Đại học Sherbrooke được xếp hạng 14 trên thế giới về nơi có điều kiện làm việc tốt cho những khảo cứu khoa học .Dưới đây là 2 bài viết bằng tiếng Anh (tờ The Scientist)
http://the-scientist.com/2012/08/01/best-places-to-work-academia-2012/
và tiếng Pháp
http://www.usherbrooke.ca/medias/nouvelles/actualites/actualites-details/article/18858/
về việc xếp hạng này
KĐ
----------------------------------------------------
Best Places to Work Academia, 2012
On the 10th anniversary of The Scientist’s survey of
life science academics, institutions are contending with tighter budgets
and larger administrative staffs, while working to sustain and inspire
their researchers.
2 Comments
Research has always been a
challenging and creative venture—requiring some luck and a lot of hard
work. But in recent years, as the National Institutes of Health budget
has failed to keep up with inflation, even established researchers with
successful labs are having a hard time securing funding for their work.
To add to these pressures, the past decade has seen institutions,
especially in the university setting, burdening researchers with larger
administrative staffs, which see research as a means to an end—money
from the commercialization of products—rather than the pursuit of
knowledge.
For the past 10 years, The Scientist’s Best Places to Work in Academia surveys have followed changing trends as reported by academic researchers, asking them to highlight the aspects of work they value the most—such as support, access to great research, and collaborations—as well as areas they wish their institutions would improve, such as appropriate family-care policies. Back in 2003, researchers around the world valued relationships with their colleagues and collaborators above all else; next came a desire for strong core facilities. In this year’s survey, while collegiality and core facilities remain highly important, the second most desirable factor is good health-care coverage; the first is the personal satisfaction their workplace offers.
Despite the challenges and financial restrictions, new institutions are springing up to address unmet needs within the research community. One example of an innovative not-for-profit company is this year’s #2 institution, Sage Bionetworks. The medical research organization opened its doors just 3 years ago thanks to scientific luminaries Stephen Friend, formerly a senior vice president at Merck, and Eric Schadt, who helped Pacific Bioscience develop its SMRT single molecule DNA sequencer and remains its chief scientific officer while heading up the Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. (Read about Schadt’s research in our July 2008 issue.) Sage Bionetworks aims to spur collaborations among computational biologists and academic and clinical researchers to make sense of the data deluge coming from some of the most advanced sequencing and proteomic analyses in order to develop disease models for rational drug development.
Another example is this year’s #4 institution, the Research Center for Molecular Medicine (CeMM), in Vienna, Austria, whose new, year-old facility gives it an edge in translational research. “We have the second-largest hospital in the world right next to us,” helping to reinforce the ties between researchers and clinicians, says Andreas Bergthaler, a viral immunologist at CeMM.
Read more about this year’s top-ranking institutions and find out why their scientists think they are great places to work.
—Edyta Zielinska
See the full Top 25 list, along with details of the institutions’ strengths, weaknesses, and publication records.
Founded only 3 years ago, Sage Bionetworks has already attracted top-notch researchers to create up-to-date disease models and software for optimizing collaborative research in developing effective drug treatments for human diseases. The core mission of this year’s #2-ranked institution is to provide a framework for biomedical researchers to analyze the constant torrent of new molecular and genetic information and develop software for sharing data.
Sage Bionetworks campus in Seattle, Washington.Sage Bionetworks
Sage has already produced promising results in studies that would not
have been possible 3 years ago. For example, one compound originally
developed for asthma was run against one of Sage’s comprehensive disease
models, which correctly predicted that it would also alter insulin and
glucose levels—suggesting diabetes as a potential new indication for the
drug.
With fewer than 30 researchers, each with a different specialty, Sage Bionetworks is an “incubator for innovation,” says senior scientist Brian Bot, who feels that weekly interactions with software engineers as well as oncologists with direct patient contact help him put “a different spin on things.”
Located on the campus of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, Sage Bionetworks also benefits from all that the larger institution has to offer, plus perks like a rooftop patio overlooking Lake Union, where you can “gaze at the Space Needle while seaplanes coast overhead to land on the lake,” says senior software engineer Bruce Hoff.
Last year, the institution received $6 million in federal and private funding. “Because we are well funded, we can do our job right,” Hoff says. “We have the breathing room to design and implement software using industry’s best practices.”
