BMJ 1994;308:1165 (30 April)

Letters

Doomed by subjective assessment

EDITOR,--Jeffrey Tobias's assertion that "Merit is merit, and that's that" is too naive to be credible.1 As he confirms, the whole process of rewarding merit rests on advocacy and is thus open to the subtle influences of flattery and ingratiation on the one hand and the malign influence of retribution on the other. Indeed, his description of "nervous barristers" each acting as a "fierce advocate" for "their protege" epitomises the subjectivity of the process. How often has a convincing presentation been annihilated by further revelations?

Over the past decade the distribution of awards by specialty has changed little and the range (20-60%) overall has remained too wide. It would not be difficult to devise a system of marking curricula vitae that would assess merit objectively. Verification and support should come from democratically chosen representatives with limited age and tenure from the national societies or associations of each specialty. Despite repeated . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

In defence of merit awards
J Tobias
BMJ 1994 308: 974-975. [Extract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