Itin menkas pasitikėjimas valstybės institucijomis signalizuoja, kad ne viskas yra gerai.

"O kaip galėtų būti kitaip, kai valstybės (visų mūsų) įmonės siekia tik pelno, užuot stengusios teikti kokybiškas paslaugas mažiausiu tarifu ir taip mažinti socialinę atskirtį bei atsisakytų monopolio. Tokios veiklos modelis paprastas – nuostolius padengs vartotojai, o pelnu galima bus garsiai girtis ir išsimokėti premijas.

Per pastarąjį dešimtmetį susiformavo nauja nomenklatūra, kurios nariai iš vienos valstybinės bendrovės keliauja vadovauti kitai. Kodėl nėra skelbiami tarptautiniai konkursai užimti vadovaujančius postus?

Kodėl neinvestuojama į valstybės viešuosius pirkimus prižiūrinčių darbuotojų kompetencijas? Galima drąsiai prognozuoti, kad dėl brangstančių žaliavų didės visų valstybinės reikšmės projektų sąmatos, tik nėra kas patikrina - ar adekvačiai? Tuomet sąvokos „tvarumas“, „socialinė atsakomybė“, „skaidrumas“, „aukščiausi apskaitos standartai“ nebetenka prasmės: visuomenė veidmainiavimą jaučia, o Hanibalas stovi prie vartų."

 Tie vartai yra Lietuvos elito buveinėse, prestižinėse Lietuvos vietose. Tas Hanibalas - tai mažų algų ir vakarietiškų kainų nualintas lietuvis.

Baltarusijos prokuratūra prašo apklausti V. Adamkų: jis buvo fašistinio „Minsko skerdiko“ patikėtinis

V. Adamkų reikia skubiai su antrankiais vežti į Minską.  Tai didžiulė gėda visai mūsų tautai. Toleruoti tokius veiksmus neįmanoma.

Kokie atlyginimai yra skurdūs Amerikoje?

 „Tai gana paprasta ir paprastai progresyvai kovoja, kad būtų išgirsta: JAV įmonės dešimtims milijonų darbuotojų moka per mažai pinigų, palyginti su pragyvenimo išlaidomis šioje šalyje. 

 Didžioji dalis darbo vietų, kurių darbo jėgos lygis nėra atsigavęs, yra labai mažas pajamas duodantys darbai; juos JAV privataus sektoriaus darbo kokybės indeksas vadina nekokybiškais darbais. Iki šių metų kovo dauguma privačiojo sektoriaus darbo vietų, pašalintų per pandemiją, kurios dar nebuvo atkurtos, yra gamybos ir „neprižiūrėtojų“ darbo vietos, kurių savaitinis atlyginimas vidutiniškai siekė mažiau nei 750 dolerių. Yra daugiau nei 45 milijonai mažai apmokamų darbo vietų, tokių kaip šie, tai sudaro maždaug 43 procentus visų šalies gamybos ir „neprižiūrėtojų“ darbų. Čia kalbama ne tik apie nelaimingą darbo rinkos kampelį. 

Dvidešimt trys milijonai šių darbų buvo apmokami mažiau, nei 500 dolerių per savaitę. Tai yra 26 000 dolerių per metus. 

Mažas darbo užmokestis ne vienintelė problema: daugelis šių darbų siūlo gerokai mažiau nei 30 valandų darbo per savaitę“. 

What jobs are considered bad in America?

 "It’s pretty simple and one that, normally, progressives fight to have heard: businesses are paying tens of millions of workers too little money relative to the cost of living in this country.

The majority of the jobs that aren’t back to prepandemic work force levels are very low-income jobs; they are what the U.S. Private Sector Job Quality Index, which I cocreated, calls low-quality jobs. Through March of this year, most of the private sector jobs eliminated during the pandemic that haven’t been restored are production and “nonsupervisory” jobs that offered weekly pay averaging less than $750 prepandemic. There are more than 45 million low-paying jobs like these, constituting roughly 43 percent of all production and nonsupervisory jobs in the country. This is not about a mere, unfortunate corner of the jobs market.
Twenty-three million of these jobs paid under $500 per week prepandemic: That’s $26,000 per year. Not only are the wages low: Many of these jobs offer well below 30 hours of work per week."

