I have gone back to phoning references for a quick chat. I’ve also been asked to provide references by phone/videoconference. It is so much more efficient than letters.

Sure. That’s the advice I gave and that’s what they did initially.

But it’s relevant to note that CVs are functions of many things beyond individual quality/effort (networks, proximity to prestige, etc.) & those things are distributed unevenly. A CV-based system needs a robust way to address that.

Canada tried that, more or less. Female PIs’ success rates fell compared to those of male PIs. (Other groups may have experienced similar effects, but there were no data at that time about other PI identity characteristics.) www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

Yep. Quebec content helps dampen it but it’s such a dominant force.

So sorry to hear this. 💔 Wishing you and your family warmth, love, and meaningful time together in the days, weeks, and months to come.

Italy is closest to this. But even their system is not up and running at full capacity yet. No country is doing it systematically across the board yet.

FYI Canada is exploring options: canscreent1d.ca

The program provides summary data. It’s often delayed by a cycle or so, but they do update semi-regularly.

The underlying summary data about the population of Canada and professors in Canada (the data sources that have driven the targets) are publicly available but raw data for the CRC program are not publicly available. It is personal (health) information protected under Canadian privacy laws.

Second, the targets are periodically renegotiated with the remaining living members of a group of women (I believe 6 are still living) whose complaint to the human rights commission about the program’s violation of Canadian employment equity law was upheld in 2006. Targets are not set by government.

First, the categories are not mutually exclusive. People can belong to more than one of these groups.