YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Baronato universitario – Come si truccano i bandi in Italia

Baronato universitario – Come si truccano i bandi in Italia — Transcript

by Barbascura eXtra · 5,921 words · 949 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00That the academic situation in Italy is
0:01absolute crap, I think even the bananas
0:03know that. It’s a war among the poor
0:06to scrape the bottom of the barrel, to
0:08gain some stability in life where those
0:10who succeed have had to walk over 30
0:13corpses. If even a professor who is
0:15part of a committee to assign a
0:16university chair ends up saying
0:17something like this,
0:19you live in a political mafia. You
0:20didn't understand, you must not say
0:22anything.
0:22I mean, do you understand? This
0:24recording is part of an investigation
0:25carried out by Mim Manda Rei 3.
0:28Obviously, the professor in question
0:30didn't know he was being recorded,
0:31otherwise we know where he would have
0:33shoved this burst of honesty, but he
0:35ended up confirming the obvious by
0:37openly saying what many poor souls
0:39stuck in the academic system have
0:40experienced firsthand for way too long.
0:44that of the "baronial" university, and
0:46you can't get in even if you are very
0:47good, even if you are one of the best
0:49researchers in the world, and in the
0:51end, you find yourself facing...
0:54not that we don't know it, it happens
0:55in all universities; I know many places
0:57that have tried to make things work
0:58differently. I say this because I would
1:01never want to demoralize anyone who
1:03wants to follow this path, but this
1:04stuff happens anyway and it creates a
1:05huge short circuit that, oh, it hit me
1:07too, what do you think? Precisely
1:10because I've seen it from the inside, I
1:11feel I must say that things are
1:12unfortunately not even as easily
1:13oversimplified as you might be inclined
1:15to think. Sometimes the line between
1:17victim and perpetrator is not always
1:18clearly defined, you know. And when you
1:20are inside, absurdly, you find yourself
1:22facing situations that make you say, "I
1:24understand why it happens." Since there
1:26are so many similar stories, let me
1:28tell you an iconic one that I had
1:29actually already told you some time ago
1:31on social media. He is Antonio Pesce, a
1:34Sicilian surgeon who in 2024 applied
1:37for a researcher position in Ferrara.
1:40During the selection process, however,
1:42strange things happened, so much so
1:44that Pesce decided to file an appeal.
1:46What had happened? Two people
1:47participated in the call, Pesce and
1:49another person. The committee then
1:51evaluates the titles, publications, and
1:53experience of the two, and at a certain
1:55point, it reaches the oral exam. A 45-
1:57minute lecture prepared by the
1:59candidates
2:00and, in fact, since written and oral
2:02exams are excluded by law throughout
2:04Italy, I can ask you for a lecture and
2:05I can give you a grade because that
2:07would be an oral exam.
2:08Anyway, this oral exam goes amazingly
2:10well for Pesce. 20 points out of 20,
2:12they give him the maximum, crazy. The
2:16other one gets 17 points, and you say,
2:17"Well, then it's done, right, he won."
2:19No, because the other guy got more
2:21points for his publications. The other
2:23guy wins. Oh well, it happens. Maybe he
2:25was more qualified than him, right?
2:27Maybe he has more degrees, more
2:29experience. So you just suck it up and
2:31go home. Yeah, too bad it turned out
2:35the other candidate was already working
2:37with the professor, the very one who
2:39signed the committee minutes; they knew
2:41each other, worked together—basically
2:43, gossipers might say there could be a
2:46conflict of interest and the professor
2:48wanted him to win. But there is another
2:51problem, perhaps even more serious. The
2:54other candidate shouldn't have even
2:56been in the contest because he lacked a
2:58fundamental requirement: 3 years of
3:00research at another university. So how
3:02did this guy win? And so Pesce files an
3:05appeal and wins. The judges wrote: "The
3:09illogical and irrational modus operandi
3:11of the university, which held a
3:13restricted competition without ensuring
3:15participation only to those possessing
3:18the required credentials, is
3:19specifically the subject of the second
3:22grievance, the merits of which must
3:24lead to the upholding of the appeal."
