You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
There's an article in Physics Today from a one-time program director at the NSF on what seems to be very predictable behavior in procrastination. In the context of the article, the author's study is based on the rate of grant proposal submissions as a function of closeness to the deadline. Unsurprisingly this looks like a (modified) hyperbolic function - the closer you get to the deadline, the faster the number of submissions climbs. I suspect this is just as true in engineering or in any other deadline-driven activity (exams for example?). We fiddle and experiment until the deadline looms, when we rush to finish.
But doesn't it makes sense in this context ? at the start , instead of working on grants , try to do as much science as possible , learn as much as possible , and while near the end, you don't have enough time for science ,and you'll have all that learning to make better proposals with a better chance of winning a grant?
And also , i'm sure you're also more stressed about a new grant.
Hi ippisl - perhaps, but when the purpose of the grant is to fund research, you don't want to do too much before you write up your proposal. If you don't get the grant that work was wasted. Is there a difference between this and say designing a piece of hardware, or a piece of software, or writing a white paper or creating a demo? I'm not sure. These are all time-bound creative activities. There might be some differences but wouldn't they all eventually fall on a similar curve, otherwise know as "effort expands to fit the time available"?
