Conquest and Liberation of Academia
During my graduate studies (’93-97), I looked at the history of prizes in science. I learned that from ~1600-1800, prizes funded science lots, and much more than did grants. But ~1830, science elites controlling top scientific societies in both Britain and France defrauded donors to switch funding to grants, which were then directed by society insiders to be given mostly to insiders. Thereafter such societies insisted that donors must fund grants, not prizes, if they wanted their donations to gain prestigious scientific society associations.
Later, ~1900, tenure became common in academia. Then ~1940, peer review became common in publications, and ~1960 in grants. Also about midcentury, journalism switched from its usual mode of questioning and investigating claims made to it, to accepting whatever academics said and trying to “communicate” that to the public. In ~1980s, college rating systems became widely available to the US public, ratings which depended mainly how how elite academics rated those colleges.
All of these changes were ways in which academic elites wrested control of academia from outsiders who previously imposed some degree of incentives and accountability. The elites of most any profession would love to fully control it, being given resources to spend at their discretion, with little need to accommodate demands of customers, investors, regulators, or anyone else. But academic managed to achieve this ideal far more than most, due to its peak prestige. Via elite schools, academics control prestige in many other areas of life.
I review this history to make clear just what academic reformers are up against. It is far from sufficient to enumerate academic failures; you’ll have to develop concrete alternatives that can win prestige fights against the usual academics. History has long been moving against you; you’ll have to somehow reverse that strong tide.