科教師的推薦信 - 換句話說，大概是認識他們和他們的科目的人的主觀評估。獲得最佳建議的學生，UNC合著者提出，表現出“與常規挑戰相關的研究成果（例如能力）堅持並保持焦點和樂觀態度的”特征之星“。
而如果評分和成績等客觀指標無法預測學生的科學承諾，那麽在出版物數量方麵可以做到客觀的措施，更好地發現教師候選人的真正的智力承諾？不是根據物理學家彼得·希格斯（Peter Higgs），他在二十世紀六十年代對亞原子粒子的研究激發了同名希格斯玻色子的長期但最終成功的狩獵。正如他在2013年告訴衛報時，在前往斯德哥爾摩獲得諾貝爾物理學獎時，多年來，他一直對“他的”部門進行研究評估工作感到尷尬。“自1964年以來發表的論文少於10篇他經常回應部門對最近出版物名單的要求，簡單地回答：“無”。鑒於今天要頻繁發表的要求，他補充說：“很難想象我將如何在現在有足夠的和平與安寧的氣候來做我在1964年做的事情。今天我不會得到一個學術的工作。就這麽簡單。我不認為我會被視為有生產力的。“
那麽數學家伊塘“湯姆”張是完全不為人知的，就同行評議的出版物像零和輔導教學中一樣 - 在2013年，從接受博士學位的時候，他57歲，他提出了一個令人震驚數學世界的論文，解決了數學理論中長期存在的問題。現在被譽為“天才”和“名人”，此後，他獲得了無數次大獎和兩位教授的任命，首先是新罕布什爾大學，然後是加州聖巴巴拉分校。((Yitang "Tom" Zhang is a Chinese-born American mathematician working in the area of number theory. While working for the University of New Hampshire as a lecturer, Zhang ... After the Cultural Revolution ended, Zhang entered Peking University in 1978 as an undergraduate student and received his B.Sc. degree in ...))
這些都不意味著建議每一個小小的出版物列表或所謂的GRE分數隱藏著隱藏的輝煌。但它確實提出了一種更可靠的公式，以便根據所謂的客觀的科學承諾措施，發現似乎沒有擁有它的人才能發現卓越的人才。似乎很可能至少有一些在希望和張先生的前期知道和工作的人都知道自己的能力。因此，評估科學潛力的委員會，無論是在研究生申請人還是將來的教師中，都可能受益於更多地關注知道候選人的思想和角色的科學家。閱讀和考慮這樣的證詞無疑將花費更多的時間和精力，並且可以比查看數字，測試成績，GPA或出版物的數量更少的“科學”。但似乎更有可能得到回報。
How to spot talent
If these widely used measures don’t work, what does? A group of researchers who devise and study metrics of research productivity and success wrote in 2012 that “the best way of predicting a scientist’s future success is for peers to evaluate scientific contributions and research depth.” They see the statistical method they developed as “useful” to “funding agencies, peer reviewers and hiring committees.” But even so, they make clear that, to ferret out that je ne sais quoi that foreshadows outstanding scientific performance, nothing compares to subjective judgments of quality by experienced researchers.
This emphasis on expert opinion also happens to align with the conclusions of the studies. The predictor that emerged as most powerful in both the UNC study and the UC San Francisco analysis was letters of recommendation from applicants’ undergraduate teachers—in other words, subjective assessments from people who presumably knew both them and their subjects well. Students who received top recommendations, the UNC co-authors suggest, show a “constellation of characteristics that typically correlate with research success [such as ability to] persevere and maintain focus and optimism in the face of regular challenges.”
And if objective measures such as scores and grades don’t work in predicting students’ scientific promise, can objective measures such as numbers of publications do any better at spotting true intellectual promise among faculty candidates? Not according to physicist Peter Higgs, whose work on subatomic particles in the 1960s inspired the long but ultimately successful hunt for the eponymous Higgs boson. As he told The Guardian in 2013, while traveling to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics, for years he had been “an embarrassment to [his] department when they did research assessment exercises.” With fewer than 10 papers published since this 1964 breakthrough, he often responded to departmental requests for lists of recent publications with a simple reply: “None.” Given today’s requirement to publish frequently, he added, “It's difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964. … Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough.”
Then there’s mathematician Yitang “Tom” Zhang, who was completely unknown—as in zero peer-reviewed publications and an adjunct teaching job—when, in 2013, at the age of 57 and 12 years
out from receiving his Ph.D., he submitted a paper that astounded the mathematical world by
solving a long-standing problem in number theory. Now hailed as a “genius” and a “celebrity,” he has since
that triumph received numerous major prizes and appointments to two professorships, first at the University of New Hampshire and then UC Santa Barbara.
None of this is meant to suggest that every scanty publication list or so-so GRE score conceals hidden brilliance. But it does suggest a more reliable formula for spotting exceptional talent among people who appear not to possess it according to supposedly objective measures of scientific promise. It seems pretty likely that at least some of the people who knew and worked with Higgs and Zhang in their pre-fame days were aware of their abilities. It thus stands to reason that committees evaluating scientific potential, whether in grad school applicants or would-be faculty members, might benefit from paying more attention to what the scientists who know the candidates think of their minds and characters. Reading and considering such testimony would undoubtedly take more time and effort and could feel less “scientific” than looking at numbers, whether test scores, GPAs, or tallies of publications. But it appears more likely to pay off.
Read more Taken for Granted stories
DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.a1700046
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-847277-1069597.html
上一篇：[轉載]北大老師送給學生的十句話