Sage works firmly in the open-science paradigm. The entire organization of 34 scientists and staff members meets every 2 weeks, encouraging researchers to become invested in the institution as a whole, says principal scientist Lara Mangravite. “We all get to have feedback into where the organization itself is going,” she says. The reward for meeting this year’s goals is an entire week off in the month of July. Next year, the Sage Bionetworks team is aiming for 2 weeks.
—Hayley Dunning
Working at the Research Center for Molecular Medicine (CeMM) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences isn’t all
about soaking up the astounding views of Vienna’s skyline from the
facility’s rooftop terrace. But that feature of the relatively young
facility is emblematic of the collaborative and fun atmosphere that
makes the center a great place to work, its researchers say. “They
definitely know how to party,” says epigenomicist Christoph Bock of the
CeMM staff, which adjourns to the terrace every month after joint lab
meetings with the medical university next door.
But researchers at the #4-ranked institution also know how to work.
Last year, for example, a team led by CeMM Scientific Director Giulio
Superti-Furga reported the discovery of a novel regulatory mechanism
that may become a therapeutic target for chronic myelogenous leukemia.
The 140 staff members at CeMM collaborate across disciplines in three key areas of research: cancer, inflammation, and immunity. And the camaraderie that researchers and students share certainly helps foster this collaboration. “We really know each other very well,” says Anannya Bhattacharya, a first-year PhD student in the lab of viral immunobiologist Andreas Bergthaler. “You’re not bound by your own lab bench; you always interact with other lab groups.”
The collaboration even extends beyond the walls of CeMM to clinicians and repositories at the Vienna General Hospital, which is literally right across the street, adds Bergthaler, whose lab studies mouse models of oxidative stress in viral hepatitis. The hospital houses tissue banks, reference libraries, and patient samples that CeMM researchers can access, Bergthaler says. “This is one of the advantages of being embedded in a medical campus but at the same time having a basic science focus as well.”
Bock, who has a joint appointment with CeMM and the hospital, says that the center’s first-rate technological facilities, plus the ability to see the clinical relevance of his work in the epigenetic aspects of cancer, really makes a difference. “My work is a combination of work driven by the medical need of the neighboring hospital and [research] enabled by next-generation sequencing technology,” he says. “It gives you direction in how you approach a problem.” Of course, the view from the roof doesn’t hurt either.
—Bob Grant
ATOMIC IMAGING AT LA JOLLA: Dirk Zajonc, a protein crystallographer and structural biologist at the La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology (#6), studies cells at the atomic level to uncover new information about disease processes.La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology
“In the past couple of decades, we all have noticed an enormous
expansion in university administrative ranks,” with some schools’
administrative staff-to-student ratios rising by more than 300 percent
between 1997 and 2007, says Ben Ginsberg, a professor of political
science at Johns Hopkins University, and author of the recent book The Fall of the Faculty. (See “Faculty Fallout,” The Scientist,
August 2011.) “This greatly undermines both research and teaching,” he
says. “To the faculty, the purpose of the university is research and
teaching.” To the administration, “research is valued only in terms of
the dollars it brings in.”
This puts incredible pressure on faculty in the life sciences to develop commercial products—not only skewing the course of research, but also causing conflict when researchers are ready to publish results. “Academics want to see their ideas publicized,” Ginsberg says. “More and more, this is thwarted by university patent offices, which don’t let any ideas [be] shared unless [they are] properly patented and commercialized.”
This pressure to commercialize research is compounded by increased competition for funding. “The money has dried up, both federally and at the state level,” says Martin Snyder, Senior Associate General Secretary at the American Association of University Professors. “One place that [academic researchers] are going is to private sources—the oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceutical companies. But the research money comes with strings attached.” The companies will have particular topics that they want researched, for example, and may want to avoid publishing results that reflect negatively on their products. “It’s just the antithesis of academic freedom and research,” says Snyder.
Moreover, while the commercialization pressure continues to mount, full-time faculty who are in a position to deliver such products are getting cut. “Seventy percent of faculty in the U.S. are part-time, or [on] short-term contracts,” and don’t have traditional tenure or tenure-track jobs, Snyder says. In the last 30 years, the proportion of university faculty working full time has fallen from about 60 percent to less than 40 percent. Now, for many academics, the “only security is the state of their funding,” Synder says. “I’m not sure how you build a research career on that kind of unstable foundation.”