Akademijos žvaigždės: kaip tapti žinomu mokslininku?

"Kodėl vieni mokslininkai yra ryškesni už kitus? Vienas tyrimas rodo, kad mokslinė šlovė dažnai nėra pagrįsta vien dabartine veikla. Bet kas tada? Didesnių mokslinių konferencijų programoje dažnai dalyvauja žinomų dalyko atstovų paskaitos. Jūs neprivalote kreiptis iš anksto, būsite pakviesti ir paprastai taip pat gerai finansiškai kompensuojami. Net iš pranešimo dažnai tampa aišku, kad jis mažiau susijęs su tema, nes pavadinimas arba lieka atviras iki pat prieš pat datą, arba yra identiškas neseniai išleisto darbo pavadinimui. Jei renginys vis dar gausiai lankomas, greičiausiai tai mažiau pagrįsta naujų žinių lūkesčiais ir labiau susidomėjimu žmogumi. 

Panašiai kaip kino, knygų ir muzikos pramonėje, politikoje ar sporte, mokslas taip pat kuria „įžymybes“, kurių charizma gali peržengti jų pačių darbo, srities ar net disciplinos ribas. Subjektyvųjį - taip pat galima sakyti: magiškąjį „akademinės įžymybės“ matmenį iliustruoja Peteris Walshas ir Davidas Lehmannas, analizuodami reiškinį, remdamiesi vieša paskaita Kembridže: neįvardytas, žinomas postkolonijinio mokslo atstovas. o poststruktūralistinė teorija rengia gausiai lankytą, bet iš esmės nesuprantamą paskaitą. Plojimai po paskaitos yra žymiai mažesni, nei pradžioje, komentaras prasideda neryžtingu „Jei aš tave gerai supratau ...“ ir trunka mažiau, nei minutę. Ir vis dėlto po to daugelis susidomėjusių žmonių spokso aplink pakylą, kad bent akimis pažvelgtų įžymybę. Mato efektas gryniausia forma. Epizodas rodo, kad mokslinis iškilumas nėra pagrįstas vien tik dabartiniu rezultatu, o gal ir visai ne. 

„Įžymybė“, kaip 1960-ųjų dešimtmetyje išsakė amerikiečių istorikas Danielis Boorstinas, „yra žmogus, žinomas dėl savo žinomumo“. 

Atitinkamai apie šiuolaikinės žiniasklaidos įžymybes dažnai sakoma, kad jie „garsėja tuo, kad yra garsūs“. Na, žinoma, visada yra tam tikrų priežasčių, kodėl kažkas tapo žinomas. Akademinės įžymybės dažnai pasikliauja šlovę įtvirtinančiu kūriniu. Bet tai yra tik atspirties taškas karjerai, kuri iš esmės grindžiama tuo, kad Robertas K. Mertonas vadina „Mato efektu“, kad pasiekus reputaciją, tai didina supratimą apie vėlesnius pasiekimus. Konkurse dėl riboto profesionalios visuomenės dėmesio garsenybėms neproporcingai pasiseka dėl įgyto pranašumo. Šis akademinės reputacijos įgijimo mechanizmas rodo svarbų akademinės svarbos pagrindą: citavimo konkurencija. Tai, kad jį cituoja kiti, laikomas esminiu mokslo pasiekimų rodikliu. Citatos pasiskirsto ne tik netolygiai, bet ir labai vienpusiškai. Pavyzdžiui, dažniausiai cituojamas socialinis mokslininkas britas Anthony Giddensas pateikia šešis kartus daugiau citatų nei kolegos, kurie vis dar patenka į „top 20“ sociologiją. 

