The Superstar Fallacy

Wikipedia defines a fallacy as "an error in reasoning often due to a misconception or a presumption."  I believe that the federal government's ill-conceived Canada Excellence Research Chair program and the U of A's enthusiastic buy-in illustrate a fallacy.  The specific fallacy that I have in mind is known as "affirming the consequent."  In the case of the CERC program, it goes like this:  

•The best universities, such as Harvard, have many academic superstars on their faculties.

•U of A is given several CERCs from the federal government.

•U of A will become one of the world's top universities.

Of course, this argument makes the mistake of assuming that having academic superstars is the reason that a university such as Harvard is great.  A more compelling argument might be that Harvard being great is the reason why it is able to attract academic superstars.

This program is based on the idea that only established researchers from elsewhere can bestow "ambitious research programs" upon a university.  That's interesting when one looks at Alberta's Steacie Fellow awardees, or at a more senior level, the University Cup and the Kaplan Prize.  Most of these people have spent much or all of their academic careers here.  This indicates that it is possible to establish world-class programs by simply attracting excellent young researchers and providing them with a nurturing environment that permits success.

So, the CERC program throws money at a goal that could be met with patient building of academic research programs across Canada.  But our elites are not patient; they are looking for quick fixes.  Moreover, they are predisposed to favour situations that increase stratification, as that conforms to their world-views.  So they reallocate funds from proven programs to pay for boondoggles such as CERCs.

I bring this up because of yesterday's story in the Edmonton Journal about the abrupt departure of one of U of A's CERC recruits.  It's an embarrassment, and terrible PR for the University, regardless of Indira's efforts at spin control.  Think of the good those millions could have done, supporting excellent researchers who are already in Canada.  Programs like this, as well as the equally ill-conceived Banting Fellow and Vanier Award programs, are not only a waste of money, but a sure sign of a raging inferiority complex:  our own researchers are not worthy; let's bring in someone really good from elsewhere.

Update:  On the plus side, while Edmonton may be getting some bad publicity out of this, at least no one has (recently) labeled us the earth's rectum, a distinction that Windsor and Winnipeg cannot claim.