Research isn’t the only thing affected by this shift toward a part-time faculty—teaching and mentoring students are also hindered. “Administrative overload . . . is clearly crowding out the teaching,” says Malcolm Kline, executive director of Accuracy in Academia, a nonprofit research group reporting on political bias in education. “This is why you see big-name adjuncts . . . who have other highly visible jobs.”
“The typical part-time teacher in California doesn’t even have an office, doesn’t have a computer, will keep class records in the trunk of his or her car and meet students in the parking lot for conferences,” Snyder says. “They call them ‘freeway flyers’ because they have no home; they’re simply on the road all the time. It’s a pretty dismal situation right now.”
Still, it’s unclear how this trend will play out in the future, he adds, though he suspects the development of more partnerships between academia and industry will continue. “What you’re going to see less and less of is the kind of pure scientific research that in the long run will produce the great advances in knowledge.”
—Jef Akst
Invitations: E-mail invitations were sent to readers of The Scientist and registrants on The Scientist website who identified themselves as full-time life scientists working in academia or noncommercial research institutions. The survey was also publicized on The Scientist website and through news stories.
Responses: 1,117 useable and qualified responses were received. Responses were rejected if the respondent did not identify him or herself as a full-time scientist working in a noncommercial organization, if the respondent’s institution was not identified or identifiable, or if the response was a duplicate, based on e-mail address or other criteria.
Analysis: Respondents were asked to assess their working environment according to 37 criteria in 8 different areas by agreeing or disagreeing with a series of positive statements. Answers were scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 = “Strongly agree”; 1 = “Strongly disagree”; and 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Respondents were also asked to assess the importance to them of each factor on a 0–5 scale, with 0 indicating that a factor was “Not relevant” to them.
Identification of Institutions: As much as possible, institutions were identified and names were standardized. Responses from institutions with branches or campuses in multiple locations were lumped together.
Scoring: Scores for each statement were averaged by institution and country.
Ranking: In order to calculate the overall rankings of institutions, we first weighted each factor based on the average importance score. Because several factors that are ranked as important in the United States are ranked as less important outside the U.S. and vice versa, we used different factor weightings in our ranking of US and non-US institutions. The overall rankings were based on the average score per institution across all factors, weighted as described.
In addition, we ranked institutions based on unweighted average scores for the 9 major topic categories covered by the statements included in the survey. These categories are:
1. Job Satisfaction
2. Peers
3. Infrastructure and Environment
4. Research Resources
5. Pay
6. Management and Policies
7. Teaching and Mentoring
8. Tenure and Promotion
Results: Results are published in The Scientist, August 2012 issue, and are available on The Scientist website.
Caveats:
The survey was developed and responses were analyzed by The Scientist staff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scientist est un magazine américain consacré aux sciences de la vie, telles que la génétique, la biologie moléculaire, l’étude de la cellule, etc. Plus de 1000 chercheuses et chercheurs à temps plein dans le domaine ont répondu à ce sondage, réalisé pour la dixième année consécutive. Les répondants sont invités à évaluer l’environnement dans lequel ils travaillent : les lieux physiques, les infrastructures, les politiques internes, le soutien à l’enseignement ainsi que les ressources disponibles pour la recherche.
En analysant les résultats de ce sondage, on constate que l’Université de Sherbrooke se démarque particulièrement par les possibilités d’avancement, incluant l’obtention d’un poste de professeur titulaire, et par le niveau de satisfaction au travail.
«L’Université de Sherbrooke vise à devenir un joueur de premier plan en recherche et à assurer la relève académique. Ce type de reconnaissance d’un magazine indépendant nous permet de constater un présent porteur de succès et d’entrevoir un avenir prometteur pour la relève de notre corps professoral et pour l’avancement de la recherche», a souligné Jacques Beauvais, vice-recteur à la recherche de l’UdeS.
L’Université de Sherbrooke consacre au-delà de 100 M$ à la recherche par année et compte plus de 75 chaires de recherche, dont près d’une vingtaine en sciences de la vie.
