Perverse Incentives in Academia
Link
| Incentive | Intended Effect | Actual Effect | 
|---|---|---|
| Researchers rewarded for increased number of publications. | Improve research productivity. | Avalanche of crappy, incremental papers. | 
| Researchers rewarded for increased number of citations. | Researchers do work that is relevant and influential. | H-index obsession; list of references no longer included in page limit at many conferences. | 
| Researchers rewarded for increased grant funding. | Ensure that research programs are funded, promote growth, generate overhead $$. | Time wasted writing proposals, inefficient use of public $$. | 
| Maximum of two proposals submitted to an NSF program. | Discourage over-submission. | You’d have to be crazy to not meet your quota these days. | 
| Teachers rewarded for increased student evaluation scores. | Improved accountability; ensure customer satisfaction. | Easy courses, inflated grades. | 
| Teachers rewarded for increased student test scores. | Improve teacher effectiveness. | Teaching to the tests; emphasis on short-term learning. | 
| Departments rewarded for increasing US News ranking. | Stronger departments. | Resources squandered trying to influence rankings. | 
| Departments rewarded for increasing numbers of BS, MS, and PhD degrees granted. | Promote efficiency; stop students from being trapped in over-long degree programs; impress the state legislature. | Class sizes increase; entrance requirements watered down; graduation requirements watered down. | 
| Departments rewarded for increasing student credit/contact hours (SCH). | The university’s teaching mission is fulfilled. | SCH-maximization games are played: classes are duplicated, turf wars occur over service courses. |