The problem in all of academia is how do you evaluate performance. And this is true for all disciplines. For example
1. To get a PhD, you need to do ‘publishable’ research even if all it is, is grinding out a couple of more decimal places in a measurement and it’s published by the school.
2. What separates the academic performance of associate, assistant, & full professor so the get P&T (promotion and tenure)?
a. Time in the seat? School gets no benefit!
b. Papers published? (It can be gamed! See the early AGW papers and who did the evaluations.) Benefits the school’s reputation so an indirect benefit.
c. Grant money? Still can be gamed but the school’s infrastructure directly benefits from the R\D overhead!
d. Teaching? Definitely can be gamed and is! School gets no benefit!
So, 2b. & 2c. are the metrics used. It’s hard to come up with anything else that could be used.
For item 1 a PhD is supposed to say you know how to do the craft of ‘research’. How are you supposed to learn to do it if you are not required to do it? Even if in reality the R\D mentoring is poor to nonexistent, and it’s done badly as long as 5-7 PhD’s bless it, it’s fine. (It’s kind of like the old saying what’s the guy\gal who graduates last in medical school called? — Doctor!)
The system is still very much a medieval craft guild system.
Typo
“..the get P&T.. “= “they get P&T”