Why do scientists with similar backgrounds and abilities often end up achieving very different degrees of success? A classic explanation is that academic achievement exhibits a “Matthew effect”: Early successes increase future success chances. We analyze data from a large academic funding program that present a unique opportunity to quantify the Matthew effect and identify generative mechanisms. Our results show that winners just above the funding threshold accumulate more than twice as much funding during the subsequent eight years as nonwinners with near-identical review scores that fall just below the threshold. This effect is partly caused by nonwinners ceasing to compete for other funding opportunities, revealing a “participation” mechanism driving the Matthew effect.
Despite earning higher praise, women get lower scores on NIH grant renewals, which may contribute to an attrition of mid-career female scientists.
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute has selected 39 new Gilliam fellows, exceptional doctoral students who have the potential to be leaders in their fields and the desire to advance diversity and inclusion in the sciences.
Randen Patterson left a research career in physiology at U.C. Davis when funding got too tight. He now owns a grocery store in Guinda, Calif. Max Whittaker/Prime for NPR Ian Glomski thought he was going to make a difference in the fight to protect people from deadly anthrax germs. He had done everything right — […]
The University of Wisconsin System’s Board of Regents approved a $42 million budget proposal Thursday, a good portion of which will go to expand its already-failing diversity programs. Campus Reform recently reported that participants in a UW, Madison diversity program make up only a small percentage of each freshman class, despite the program’s intended goal […]