3:27Alright, so everything has to be redone
3:28. Fair enough. Pesce enters the
3:31competition again, this time he's alone
3:33, there are no other candidates, he
3:35retakes this cursed oral exam, lecture,
3:37whatever you want to call it, and gets
3:39zero points. Zero. And you're thinking,
3:42"Wait, how did they give him 20 out of
3:4420 before for the same test, and now
3:46zero?"
3:46And he doesn't win in that case either.
3:48No,
3:48I mean, like, screw you, nobody wins.
3:50Oh well, peace, or rather, Pesce. Even
3:52if you're the only one participating,
3:54you don't win the damn thing. The new
3:56committee appointed includes Professor
3:59Occhio Norelli, the very one we heard
4:01from at the beginning.
4:02Italy is full of corrupt people. But
4:05you can't change the world because it
4:06will never change. They're in charge,
4:08and we just say yes because that's how
4:10it is.
4:10Pesce gets nothing; in fact, he loses
4:12everything. He actually held a course
4:15called Culinary Medicine right there at
4:16the University of Ferrara. Over 300
4:19students and great feedback, so a
4:21course you could call a success, right?
4:23Following the incident, the course was
4:25cancelled by the university. We get the
4:27reason from the person in charge at the
4:29University of Ferrara, as featured in
4:30the report on Mi Manda Rai 3.
4:33Well, things happened that weren't
4:34pleasant, so let's say...
4:37It must have been an act of retaliation
4:38. No, I'm sure that's just gossip.
4:41It was: don't break balls about the
4:43contest, even if you come in second,
4:45they'll call you in 6 months. Why did
4:47you have to go and break balls for 6
4:48months? Reporting everything and
4:49anything? I don’t know about you, but
4:51the fact that this happens, that so
4:53many people endure it every day and
4:55just take it in silence, gives me such
4:57a sense of injustice that it makes my
4:59blood boil. Not long ago, I was
5:01contacted by lawyer Stefania Flore,
5:03spokesperson for "Bandi Università,"
5:05who, as she writes on the site, is a
5:08post-doc researcher wanting to promote
5:10merit in Italian universities and the
5:12importance of reporting any injustice
5:14suffered during public competitions to
5:17the proper authorities, especially
5:19through zero-cost actions. What
5:21happened to you? What was your
5:22experience regarding this? I took a
5:24competition at the University of
5:25Bologna, which is very renowned and
5:27hadn't had a single complaint in 20
5:29years. I took this exam; it was for
5:32private law, which is my field,
5:34specifically the rights of minors
5:37online. I specialize in family law, so
5:40the minor's rights part was in my field
5:43; the online and privacy aspects
5:45weren't strictly my specialty. I had a
5:49110 [ __ ] laude degree, a specialization
5:52with top marks, a PhD, and other things
5:55I won't mention. And at the competition
5:59, they chose a fresh graduate with a
6:02107 and zero publications over me; I
6:05had about 20 at the time. It was during
6:08the oral exam that they cut me out. I
6:11pointed out an undeniable error, which
6:13is that they were obligated to give 10
6:16points for the degree, but they gave me
6:18six. They had committed, in the
6:22qualifications assessment report, to
6:24giving 10 points to a degree with a
6:27private law thesis; so I basically
6:29asked to annul the proceedings based on
6:31this. Also based on another thing: they
6:35had modified or specified, or simply
6:37changed, the evaluation criteria when
6:39the candidates were already known,
6:41which in administrative law, I think
6:43everyone knows, you just don't do. Why?
6:47Because otherwise, there’s the risk
6:49that I let "so-and-so" pass because I
6:51see the other person has better
6:53qualifications.
6:54Oh well, yes, we change the rules of
6:55the game mid-stream, right? Because it
6:57seems obvious, but in reality, it's not
6:59obvious at all because it actually
7:00happens. So, what did they do? They
7:03annulled everything and re-announced it
7:04from scratch, so they opened it up to
7:06new participants as well. I wrote a
7:09post on LinkedIn, and basically, this
7:11post, where I specifically cite the
7:12University of Bologna incident, was
7:14picked up by a journalist from the
7:16Corriere di Bologna.