Tai susiję su tolesniu ryškumo aspektu, kuris ypač svarbus humanitariniuose ir socialiniuose moksluose: citatos čia naudojamos ne tik nurodant konkrečius tyrimų rezultatus, bet ir „pažymint“ savo poziciją. Tačiau tie, kurių vardai yra tinkami ženklinti priklausomybę mokslo bendruomenei, nori pasinaudoti šiuo „vardo numetimu“. Kiekvienas, kuris norėtų būti žinomas, tiria bendrumą. Taigi akademinis žinomumas yra sukurtas kasdienėje mokslo leidybos rutinoje. Todėl humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų srityje jis visų pirma grindžiamas daugiavalentiškumu: visi, kurie sprendžia bendruosius klausimus, gali būti cituojami iš daugelio specializuotų sričių. Ir citatos ne tik pagerina galimybes akademinėje darbo rinkoje, bet ir ypač perspektyvios užimti vietą be mokymo ir administracinių pareigų - lemiamą prielaidą, norint pasinaudoti galimybėmis pristatyti ir padidinti savo žinomumą.

 Kai pasiekiamas, svarbumas nebepriklauso nuo būsimų rezultatų: jam dažnai netaikoma bandymai ir bandomosios procedūros, tokios, kaip kritinė kolegų peržiūra. Jų dalyvavimas akademiniuose ritualuose yra pripažįstamas - žr. Aukščiau - neatsižvelgiant į mokslinius rezultatus. „Garsenybė“ nėra tiesiog sėkminga tyrinėtojo asmenybė, ji greičiau atspindi temą - taigi, tai, ką vertina visi dalyviai."

 

The stars of the academy: How do you get prominent as a scientist?

 "Why are some scientists more prominent than others? One study shows that scientific fame is often not based on current performance alone. But then what? The program of larger scientific conferences often includes lectures by prominent representatives of the subject. You do not have to apply in advance, you will be invited and usually also financially compensated. Even the announcement often makes it clear that it is less about the topic, because the title either remains open until shortly before the date or is identical to that of a recently published work. If the event is still well attended, it is probably less based on the expectation of new knowledge and more on the interest in the person. Similar to the film, book and music industries, politics or sport, science also produces “celebrities”, the charisma of which can exceed the boundaries of their own work, their field or even their discipline. 

The subjective - one could also say: magical - dimension of "Academic Celebrity" is illustrated by Peter Walsh and David Lehmann in their analysis of the phenomenon on the basis of a public lecture in Cambridge: An unnamed, well-known representative of postcolonial and poststructuralist theory holds a well-attended, but largely incomprehensible lecture. The applause after the lecture is significantly less than at the beginning, the commentary begins with a hesitant "If I have understood you correctly ..." and lasts less than a minute. And yet afterwards many interested people jostle around the podium to catch at least a glimpse of the celebrity. 

The Matthew Effect in its purest form. The episode shows that scientific prominence is not based solely, or perhaps not at all, on current performance. 

A “celebrity”, as the American historian Daniel Boorstin put it in the 1960s, “is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. 

Accordingly, it is often said of contemporary media celebrities that they are “famous for being famous”. Well, of course, there is always some reason why someone has become prominent. Academic celebrities often rely on a work that establishes fame. But this is only the starting point for a career that is essentially based on the fact that Robert K. Merton calls the “Matthew effect”, that once a reputation has been achieved, it increases awareness of later achievements. In the competition for the limited attention of the professional public, the celebrities succeed in a disproportionate way thanks to the advantage they have gained. This mechanism of acquiring academic reputation points to an important basis for academic prominence: the competition in citation. Being quoted by others is considered a crucial indicator of scientific achievement. 

Citations are not only unevenly distributed, they are very one-sided. The most frequently cited social scientist, the Briton Anthony Giddens, for example, has six times more citations than colleagues who are still among the “Top 20” in sociology. This has to do with a further dimension of prominence, which is particularly important in the humanities and social sciences: citations are not only used here to refer to concrete research results, but to “flag out” one's own position. However, those whose names are suitable to signal the affiliation to a scientific community prefer to benefit from this “name dropping”.  

Anyone who would like to be famous researches generalities. Academic prominence is thus generated within the framework of the everyday routines of scientific publishing. In the humanities and social sciences, it is therefore primarily based on polyvalence: anyone who deals with general issues can be quoted from many specialist areas. And citations not only improve the chances on the academic job market, but in particular the prospects for a position without teaching and administrative duties - a decisive prerequisite for being able to take advantage of opportunities to present and increase one's own prominence.

