1. catdynamics
  2. Rumour is that...

Rumour is that...

By catdynamics on July 17, 2006.

Mark at CosmiVariance passes on a rumour that there is a new Astro Job Rumour Wiki

This potentially supercedes the legendary New Astro Rumour Mill which of course used to be here, which in turn superceded the legendary orginal Astro Rumour Mill started by Pat Hall.

Mark has some interesting discussion on the utility of the Rumour Mills.

His essential point is of course correct, the information is there, and it wants to be free...

Having also been on both sides of the rumours, I note that the public info is occasionally gamed, by both sides. Candidates may "leak" their status to the Mill to boost their status or to put pressure on other places where they applied; Institutions also selectively leak on occasion, sometimes to pressure candidates, occasionally to "psych" other Institutions. It is an interesting game.

Worst thing is when an incorrect rumour is posted and a career may be damaged, though such is usually self-correcting, being public and all that. A Wiki should help in this case.

Tags
astro

More like this

Problems in the scientific literature: vigilance and victim-blaming.
That post about how hard it is to clean up the scientific literature has spawned an interesting conversation in the comments. Perhaps predictably, the big points of contention seem to be how big a problem a few fraudulent papers in the literature really are (given the self-correcting nature of…
very model of a modern language professor
signs of the times at the MLA There are, currently, 73 faculty level positions gossiped about on the Astrophysics Jobs Rumour Mill - this seems a bit low, even considering we are mid-season and not all jobs will be wiki'd yet. As a non-random sample, I looked at the 2006-7 season and there were…
John Stuart Mill on Open Access to scientific papers
Peter Suber goes philosophical: Open access and the self-correction of knowledge: Here's an epistemological argument for OA. It's not particularly new or novel. In fact, I trace it back to some arguments by John Stuart Mill in 1859. Nor is it very subtle or complicated. But it's important in…
Should researchers share data?
A colleague of mine (who has time to read actual printed-on-paper newspapers in the morning) pointed me toward an essay by Andrew Vickers in the New York Times (22 January 2008) wondering why cancer researchers are so unwilling to share their data. Here's Vickers' point of entry to the issue: [A]…

I've never leaked to the Rumor Mill... maybe I should. (Sigh. I hate all that gaming stuff.)

The one time I had experience with the Astro Rumor mill was five years ago when I was hired at Vanderbilt. After I'd been offered the job, somebody at Vandy informed me that I shouldn't be worried about what I saw there. They had two names on the short list, an offer made to one name, but neither had really been on the short list. So, incorrect information happens....

-Rob