7:18So it suddenly exploded in your hands.
7:20And so yes, when we did the second
7:21edition of the competition, they knew
7:23who I was; they knew I was the one who
7:25had appeared in the paper to break
7:27their balls. During the oral exam,
7:29another colleague starts a controversy,
7:31insults the committee members, and
7:33basically, a huge mess ensues. Anyway,
7:36the point is that I won this
7:38competition, and the news blew up
7:39nationally right when I won it.
7:42As you might have gathered, today we're
7:44talking about the university "baronage,
7:46" that closed power system created
7:48within some universities where
7:50professors manage jobs, competitions,
7:52and funds in a totally personal way.
7:54Often, they reward their own students
7:56or their own friends. Professors agree
7:58on everything behind closed doors, and
8:00the ones who get penalized are always
8:02the most qualified candidate or simply
8:04the one coming from the outside. This
8:05produces the plague of localism, where,
8:07according to many, always working in
8:09the same place, in the same university,
8:10enormously increases the probability of
8:12getting a position because you’ve
8:14made yourself known, you’ve staked
8:15your territory, right? The most
8:17immediate way the baronage operates is
8:18obviously by controlling the
8:20competitions. The tests to become a
8:22researcher, associate, or full
8:23professor are often decided in advance
8:25behind closed doors, sometimes
8:27involving a miasma of political games
8:29like "You do me a favor now, then I'll
8:31do one for you." It’s political stuff
8:33that should never involve the
8:35university; this also produces a
8:36network of favors where, if you want a
8:38career here, you must depend entirely
8:39on the powerful professor to get ahead.
8:42The famous suck-ups, right? People
8:44subjected to the professor’s whims
8:46who would sell their own mother, or
8:47simply those waiting for the old guy to
8:49kick the bucket so they can take his
8:51place. And it's not even their fault,
8:54because in such a system, either they
8:56do this or they don't get ahead, and
8:57obviously, there’s a loss of merit
8:59because, clearly, if I never hire the
9:01best, the entire research field loses
9:03out, and the best from abroad can't get
9:05in here. The best from here, if
9:07anything, end up serving abroad, damn
9:09it, damn it all. And the result is that
9:12so many aspiring academics give up, or
9:14if they aren't good at infiltrating
9:16this network, they will never find a
9:18space. In a climate of fear and
9:20precariousness, while waiting for one's
9:22turn, it's a total loss of credibility
9:24for the research system and the country
9:25. And what if I told you that the
9:27situation has actually gotten even
9:29worse now? Oh, of course it has. The
9:32government has approved a bill backed
9:33by the Minister of University and
9:35Research, Annamaria Bernini, which, in
9:37short, legalizes rigged hiring notices
9:38—all because the most important thing
9:40here is meritocracy. Remember what is
9:43going to happen to the Italian academic
9:45world now. Ah,
9:46doctor, call a doctor.
9:48Today, I want to tell you some stories,
9:50explain well how this stuff works, and
9:52also share all my troubles. I don't
9:53know, maybe you don't care about
9:55universities or research, what is all
9:56this stuff? But hold on, research
9:57affects everyone, you know. Even you.
9:59Having performed operations with a
10:01knife and fork from a diner.
10:03Yeah, but I wiped them off with a
10:04napkin.
10:05And ultimately, this story,
10:06unfortunately, also helps us understand
10:07how the world works, or at least Italy.