Once achieved, prominence is no longer dependent on future performance: it is often spared from testing and probation procedures, such as a critical peer review. And their presence at academic rituals is recognized - see above - regardless of the scientific output. A “celebrity” is not simply a successful researcher personality, but rather represents the subject - and thus something that is valued by everyone involved."

 

Why Nobel Prizes are such a big thing

 

  "There are higher-value awards for scientists - but none give the winner as much fame as a Nobel Prize. Why is that? And why will Stephen Hawking never get it? 

Anyone who receives a Nobel Prize is immediately in the newspaper, comes on television, is invited everywhere and asked for their opinion on everything possible - including things about which he or she has no more idea than most of us. As a Nobel Prize winner, you are a star and, if you want, you can be in the limelight. And then you never have to worry about your professional future again. There is no university that does not want a Nobel Prize winner among its professors. 

 The money seems almost irrelevant. That’s not a bad thing either. Anyone who receives a Nobel Prize alone - and does not have to share it with up to two others - currently earns more than 800,000 euros, plus a gold plaque with a current material value of around 4,700 euros. And in some countries, including Germany, the lucky winners don't even have to pay taxes on them. 

The prize money comes from the fortune of the Swedish chemist and entrepreneur Alfred Nobel. At the end of the 19th century, he had earned very well, not least from the novel explosives he helped develop, such as dynamite. With one exception, however, they were not suitable for war purposes but rather for applications such as mining. It is therefore not entirely clear whether the Nobel Prize is really due to a guilty conscience on the part of its founder and not rather to the effort to be fondly remembered by posterity. In any case, twelve months before his death in December 1896, Alfred Nobel had decreed that the interest on his bequeathed fortune should be divided into five parts every year and thus be awarded for achievements in medicine, chemistry, physics, literature and efforts for peace in the world. 

It was not until 1968 that the Swedish State Bank donated a sixth prize for economics. It is actually called the “Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize” and is awarded using the same procedure as the five real Nobel Prizes: previous winners and selected experts propose achievements for the award by February 1st of each year. Swedish experts, for example the Swedish Academy of Sciences in the case of physics and chemistry, then select the winners. 

Alfred Nobel himself determined it that way. He consciously had an award in mind that researchers of all nationalities and origins can receive. That was something incredibly new in his lifetime, because at that time people in the nation states were still keen to increase the fame of scientists in their own country. This early internationality is probably one reason why the Nobel Prizes quickly became hugely popular - and are so important to this day. 

Those who are honored with this have stood out in a fair comparison among specialist colleagues around the world. 

Today, many science, literature and peace awards are international and they also honor achievements in areas that Nobel did not consider in his will at the time. The most respected and highly endowed of them are then gladly placed on the same level as the Nobel Prize. 

The most famous is undoubtedly the “Nobel Prize” for mathematics - the Fields Medal, which is awarded every four years. 

And the Swedish Academy of Sciences has been awarding the Crafoord Prize especially for subjects not eligible for Nobel Prize since 1982, with which geologists, for example, can also achieve Nobel-like honors. Important theoretical knowledge, which nonetheless cannot - or not yet - be observed in nature, is also disadvantaged by the Nobel's Foundation. The physicist Peter Higgs therefore only received his award when the corresponding particle was finally found. And the famous gravitational theorist Stephen Hawking would never be a Nobel Prize winner for precisely this reason. The radiation from black holes named after him is far too weak to be measurable. 

Alfred Nobel's ideas of an award-winning achievement, which are more than a hundred years old, and the reality of modern science now differ a little on other points too. Nevertheless, the Nobel Committee will be careful not to fundamentally change the criteria - because that could damage the increased reputation of the award and the enormous public impact associated with it. In one thing, however, Nobel's last will has been consistently disregarded for a long time: he had literally wished that his prizes would go to those “who have brought the greatest benefit to mankind in the past year.” But science usually doesn't show any benefit that quickly - neither in literature and peace efforts usually take so short time. In addition, it is very often the case with scientists that they do not research for any measurable benefit, and something similar can certainly be said of the poets. Therefore, the Nobel Committee has always nobly disregarded this section of the will." 

So why don't we here in Lithuania have a Nobel Prize? Because we didn’t find anything that set us apart from professionals around the world.