The Scientist là một tạp chí dành riêng cho khoa học đời sống, như di truyền, sinh học phân tử, nghiên cứu của các tế bào, vv. Hơn 1000 nhà nghiên cứu toàn thời gian trong lĩnh vực đã này trả lời về sự thăm dò ý kiến, đã được thực hiện trong 10 năm liên tiếp . Người trả lời được yêu cầu đánh giá môi trường mà họ làm việc: vị trí địa lý, cơ sở hạ tầng, chính sách nội bộ, hỗ trợ cho giáo dục và các nguồn lực cho nghiên cứu.
Trong việc phân tích các kết quả của cuộc khảo sát này, Đại học Sherbrooke đã dược ưu diểm về phần phân biệt bản thân với cơ hội thăng tiến, bao gồm cả việc có được một thành phần giáo sư đầy đủ, và mức độ hài lòng trong công việc.
Trường Đại học Sherbrooke luôn nhắm đến mục đích để trở thành một đại học hàng đầu về nghiên cứu khoa học và đào tạo sinh viên tiên tiến. Được sự nhìn nhận và ở vị trí cao của một tạp chí độc lập, chúng tôi đã có được sự thành công và một tương lai đầy hứa hẹn cho các thế hệ tiếp theo của các giảng viên của chúng tôi và cho sự tiến bộ về nghiên cứu khoa học ", ông Jacques Beauvais, Phó Viện trưởng về nghiên cứu khoa học ở UdeS đã trả lời
Université de Sherbrooke đã chi vớ ngân khoản trên 100 triệu USD về nghiên cứu khoa học hàng năm và hơn 75 GS thượng thặng về nghiên cứu (chaires de recherche) , trong số đó gần hai mươi GS trong khoa học đời sống.
For the past 10 years, The Scientist’s Best Places to Work in Academia surveys have followed changing trends as reported by academic researchers, asking them to highlight the aspects of work they value the most—such as support, access to great research, and collaborations—as well as areas they wish their institutions would improve, such as appropriate family-care policies. Back in 2003, researchers around the world valued relationships with their colleagues and collaborators above all else; next came a desire for strong core facilities. In this year’s survey, while collegiality and core facilities remain highly important, the second most desirable factor is good health-care coverage; the first is the personal satisfaction their workplace offers.
Despite the challenges and financial restrictions, new institutions are springing up to address unmet needs within the research community. One example of an innovative not-for-profit company is this year’s #2 institution, Sage Bionetworks. The medical research organization opened its doors just 3 years ago thanks to scientific luminaries Stephen Friend, formerly a senior vice president at Merck, and Eric Schadt, who helped Pacific Bioscience develop its SMRT single molecule DNA sequencer and remains its chief scientific officer while heading up the Institute for Genomics and Multiscale Biology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. (Read about Schadt’s research in our July 2008 issue.) Sage Bionetworks aims to spur collaborations among computational biologists and academic and clinical researchers to make sense of the data deluge coming from some of the most advanced sequencing and proteomic analyses in order to develop disease models for rational drug development.
Another example is this year’s #4 institution, the Research Center for Molecular Medicine (CeMM), in Vienna, Austria, whose new, year-old facility gives it an edge in translational research. “We have the second-largest hospital in the world right next to us,” helping to reinforce the ties between researchers and clinicians, says Andreas Bergthaler, a viral immunologist at CeMM.
Read more about this year’s top-ranking institutions and find out why their scientists think they are great places to work.