10:09And how it works like crap. Let's take
10:11a quick break for our sponsor and then
10:14we'll have some real fun. Total
10:16depression today. So guys, I've been
10:18using today's sponsor a ton, which is
10:20Trade Republic. It’s a real bank that
10:23offers an all-in-one checking account
10:25with an Italian IBAN, so it lets you
10:27manage deposits, transfers, and
10:29payments very easily, send and receive
10:31money with zero fees, and withdraw cash
10:33worldwide for free on amounts over €
10:35100. I repeat, I’m using it a lot, I
10:38find it great; for example, I just got
10:39back from a trip to Zimbabwe and
10:41Botswana, and when you have to withdraw
10:43money there, not paying fees is a
10:44pretty nice thing, eh. These are 10
10:46pula. It’s Botswana currency. I have
10:50to say, when there's this transparent
10:52stuff on banknotes, I love it. Then
10:55there's a zebra here. Also, as many of
10:57you know, Trade Republic is a savings
10:59platform too. It offers all new
11:02customers a 3%gross annual interest on
11:04your available balance, calculated
11:07daily and credited monthly. The
11:10fantastic thing here is that your money
11:11isn't locked; you can use it for your
11:13daily expenses. As if that wasn't
11:15enough, thanks to Saveback, for every
11:17eligible payment made with the card, 1%
11:19of the purchase is reinvested in a
11:21savings plan set up in the app. And for
11:24any needs, you can always chat or book
11:26a call with a real human operator,
11:27which in these days of bots makes a
11:29difference, and you can contact them at
11:31any hour of the day or night, any day,
11:32you can write to them, get it? At 3:00
11:36AM on Ferragosto they'll answer you;
11:37I’ve never needed it, but just
11:39knowing the service is there is
11:40reassuring. In short, use this QR code,
11:43go through the link in the description
11:44to download Trade Republic and discover
11:46all the other benefits, and let's get
11:48back to our video.
11:49Look, I’ll say it clearly in this
11:51chamber: in 40 years, I am not aware of
11:54a single competition where the winner
11:56wasn't known beforehand.
11:59And there isn't a single professor who
12:01has ever contradicted me. This is the
12:04situation of our universities today.
12:07This is senator and microbiologist
12:09Andrea Crisanti. The discussion in this
12:12case was sparked, was triggered by the
12:14situation at the University of Verona,
12:15where a competition was won by the son
12:17of the then-rector in a classic case of
12:19nepotism,
12:21a bit too Italian. I don't know if, uh,
12:24yeah,
12:24but look, if you want similar stories,
12:25you're spoiled for choice. Last July,
12:27for example, a scandal broke out over a
12:29competition at the Magna-Graecia
12:30University of Catanzaro, thanks to an
12:32investigation by Il Post. On the
12:35examining board was Antonio Brunetti,
12:36who had a very close relationship with
12:38the candidate who eventually won the
12:40competition, Maria Mirabelli. Brunetti
12:43had in fact been her tutor, had
12:45co-signed numerous scientific
12:46publications with her, and both were
12:48listed as inventors on the same patent
12:49regarding a potential treatment for
12:51type 2 diabetes. Pretty nice stuff, in
12:53short. Maria Mirabelli seems like a
12:55sharp person. Cut out for this job. I
12:57understand that Antonio Brunetti had
12:59every reason to help her win the call
13:01for applications. It's something I can
13:04at least humanly understand, even if,
13:06precisely to avoid such conflicts of
13:08interest, maybe it's better not to have
13:10a guy on the board who has worked with
13:12a candidate, right? Otherwise, who
13:14knows who wins this contest. But oh
13:16well, one might say let's overlook it,
13:18come on. If it weren't for the fact
13:19that something even more serious was
13:21discovered. To allow Mirabelli to take
13:23office as a researcher, they jumped
13:25through hoops, defying all the rules,
13:27and had her complete her four-year
13:29specialization in 3 years. In short,
13:32they recognized her activities and
13:34credits, so she finished her
13:35specialization a year early and could
13:36participate in the competition. Damn,
13:38they really wanted her to pass, didn't
13:41they. And Il Post asked, "Is this thing
13:43even legal?" And apparently, it is. Now
13:46I am telling you these stories because
13:48they are recent and, above all, because
13:50on one hand there was an investigation
13:51by Il Post, and on the other, a
13:53candidate who opposed it and appealed.
13:55But do you know how many times these
13:57things have happened and continue to
13:59happen? How many similar cases there
14:01are. Then, obviously, the candidate
14:03often doesn't appeal, so we don't find
14:05out, but it happens. And by happens, I
14:08mean it happens almost always. There
14:09are a lot of stories from those who
14:11lose.
