Interested in other academics' views & experiences on this

[MultiShirker]

I'm in charge of research for my area, and I've been soliciting good applicants for a couple of post-doc fellow positions.We run an internal selection process, so we then spend a bit of time with a selected few, with the hope that one of them gets the fellowship (the scheme has a less than 10% success rate).

There are a couple of institutions who use their networks & connections to snag about 50% of the available fellowships. The rest of us mop up the rest ...

So I had a promising candidate who told me that they were going to apply via one of these other institutions as the success rate was much better. I had spent time on the application & didn't develop others. So my area is left w/o any application to the scheme. My institution was developing others in other areas, so we'll still have some applicants.

I can absolutely see the POV of the prospective candidate. It's a one-shot scheme & they are desperate to get a fellowship. But they told us with only a week to go before the internal deadline & 2 weeks before the external deadline (it was last week, so I'm now reflecting on how to do things better). Obviously, we should have mentored a reserve candidate, but it all takes time & brain space.

So I'm wondering about the ethics. I gently (I think) advised the candidate that in future they might be better to be open about these things, as their actions have left a number of pissed-off people at my place. THat I understood their fears, but that it's better to be open that not. I am a mentor & referee for this person, so I think they know (I hope) that I am looking out for their best interests. I'm not pissed off, but I am disappointed. But I do understand their POV about the best chance. My view is, though that they should have told me about the other place.

Have you been in either the position of desperate candidate or research strategist? Views?

(And now I have to disappear for the rest of the day to write). BUt I'd be grateful for any comments or views.

It's not the student who is at fault but the system. Why is the system set up to reward some institutions and not others? The student is right to look after him/herself. Had he/she applied with your institution and fallen into the 90% failure rate no one would have helped him/her out.

Not your fault either of course, just stuck in the middle.

hahahha, yes the system is set up extremely strongly to favour Unis & academics that already have a successful track record in getting grants/fellowships. The RG started campaigning for concentrated-funding-for-just-a-few as active policy in 1997 and it has slowly become defacto policy among research councils & NIHR grant award bodies. Success breeds success & failure breeds failure (in the grant proposals).

Are you somewhere central where oxbridge the 2 top institutions are both accessible? It wouldn't happen here because we are out in the provinces a bit.

What I think is that the candidate has burnt bridges in OP's dept. They won't care after they get the fellowship (must have a good contact at alt. Uni?) They'll regret it if they fail. You can have a few fantasies about enjoying seeing them return with tail between legs, I guess.

Are they actually going to go forward with a research proposal you helped develop? I think to talk to colleagues about how to make sure people don't poach your ideas in future, or ask about whether you can still be a coauthor on their research output from this fellowship (but v. unlikely).

Thanks both, for your responses.

Booboostwo I'm not particularly bothered about whose "fault" it is -- I suppose I wasn't clear, but that's not what I'm asking for views about. As MedSchoolRat comments, it's about ethics, I guess.

To clarify (although I'm trying to keep details vague ...) it's a post-doc scheme and so it's the applicant's own project. So ideas etc not poached. But we did spend time and effort in helping the candidate review & redraft the application, and also commented on other feedback they'd received to help them use all the peer review/feedback. I personally spent about 90 minutes on an evening phone call talking the candidate through feedback & revision of the proposal.

I'm at a research-intensive place (RG FWIW), which - ironically - would be a far better fit for the particular project in terms of other colleagues in the same area, research groups etc. But we don't have the selection committee stacked with staff from our institution. If they're successful I will be genuinely pleased for the individual. If they're not, I will feel a justified sense of Schadenfreude.

I suppose I'm reflecting on how we can avoid the situation next year with other applicants, and how to balance being fair to likely candidates with protecting our time & energy, while attracting good candidates and keeping them from the maw of Oxbridge other institutions.

So I'm still interested in picking your collective brains, particularly ECRs.

Hmm. It's a tough one. Would you have helped this person to this extent for something that had no chance at being at your institution, for example job applications? I got good feedback on my job materials from my then-postdoc supervisor (including on a position he then competed with me for! that was a bit bizarre), and I feel that as a mentor/supervisor, it is my role to help my students/postdocs in their future.

It is complicated in that it was a specific programme you were running, and I'm guessing others got involved that might not have otherwise. Most properly, the candidate probably should have let you know that they were considering more than one place for their fellowship. Although I can understand worrying that might mean you would drop them entirely. But as long as that isn't the case, if you want to avoid it in the future, you could be upfront and say something like "we understand some of you may be considering more than one outlet for this; this is understandable and we are still willing to help you, but please do let us know if we are one of many so that we can line up more alternates"

I'm currently applying for a post doc and have received far more support than I might have expected. I sought out the institution as they have active research groups in my field. Detailed prompt feedback from a range of faculty and offers to look at redrafts. I'm very grateful as the process has massively strengthened my proposal, which I see as the main value of doing it given the likelihood of actually getting funded.

So in my position I wouldn't do what your post doc has done. But it doesn't surprise me that much as the world of ECRs is ridiculously cutthroat and competitive, and that can breed very individualistic priorities. I've interviewed for jobs where the pay is a complete joke or I'm overlooked due to nepotism etc., and I'm under ridiculous expectations to publish alongside the phd and sacrifice everything else in my life to get an academic post. I struggle at times to keep a positive collegiate attitude. So I think the whole system is broken and actually kind of encourages this type of behaviour.

Not sure how helpful that is to your situation, but that's my ECR perspective.

Assigning fault is very much a question of ethics - trust me I am a moral philosopher!

By saying it is the system's fault I meant you have no choice but to do it all again next time with the same risk that the next candidate will walk away as well. I assume that preparing these applications is not something candidates can do unassisted, so if you want them to have half a chance you need to help them.

On the bright side it's a relatively small time investment compared to,applying for research grants.

Obvious solution is to only help candidates in future who have local connections, like family, spouse with local job, kids in local schools, etc.

I know Feck-all about fellowships, but if they had that much input from you, I wonder if they won't produce that great research after all at alternative institution; their application isn't really their own work, is it?

(cynical old-timer here)

MedSchoolRat ha ha ha rather contravening all my EEO principles there ...

Thanks all for your views: we're a bit pissed off, but can see it from the candidate's POV, and will act accordingly next year, by grooming a reserve in addition to our main candidate. < sigh > more work

What I don't get is how the candidate can just transfer it over to other place. At my uni any application has to be worked on intensively with a supporting member of staff so would not be transferable. The head of school would not be able to write the recommendation and all that.

Anyhow, I would be so annoyed. it has happened to me before with phD applications where I honed and discussed and then student took it elsewhere. Unethical and burns their bridges in the future, but I can also see how the system makes them ruthless.