You know, the thing I always found extremely frustrating or non-transparent about the academic grant process (and it leaks over into government / NSF / etc applications by the nature of who evaluates those: academics again) is how much unofficial or unspoken criteria come into it.

You get extra credit points if you're active in visiting other universities and giving talks on the annual job circuit. You tend to do well if you advisors are well-connected. You have to sprinkle a bit of fad-ish topics into your research if even if it's a stretch to do so.

I suppose that it has always been so. And now looking back, I don't find huge fault in that you should be able to connect your research with larger ideas. Or that people in richer environments with more information are generally more successful.

But having tried to be on the faculty track before, from a middle-tier university, I never knew these things. Or the professors I was around never told me those unofficial factors. And I thought it very unfair that the judges allowed those factors to creep into their consideration without making it clear to everyone that those were important. If giving talks in person is important, tell people at least.

I naively (I guess) thought that the strength of what you wrote in the application/grant document dominated. Maybe it does for some fields or if reviewers are diligent about understanding the blinders they wear and their availability bias.

Well, anyway, I left the field all the same. No regrets, but I wish these fields would improve their explicit processes about it.

I do note with some amusement now in industry, that basically I am able to approve spending of $500k for certain things with approximately a 30 minute conversation with leadership (with appropriate justification and documentation)...