14:12Exactly. Unfortunately, they don't go
14:14like that. How the professor's
14:17protégé builds their career with many
14:20small positions that aren't the ones
14:23appearing on the MUR website at a
14:26national level, like researchers, PhDs,
14:29professors, etc., but with smaller
14:32contracts, such as freelance work,
14:34adjunct teaching, and research grants.
14:40You have to go and scour the websites
14:42of about 100 universities, sites that
14:44are often poorly made, and so obviously
14:46what happens? That this hidden vacancy
14:49—because it’s essentially hidden,
14:51the State doesn’t deign to create a
14:53platform—I thought, let’s make one
14:55ourselves, otherwise nobody
14:56participates and the person who’s
14:58meant to win, wins. In fact, that’s
15:00always been the case. But how many
15:03reports do you receive, I mean, I don't
15:05count them every month. I can tell you
15:08that I have filed about 40 complaints.
15:12Okay. About 40 complaints, but I think
15:14the reports are much more numerous.
15:16No, there are certainly many more
15:17reports, but consider that not everyone
15:19knows about "Band Università," which
15:21has only been around for a year and a
15:23half, and that people are terrified.
15:25And here we come to this new bill.
15:27There are a lot of things written in it
15:28; I’ll just tell you the most
15:29interesting stuff. For starters, there
15:31is the abolition of the ASN, the
15:33National Scientific Qualification.
15:36Until today, the ASN was a sort of
15:38national license, a committee of
15:39experts that evaluated whether a
15:41researcher had sufficient credentials
15:43and publications, and was therefore
15:45qualified to become an associate or
15:47full professor. Think about what it
15:51means to reach that position, why
15:53it’s so coveted: a salary, a decent
15:56amount of money, a real, permanent
15:58contract, no more 1-2-3 year vacancies
16:00with that devastating instability that
16:03most of those who chose this path have
16:05had to endure. Well, without the ASN,
16:08without this license, you couldn't even
16:10participate in local competitions. The
16:12Bernini bill wipes everything out,
16:13replacing it with a simple
16:15self-certification of requirements on a
16:17ministerial platform.
16:18How do you feel about this?
16:19Look, the ASN is corrupt, it’s
16:21extremely corrupt. If Bernini had only
16:23eliminated the ASN, she would have done
16:26something right. So much so that many
16:29academics, victims of discrimination,
16:32corruption, and so on, seeing this
16:35abolition of the ASN, were all happy
16:37because they didn't realize it's a
16:40decoy. Behind the ASN lies the
16:42legalization of discretionary oral
16:44exams, which cannot be appealed to the
16:46Administrative Court, and the
16:48legalization of tailor-made vacancies.
16:51The second crucial point is the
16:52transition to a new recruitment system
16:54based on local evaluation. Competitions
16:57will no longer be tied to this national
16:59filter, but each individual university
17:01will be able to announce them with
17:03total autonomy based on its own
17:05resources. And that is something not to
17:07be taken lightly because it gives much
17:08more power to the universities. And the
17:11problem here is that if you already
17:12know these systems are rotten from
17:14within, what’s the point of giving
17:15them more power? But perhaps the most
17:18criticized thing is that it now gives
17:20universities the possibility to
17:22describe the required scientific
17:24profile in an extremely specific way.
17:26In what sense? While grant calls
17:28previously covered broad sectors,
17:30allowing people with slightly different
17:32but eligible experience to apply, it
17:34will now be possible to specify very,
17:37very narrow research topics. The
17:40candidate must have worked in recent
17:42years on multifactorial modeling of the
17:44evolutionary dynamics of the gut
17:45microbiota of cave-dwelling isopods
17:47subjected to intermittent hyperbaric
17:49stress, and must wear a size 41 shoe.
17:52How many people will be interested in
17:53this call? Ah, few, maybe just one. Who
17:57? That one, precisely him.
