Advanced projects strike reviewers as almost “always better” because
they are more specific, complete, and “elegant.” Here the “bullshit
penalty” does not necessarily apply because, in the words of one
evaluator, “What difference does it make at what point the person
gets the money? It’s a reward for doing the work.” Thus panelists, as
well as applicants, appear to understand the rules of the game as be-
ing somewhat fluid and fuzzy.
Competition guidelines (described in Chapter 2) often emphasize
that evaluators should focus on the strengths of the proposal, as op-
posed to the past record of the applicant. This is in line with funding
agencies’ commitment to a merit-based ethos. An economist feels
that “it’s unfair to those that spent a lot of time on those [proposals]
togive...preferencetosomeone’srecord.”AnEnglish professor also
makes the case for focusing on the proposal because “it is not always
the case that [people who have the best track record] have put to-
gether the best proposals.” Whether the competition supports gradu-
ate students or senior professors influences how much weight is put
on track record or, alternatively, on likely future trajectory (mea-
sured in terms of promise and/or projected mobility). In either case,
funding agencies do require consideration of the applicant in the as-
sessment of merit. A standard question posed to panelists is, “Is this
person well equipped to complete the project that is proposed?” Let-
ters of support written by advisers and other supporters answer this
question, but they address issues well beyond technical competence
and preparation. Letters signal cultural capital, elegance, and other
class-based evanescent qualities. The influence of letters is limited,
however: a surprisingly large number of panelists (twenty-five of
seventy-one) say that they pay little or no attention to letters, mainly
because they are so often formulaic, hyperbolic, or uninformative.^7
As a historian puts it, “We had so many superlatives that, sometimes,
it’s hard to know how to interpret them.”
Against this skepticism, panelists develop distinctive schemas to
assess the value of letters, taking more seriously those that “conveyed
Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence / 163