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
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Relevant Article
- In defence of merit awards
- J Tobias
BMJ 1994 308: 974-975.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
Bookmark with
What's new
Keep updated
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