17:58Hello, I am the very famous Peppe Fed,
18:02but look at that, I think this is the
18:04most problematic aspect of the Bernini
18:06Bill. Absolutely, it is unprecedented;
18:10competitions have always been based on
18:13a sector, tax law, general surgery,
18:16organic chemistry. You went by these
18:20sectors. What does this reform do? It
18:23narrows the field enormously. And one,
18:26let's say, of these examples that I
18:28liked the most is that of Antonio Pesce
18:29, also because the University of
18:31Ferrara sent me a cease-and-desist. I
18:33don't know if you know.
18:34How did they send you a
18:34cease-and-desist, in what sense? They
18:36paid a lawyer, chosen who knows how. He
18:39assumes that I spread fake news,
18:41meaning that the University of Ferrara
18:44hadn't broken the law. There's a
18:47Regional Administrative Court ruling,
18:50anyway, that the competition wasn't
18:52illegal, and then he ends by even
18:54saying, "Take down the reel," because I
18:56had highlighted it. This is pure
18:59intimidation. I mean, they told me, "
19:01You must be quiet." Period. I obviously
19:03brought this to the public prosecutor's
19:05attention.
19:05I don't think they'll be very happy
19:07about this video that's about to come
19:08out. Eh,
19:09imagine his. Then the oral exam is
19:12generalized, that lesson where the
19:13candidate must demonstrate their
19:15teaching ability, and there would be
19:16nothing wrong with that, right? I mean,
19:19you have to prove you can teach. Fair
19:21enough. Yes. But do you remember the
19:23Pesce case? One time they can give you
19:2620 out of 20, the next time zero,
19:27arbitrarily, for no reason. Why?
19:29Because I'm crazy, do you get it? And
19:31what do you do? Yeah, what do you do?
19:33How do you try to prove you're right?
19:34You foolish candidate? You're out of
19:36luck. What, do you want to appeal to
19:37the administrative court? And how do
19:39you prove to the court that you didn't
19:40suck during your oral exam? What proof?
19:43My word against yours.
19:44Good morning, your honor. Good morning,
19:46your honor. Also because the
19:48administrative court judges cannot
19:50substitute their technical and
19:51scientific assessment for that of a
19:53commission. Who says so? That I don't
19:55know. You deserve an 18, a 20, or a 30.
19:57Who says so? Some propose recording the
20:00exams and making them public. Do you
20:02really think they’ll do that? Besides
20:03, it isn't even provided for in the
20:05bill. So why should I do it? The bill
20:07contains other stuff. If you want, you
20:08can read it; these are more or less the
20:10important points. But was this bill
20:11really necessary? They say the reasons
20:15for wanting the change were one, to
20:17reduce bureaucracy, which is fine, two,
20:19to speed up the competitions, which is
20:21fine, and three, to retain young
20:23researchers, i.e., let's hire them
20:25immediately in Italy before they find a
20:27position abroad. And four, the goal is
20:30to avoid having a candidate judged
20:31first at a national level and then at a
20:33local level for the same position,
20:34again to streamline the whole thing. To
20:37me, all of this sounds like an excuse,
20:39because I don't see how these things
20:41can help. This would be understandable
20:44if we didn't all know what the
20:45situation is like. It's a bit like
20:48giving a syringe of morphine to an
20:49addict and saying, "Hey, only inject
20:51this in case of a serious injury." And
20:53what do you think they’ll do?
20:54Straight in the vein. The truth is, why
20:58even tell you that this will further
21:00legitimize "tailor-made" notices—
21:01those calls for applications designed
21:03specifically for certain candidates,
21:04essentially having the winner’s name
21:06already written on them. Joining the
21:10voices condemning these injustices are
21:12many people holding important roles in
21:14academia, like General Pathology
21:16Professor Antonella Viola, someone
21:18who’s been swimming in this world for
21:21a while, who explained to Corriere how
21:23discretion, especially in oral exams,
21:25has historically been used to favor
21:27friends. She even recounts threats
21:30received during her career to pressure
21:32her into withdrawing from competitions
21:34where she was clearly the most
21:35qualified. Then there was another
21:38competition, this time in Naples, on
21:39the day of the lecture, so the oral
21:41exam. A member of the commission faked
21:44a heart attack. After that, in the
21:50following days, I get the usual threat,
21:52blah, blah, blah.