—Edyta Zielinska
Top 10 Institutions
| Rank | Institution | No. of life science researchers | Strengths |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | J. David Gladstone Institutes San Francisco, CA | 27 | • Tenure and Promotion • Job Satisfaction |
| 2 | Sage Bionetworks Seattle, WA | <30 | • Job Satisfaction • Pay |
| 3 | Stowers Institute for Medical Research Kansas City, MO | 227 | • Management and Policies • Research Resources |
| 4 | Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (CeMM) Vienna, Austria | 116 | • Research Resources • Job Satisfaction |
| 5 | Massachusetts General Hospital Boston, MA | 1,445 | • Peers • Job Satisfaction |
| 6 | La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology La Jolla, CA | 239 | • Infrastructure and Environment • Peers |
| 7 | Institute for Systems Biology Seattle, WA | 155 | • Teaching and Mentoring • Pay |
| 8 | St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Memphis, TN | 614 | • Research Resources • Pay |
| 9 | Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jerusalem, Israel | 1,084 | • Tenure and Promotion • Management and Policies |
| 10 | Blood Systems Research Institute San Francisco, CA | 18 | • Teaching and Mentoring • Research Resources |
Open Doors at Sage Bionetworks
Founded only 3 years ago, Sage Bionetworks has already attracted top-notch researchers to create up-to-date disease models and software for optimizing collaborative research in developing effective drug treatments for human diseases. The core mission of this year’s #2-ranked institution is to provide a framework for biomedical researchers to analyze the constant torrent of new molecular and genetic information and develop software for sharing data.
Sage Bionetworks campus in Seattle, Washington.Sage Bionetworks
With fewer than 30 researchers, each with a different specialty, Sage Bionetworks is an “incubator for innovation,” says senior scientist Brian Bot, who feels that weekly interactions with software engineers as well as oncologists with direct patient contact help him put “a different spin on things.”
Located on the campus of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, Sage Bionetworks also benefits from all that the larger institution has to offer, plus perks like a rooftop patio overlooking Lake Union, where you can “gaze at the Space Needle while seaplanes coast overhead to land on the lake,” says senior software engineer Bruce Hoff.
Last year, the institution received $6 million in federal and private funding. “Because we are well funded, we can do our job right,” Hoff says. “We have the breathing room to design and implement software using industry’s best practices.”
Sage works firmly in the open-science paradigm. The entire organization of 34 scientists and staff members meets every 2 weeks, encouraging researchers to become invested in the institution as a whole, says principal scientist Lara Mangravite. “We all get to have feedback into where the organization itself is going,” she says. The reward for meeting this year’s goals is an entire week off in the month of July. Next year, the Sage Bionetworks team is aiming for 2 weeks.
—Hayley Dunning
CeMM: A View from the Top
Working at the Research Center for Molecular Medicine (CeMM) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences isn’t all
about soaking up the astounding views of Vienna’s skyline from the
facility’s rooftop terrace. But that feature of the relatively young
facility is emblematic of the collaborative and fun atmosphere that
makes the center a great place to work, its researchers say. “They
definitely know how to party,” says epigenomicist Christoph Bock of the
CeMM staff, which adjourns to the terrace every month after joint lab
meetings with the medical university next door.
CeMM research building© CeMM/I.Ranzinger
The 140 staff members at CeMM collaborate across disciplines in three key areas of research: cancer, inflammation, and immunity. And the camaraderie that researchers and students share certainly helps foster this collaboration. “We really know each other very well,” says Anannya Bhattacharya, a first-year PhD student in the lab of viral immunobiologist Andreas Bergthaler. “You’re not bound by your own lab bench; you always interact with other lab groups.”
The collaboration even extends beyond the walls of CeMM to clinicians and repositories at the Vienna General Hospital, which is literally right across the street, adds Bergthaler, whose lab studies mouse models of oxidative stress in viral hepatitis. The hospital houses tissue banks, reference libraries, and patient samples that CeMM researchers can access, Bergthaler says. “This is one of the advantages of being embedded in a medical campus but at the same time having a basic science focus as well.”
Bock, who has a joint appointment with CeMM and the hospital, says that the center’s first-rate technological facilities, plus the ability to see the clinical relevance of his work in the epigenetic aspects of cancer, really makes a difference. “My work is a combination of work driven by the medical need of the neighboring hospital and [research] enabled by next-generation sequencing technology,” he says. “It gives you direction in how you approach a problem.” Of course, the view from the roof doesn’t hurt either.
—Bob Grant
Administrative Overload
In the 10 years during which The Scientist has been surveying researchers in academia, funding has remained essentially flat, and universities have put freezes on hiring, even forcing faculty to take unwanted leave. But through it all, the administrative workforce in academia has continued to increase.ATOMIC IMAGING AT LA JOLLA: Dirk Zajonc, a protein crystallographer and structural biologist at the La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology (#6), studies cells at the atomic level to uncover new information about disease processes.La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology
This puts incredible pressure on faculty in the life sciences to develop commercial products—not only skewing the course of research, but also causing conflict when researchers are ready to publish results. “Academics want to see their ideas publicized,” Ginsberg says. “More and more, this is thwarted by university patent offices, which don’t let any ideas [be] shared unless [they are] properly patented and commercialized.”
