Thanks for taking the time to write this out and share your experience. I think these are good points, and to quickly respond [apologies in advance for any spelling or grammar errors]:
We agree completely that longer programs like the MATS extension offer benefits that a one-week program simply can’t match. The in-person week isn’t meant to replace those options, but we are hoping that it does the following:
1) Creates opportunities for researchers to connect with each other and maybe have longer term collaborations with other AIS researchers they counterfactually wouldn’t have met.
2) Helps establish Cambridge as an AIS hub, as Cambridge has high talent density and low space constraints. Our vision is for Cambridge to complement larger hubs like Berkeley and London.
3) Lay the groundwork for long term opportunities and projects out of Meridian. This is very much a first iteration that was put together quickly with existing funding because we saw a need. Our hope is to learn from this initial programme and build towards offering stable and funded visiting researcher positions. At minimum, we see independent research projects as providing further opportunities to perform research, even with a deficit of full time jobs in the space.
4) While you mentioned that better grant proposals might not be a major bottleneck for MATS alumni, we’ve heard from others that support in translating research ideas into funded projects could be useful. It’s possible our sample isn’t fully representative, but we wanted to act quickly to fill this gap, even if this first version is a bit of an experiment.
On what happens after the bootcamp week, we’re offering successful grantees the opportunity to work out of Meridian, with visa and accommodation support, precisely because we recognize that independent researchers benefit enormously from shared space and community. We also agree about the need for ongoing mentorship rather than just front-loaded support. The week is designed to kickstart projects, but we’re planning mentorship structures that continue well beyond the initial week. I should have made this clearer in our announcement—thanks for highlighting this gap.
Finally, thanks for your note about employment pathways, that’s helpful to know. We felt well-equipped to help with grant proposals particularly with the current OP RFP, but to be clear the actual grant proposals are part of a larger story that is focused around collaboration networks and building long-term research pathways. Your observation that coding skills and quality publications are bigger limiting factors is interesting and it’s worth us thinking about more. As it stands, our programme isn’t designed to directly address these bottlenecks, but maybe it should.
Thanks for offering to chat more, and I’ll reach out privately but wanted to quickly acknowledge some of your points and thank you again for the feedback! It’s always welcome and appreciated.
Hey Ryan,
Thanks for taking the time to write this out and share your experience. I think these are good points, and to quickly respond [apologies in advance for any spelling or grammar errors]:
We agree completely that longer programs like the MATS extension offer benefits that a one-week program simply can’t match. The in-person week isn’t meant to replace those options, but we are hoping that it does the following:
1) Creates opportunities for researchers to connect with each other and maybe have longer term collaborations with other AIS researchers they counterfactually wouldn’t have met.
2) Helps establish Cambridge as an AIS hub, as Cambridge has high talent density and low space constraints. Our vision is for Cambridge to complement larger hubs like Berkeley and London.
3) Lay the groundwork for long term opportunities and projects out of Meridian. This is very much a first iteration that was put together quickly with existing funding because we saw a need. Our hope is to learn from this initial programme and build towards offering stable and funded visiting researcher positions. At minimum, we see independent research projects as providing further opportunities to perform research, even with a deficit of full time jobs in the space.
4) While you mentioned that better grant proposals might not be a major bottleneck for MATS alumni, we’ve heard from others that support in translating research ideas into funded projects could be useful. It’s possible our sample isn’t fully representative, but we wanted to act quickly to fill this gap, even if this first version is a bit of an experiment.
On what happens after the bootcamp week, we’re offering successful grantees the opportunity to work out of Meridian, with visa and accommodation support, precisely because we recognize that independent researchers benefit enormously from shared space and community. We also agree about the need for ongoing mentorship rather than just front-loaded support. The week is designed to kickstart projects, but we’re planning mentorship structures that continue well beyond the initial week. I should have made this clearer in our announcement—thanks for highlighting this gap.
Finally, thanks for your note about employment pathways, that’s helpful to know. We felt well-equipped to help with grant proposals particularly with the current OP RFP, but to be clear the actual grant proposals are part of a larger story that is focused around collaboration networks and building long-term research pathways. Your observation that coding skills and quality publications are bigger limiting factors is interesting and it’s worth us thinking about more. As it stands, our programme isn’t designed to directly address these bottlenecks, but maybe it should.
Thanks for offering to chat more, and I’ll reach out privately but wanted to quickly acknowledge some of your points and thank you again for the feedback! It’s always welcome and appreciated.
Olivia and The Meridian Team