21:53And then there are unions and
21:54associations, all with very negative
21:56views. Anyway, it’s worth asking:
21:58will the academic world actually become
22:00more corrupt, or will it just keep
22:02doing its own thing, as it has always
22:05done until now?
22:06Corruption is only bad if I'm not
22:08involved.
22:09Yes. But if I'm part of that corruption
22:11, I'll defend it.
22:13There are studies in the literature on
22:15this, such as this one by Battistin,
22:16Checchi, and Verzillo, which analyzes
22:18the reform that, in 1999, transferred
22:20competitions to individual universities
22:22. At the end of the 90s, in fact, the
22:24minions in Parliament found themselves
22:26facing problems similar to the current
22:27ones. University hiring competitions
22:30were too centralized and too slow. So,
22:33with the Berlinguer reform of 1998-1999
22:35, the responsibility for competitions
22:38shifted from the State to individual
22:40universities. The expectation was that
22:42universities, knowing their own needs
22:44better, would choose better researchers
22:46and professors. The study therefore
22:49took two groups of academics, those
22:51hired before the reform and those hired
22:52after the reform, and compared them.
22:55Comparing scientific productivity, they
22:57found that nothing, there was no
22:59statistically significant improvement
23:01in the productivity of researchers
23:03recruited after the switch to local
23:04competitions. In short, decentralizing
23:07the competitions did not allow for the
23:09selection of better people. The authors
23:12sum up and conclude that, in their view
23:14, if you completely change the rules of
23:15the system but the quality of those
23:17recruited doesn't change, perhaps there
23:19is a fundamental problem that hasn't
23:21been considered. That is, according to
23:24the authors, the real problem was not
23:26so much the written rules as these very
23:28Italian organic mechanisms of personal
23:29connections, collaborative networks,
23:31academic schools, relationships between
23:33professors, and the "baronage." If
23:36these mechanisms continue to influence
23:38hiring, similar changes will be of no
23:40use. Therefore, at the moment, one of
23:43the very few things that can actually
23:44be done is to continue collecting
23:46stories of academic injustice. The more
23:49they pile up, the more impossible it
23:50becomes to look away from the pile of
23:52[ __ ] that is forming. Stories like that
23:55of Agnese Rapposelli, a statistics
23:56researcher who participated in a
23:58competition at the Gabriele D'Annunzio
24:00University of Chieti-Pescara. She
24:02appealed to the regional administrative
24:03court (TAR) because, as usual, the
24:05competition seemed quite rigged, and so
24:06the competition was annulled. The court
24:08found that the commission had exercised
24:11its power in an illegitimate manner.
24:13One time, they wrote in the evaluation
24:15rejecting her that her publications
24:16were all on the same subject.
24:18It meant they hadn't even read the
24:20titles.
24:20In another instance, they were even
24:22capable of inserting a qualification at
24:24the last moment that was not provided
24:25for in the call for applications,
24:26changing the rules mid-course. The
24:29court discovered that the commission
24:30had wildly overvalued the winning
24:32candidate's participation in a
24:33conference.
24:35My 4 years were devalued to the same
24:37point as attendance at a conference,
24:40like in the Fish case, one should redo
24:41everything from scratch, right?
24:43Rapposelli, however, does something
24:44else,
24:45this is a struggle, it is a war.
24:47She had it, you know? She does what
24:49everyone dreams of doing for revenge.
24:52The Ocean's Eleven move: she goes to
24:54Professor Roberto Benedetti, a
24:55professor of economic statistics at the
24:57university, and records the
24:58conversation they have. According to
25:02the accusation, during the meeting, the
25:03professor supposedly told her, in short
25:05, either you drop the appeal and
25:06continue your academic path as we tell
25:08you, and without being a pain in the
25:09ass. Or, uh, I think you risk
25:13permanently compromising your
25:14university career. She recorded him,
25:17what a satisfaction. The criminal
25:19proceedings concluded in the first
25:20instance this January. The Court of
25:22Pescara convicted Benedetti of
25:24attempted extortion. Meanwhile, after
25:28the procedure was annulled, Raposelli's
25:30position was re-examined and the
25:31researcher obtained the academic role
25:33she had contested. Supreme. Victory.