This pressure to commercialize research is compounded by increased competition for funding. “The money has dried up, both federally and at the state level,” says Martin Snyder, Senior Associate General Secretary at the American Association of University Professors. “One place that [academic researchers] are going is to private sources—the oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceutical companies. But the research money comes with strings attached.” The companies will have particular topics that they want researched, for example, and may want to avoid publishing results that reflect negatively on their products. “It’s just the antithesis of academic freedom and research,” says Snyder.
Moreover, while the commercialization pressure continues to mount, full-time faculty who are in a position to deliver such products are getting cut. “Seventy percent of faculty in the U.S. are part-time, or [on] short-term contracts,” and don’t have traditional tenure or tenure-track jobs, Snyder says. In the last 30 years, the proportion of university faculty working full time has fallen from about 60 percent to less than 40 percent. Now, for many academics, the “only security is the state of their funding,” Synder says. “I’m not sure how you build a research career on that kind of unstable foundation.”
Research isn’t the only thing affected by this shift toward a part-time faculty—teaching and mentoring students are also hindered. “Administrative overload . . . is clearly crowding out the teaching,” says Malcolm Kline, executive director of Accuracy in Academia, a nonprofit research group reporting on political bias in education. “This is why you see big-name adjuncts . . . who have other highly visible jobs.”
“The typical part-time teacher in California doesn’t even have an office, doesn’t have a computer, will keep class records in the trunk of his or her car and meet students in the parking lot for conferences,” Snyder says. “They call them ‘freeway flyers’ because they have no home; they’re simply on the road all the time. It’s a pretty dismal situation right now.”
Still, it’s unclear how this trend will play out in the future, he adds, though he suspects the development of more partnerships between academia and industry will continue. “What you’re going to see less and less of is the kind of pure scientific research that in the long run will produce the great advances in knowledge.”
—Jef Akst
Survey Methodology
Survey Form: A Web-based survey form was posted at www.the-scientist.com from September 5 to December 16, 2011. Results were collected and collated automatically.Invitations: E-mail invitations were sent to readers of The Scientist and registrants on The Scientist website who identified themselves as full-time life scientists working in academia or noncommercial research institutions. The survey was also publicized on The Scientist website and through news stories.
Responses: 1,117 useable and qualified responses were received. Responses were rejected if the respondent did not identify him or herself as a full-time scientist working in a noncommercial organization, if the respondent’s institution was not identified or identifiable, or if the response was a duplicate, based on e-mail address or other criteria.
Analysis: Respondents were asked to assess their working environment according to 37 criteria in 8 different areas by agreeing or disagreeing with a series of positive statements. Answers were scored on a scale of 1–5, with 5 = “Strongly agree”; 1 = “Strongly disagree”; and 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Respondents were also asked to assess the importance to them of each factor on a 0–5 scale, with 0 indicating that a factor was “Not relevant” to them.
Identification of Institutions: As much as possible, institutions were identified and names were standardized. Responses from institutions with branches or campuses in multiple locations were lumped together.
Scoring: Scores for each statement were averaged by institution and country.
Ranking: In order to calculate the overall rankings of institutions, we first weighted each factor based on the average importance score. Because several factors that are ranked as important in the United States are ranked as less important outside the U.S. and vice versa, we used different factor weightings in our ranking of US and non-US institutions. The overall rankings were based on the average score per institution across all factors, weighted as described.
In addition, we ranked institutions based on unweighted average scores for the 9 major topic categories covered by the statements included in the survey. These categories are:
1. Job Satisfaction
2. Peers
3. Infrastructure and Environment
4. Research Resources
5. Pay
6. Management and Policies
7. Teaching and Mentoring
8. Tenure and Promotion
Results: Results are published in The Scientist, August 2012 issue, and are available on The Scientist website.
Caveats:
- The sample of respondents, while large, was self-selected, which may introduce some bias into the results.
