新出版的研究：各种考试考核无法预测成功人士(神秘的成才规律)!
|| 推荐到群组
新出版的研究：各种考试考核也无法预测成功人士(神秘的成才规律)!
My take was: 神秘的成才规律. 市面充斥成功人士成功学,但成功无法预测.各种考试考核也无预测成功人士.
有点天意: 寒门子弟就有机会！ 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.
"这些论文增加了越来越多的信息，表明广泛使用的“客观”入学措施，如GRE考试成绩和GPA，正是错误的方式来挑选未来的科学进步贡献者。然而，GRE考试成绩和GPA继续强烈地影响招生委员会，可能是损害个人有志于科学家的人，尽管他们天賜聪明的科学家的辉煌，在纸上考试成绩不看好。"
""Posselt在筛选过程中特别是与精英研究生部门有关的另一个客观标准是申请人的本科学校的地位。 但是，旧金山加利福尼亚大学（UC）教授的2014年研究发现，这一指标也被淘汰出来，作为研究生表现的预测因子。 即使是美国新闻与世界报道“十大生命科学大学”之一的学士学位也没有明显差异。""
""Yitang "Tom" Zhang (Chinese: 张益唐): 同行评议的出版物无论文发表长达13年。任辅导教学 - 从接受博士学位的时候(2000年)，在2013年他57岁，他提出了一个令人震惊数学世界的论文，解决了数学理论中长期存在的问题。现在被誉为“天才”和“名人”，此后，他获得了无数次大奖和两位教授的任命，首先是新罕布什尔大学，然后是加州圣巴巴拉分校。""
** Ref.**
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2017/06/gres-dont-predict-grad-school-success-what-does
这些论文增加了越来越多的信息，表明广泛使用的“客观”入学措施，如GRE考试成绩和GPA，正是错误的方式来挑选未来的科学进步贡献者。然而，GRE考试成绩和GPA继续强烈地影响招生委员会，可能是损害个人有志于科学家的人，尽管他们天賜聪明的科学家的辉煌，在纸上考试成绩不看好。
"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和范德比尔特的研究都发现，没有一个可以客观认可的资料预示着科学的生产力，而不是第一作者的出版物，会议介绍，奖学金或赠与，完成博士学位，通过资格考试，或者迅速进入论文防御或程度。作者报道，范德比尔特（Vanderbilt）样本中，GRE成绩仅为“第一学期成绩的中度预测因子”和“研究生GPA的弱至中度预测因子”。他们写道，没有一个令人信服的证据表明，一般GRE成绩和研究生在生物医学研究方面的成功之间的关系。在UNC，成绩，以前的研究经验的数量（所有至少有一些研究经验的学生）和教师面试评分都未能预示研究生生产力。
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在筛选过程中特别是与精英研究生部门有关的另一个客观标准是申请人的本科学校的地位。 但是，旧金山加利福尼亚大学（UC）教授的2014年研究发现，这一指标也被淘汰出来，作为研究生表现的预测因子。 即使是美国新闻与世界报道“十大生命科学大学”之一的学士学位也没有明显差异。
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.
**
如何发现人才
如果这些广泛使用的措施不行，那是什么呢？研究人员研究人员研究人员研究人员和成功研究人员在2012年写道：“预测科学家未来成功的最佳方式是让同行评价科学贡献和研究深度。”他们将他们开发的统计方法视为“有用的“到”资助机构，同行评审员和招聘委员会“。但是即使如此，他们也明确表示，为了诠释出优秀科学表现的”空气净化“，与经验丰富的研究人员的主观质量判断无关。
这种对专家意见的强调也恰好与研究结论一致。 UNC研究和加州大学旧金山分校成果最为强大的预测因子是申请者本科教师的推荐信 - 换句话说，大概是认识他们和他们的科目的人的主观评估。获得最佳建议的学生，UNC合着者提出，表现出“与常规挑战相关的研究成果（例如能力）坚持并保持焦点和乐观态度的”特征之星“。
而如果评分和成绩等客观指标无法预测学生的科学承诺，那么在出版物数量方面可以做到客观的措施，更好地发现教师候选人的真正的智力承诺？不是根据物理学家彼得·希格斯（Peter Higgs），他在二十世纪六十年代对亚原子粒子的研究激发了同名希格斯玻色子的长期但最终成功的狩猎。正如他在2013年告诉卫报时，在前往斯德哥尔摩获得诺贝尔物理学奖时，多年来，他一直对“他的”部门进行研究评估工作感到尴尬。“自1964年以来发表的论文少于10篇他经常回应部门对最近出版物名单的要求，简单地回答：“无”。鉴于今天要频繁发表的要求，他补充说：“很难想象我将如何在现在有足够的和平与安宁的气候来做我在1964年做的事情。今天我不会得到一个学术的工作。就这么简单。我不认为我会被视为有生产力的。“
那么数学家伊塘“汤姆”张是完全不为人知的，就同行评议的出版物像零和辅导教学中一样 - 在2013年，从接受博士学位的时候，他57岁，他提出了一个令人震惊数学世界的论文，解决了数学理论中长期存在的问题。现在被誉为“天才”和“名人”，此后，他获得了无数次大奖和两位教授的任命，首先是新罕布什尔大学，然后是加州圣巴巴拉分校。((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 ...))
这些都不意味着建议每一个小小的出版物列表或所谓的GRE分数隐藏着隐藏的辉煌。但它确实提出了一种更可靠的公式，以便根据所谓的客观的科学承诺措施，发现似乎没有拥有它的人才能发现卓越的人才。似乎很可能至少有一些在希望和张先生的前期知道和工作的人都知道自己的能力。因此，评估科学潜力的委员会，无论是在研究生申请人还是将来的教师中，都可能受益于更多地关注知道候选人的思想和角色的科学家。阅读和考虑这样的证词无疑将花费更多的时间和精力，并且可以比查看数字，测试成绩，GPA或出版物的数量更少的“科学”。但似乎更有可能得到回报。
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：[转载]北大老师送给学生的十句话