- The scoring of results is not standardized, and standards may fluctuate between individuals, institutions, and countries.
- In some cases, small sample responses may have led to bias in the results.
- No attempt has been made to measure the statistical significance of the results. The difference between, say a 10th-ranked and a 15th-ranked institution may be insignificant.
The survey was developed and responses were analyzed by The Scientist staff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14e au monde selon la revue américaine The Scientist
L’UdeS reconnue comme l’un des meilleurs milieux de travail universitaires
 |
| Une séance de travaux pratiques en immunologie, à la Faculté des sciences. |
| Photo : Martin Blache |
14 août 2012
L’Université de Sherbrooke se classe au 14e rang mondial des meilleurs milieux universitaires où travailler, selon la revue américaine The Scientist. Elle est la seule université canadienne et seule francophone à être représentée dans ce palmarès.The Scientist est un magazine américain consacré aux sciences de la vie, telles que la génétique, la biologie moléculaire, l’étude de la cellule, etc. Plus de 1000 chercheuses et chercheurs à temps plein dans le domaine ont répondu à ce sondage, réalisé pour la dixième année consécutive. Les répondants sont invités à évaluer l’environnement dans lequel ils travaillent : les lieux physiques, les infrastructures, les politiques internes, le soutien à l’enseignement ainsi que les ressources disponibles pour la recherche.
En analysant les résultats de ce sondage, on constate que l’Université de Sherbrooke se démarque particulièrement par les possibilités d’avancement, incluant l’obtention d’un poste de professeur titulaire, et par le niveau de satisfaction au travail.
«L’Université de Sherbrooke vise à devenir un joueur de premier plan en recherche et à assurer la relève académique. Ce type de reconnaissance d’un magazine indépendant nous permet de constater un présent porteur de succès et d’entrevoir un avenir prometteur pour la relève de notre corps professoral et pour l’avancement de la recherche», a souligné Jacques Beauvais, vice-recteur à la recherche de l’UdeS.
L’Université de Sherbrooke consacre au-delà de 100 M$ à la recherche par année et compte plus de 75 chaires de recherche, dont près d’une vingtaine en sciences de la vie.
Informations complémentaires
Đại học Sherbrooke được xếp hạng 14 trên thế giới
Université de Sherbrooke được xếp hạng thứ 14 trên thế giới, nơi làm việc tốt nhất, theo tạp chí Mỹ The Scientist. Đại học Sherbrooke là đại học duy nhất của Canada và nói tiếng Pháp được xếp hạng trong danh sách này.The Scientist là một tạp chí dành riêng cho khoa học đời sống, như di truyền, sinh học phân tử, nghiên cứu của các tế bào, vv. Hơn 1000 nhà nghiên cứu toàn thời gian trong lĩnh vực đã này trả lời về sự thăm dò ý kiến, đã được thực hiện trong 10 năm liên tiếp . Người trả lời được yêu cầu đánh giá môi trường mà họ làm việc: vị trí địa lý, cơ sở hạ tầng, chính sách nội bộ, hỗ trợ cho giáo dục và các nguồn lực cho nghiên cứu.
Trong việc phân tích các kết quả của cuộc khảo sát này, Đại học Sherbrooke đã dược ưu diểm về phần phân biệt bản thân với cơ hội thăng tiến, bao gồm cả việc có được một thành phần giáo sư đầy đủ, và mức độ hài lòng trong công việc.
Trường Đại học Sherbrooke luôn nhắm đến mục đích để trở thành một đại học hàng đầu về nghiên cứu khoa học và đào tạo sinh viên tiên tiến. Được sự nhìn nhận và ở vị trí cao của một tạp chí độc lập, chúng tôi đã có được sự thành công và một tương lai đầy hứa hẹn cho các thế hệ tiếp theo của các giảng viên của chúng tôi và cho sự tiến bộ về nghiên cứu khoa học ", ông Jacques Beauvais, Phó Viện trưởng về nghiên cứu khoa học ở UdeS đã trả lời
Université de Sherbrooke đã chi vớ ngân khoản trên 100 triệu USD về nghiên cứu khoa học hàng năm và hơn 75 GS thượng thặng về nghiên cứu (chaires de recherche) , trong số đó gần hai mươi GS trong khoa học đời sống.