25:37So all's well that ends well, more or
25:40less. Imagine having to end up in court
25:42every single time an academic
25:43competition is involved. Oh, guys, I
25:46have so many stories and testimonies
25:48told to me by people close to the
25:49situation, folks who went on for years
25:51on precarious contracts, promises,
25:53waiting for their chance because the
25:55professor promised them. Like, come on,
25:57you know? I'll sacrifice, I won't get
25:59paid for a few months, I'll live on
26:01thin air, but then my turn will come.
26:04Or on the other side, the lack of funds
26:06and not being able to hire people, even
26:07if you promised them—which, by the
26:09way, that lack of funding is the root
26:10cause of it all. Then others who apply
26:13for the positions, but are told right
26:14away that the spot is already
26:15guaranteed, it's already for that
26:17person over there. Eh, look, you don't
26:18even need to show up. If you want to
26:20come, though, go ahead. And there are
26:22even some who get calls in the night
26:24being told it's better not to accept
26:25that position, take my word for it, and
26:27then they find out the one who called
26:28was the other candidate. Because this,
26:31in the end, I told you, in the vast
26:33majority of cases, is a war among the
26:35poor—between people who want
26:36stability after years of precarious
26:38work, professors who want a candidate
26:40they like, and labs with a pittance of
26:42funds and therefore very few positions
26:44available. And here we arrive at the
26:46crux of the matter. The real reason
26:49that makes me say, "Damn it," is that I
26:51don't blame the poor soul of a
26:53candidate who is favored by the rigged
26:55competition, who might have already
26:57been working with that professor for a
26:59long time on a ridiculous contract or
27:01no contract at all, and perhaps has all
27:03the skills to continue doing what
27:05they've already started, but finally
27:07has the chance to see their work
27:09recognized—where sometimes they've
27:11been told for years, "You'll get the
27:13contract, we'll try, I promise." And
27:17I'll tell you, I even understand a
27:19professor who says, "But I have to put
27:20someone in the lab to work with, why do
27:21I have to pick them through a
27:23competition?""Let me choose who I work
27:25with." No, maybe I don't want the one
27:27with the most credentials, but the one
27:29I work best with, the one with more
27:30grit, who’s hungrier, with more
27:32motivation. If there’s this guy,
27:34right, who I already get along with
27:36personally and professionally, with
27:38whom I can continue a conversation
27:40already started, who I care about and
27:42am fond of because he’s shown me that
27:44, even if he’s not the best, he
27:46really wants to learn and do
27:47extraordinary things, why can't I do it
27:50? And this is the complexity I was
27:51telling you about. These are the two
27:52sides, the two faces of the same coin.
27:55And I’m telling you this because
27:56I’d never want to trivialize the
27:57situation. We aren't always talking
27:59about rigged job postings to put in
28:01incompetent people, even though that
28:02happens too. Eh, there’s one
28:05professor in particular that I know,
28:06who doesn’t know what I was told: he
28:08was put there only because two members
28:10of the examining committee had two
28:12different protégés they wanted to
28:13push and, not having reached an
28:15agreement, they said: "Fine, we'll take
28:16a third one, neither of the two, the
28:18other one, that guy, let's take the
28:20jerk nobody likes." And this guy just
28:22ended up there, get it? Can you even
28:24believe it?
28:25I mean, you're in the realm of
28:27commercialism.
28:28But I was saying, in many cases,
28:29excluding blatant misconduct, we’re
28:31talking about candidates who are pushed
28:33because they’re good—maybe not the
28:34best in terms of credentials, but
28:36that’s relative. So what am I saying
28:38then? That it’s okay like this? No,
28:40because in the middle there’s
28:42nepotism, servility, cronyism, localism
28:44, favoritism, all things that this
28:46mechanism fuels. And that is why they
28:50try to make rules that must apply in
28:52every context, and above all, people
28:53forget that job postings are long and
28:55demanding to deal with, where people
28:57invest their hopes. And if you make me
29:00waste a ton of time on your shitty job
29:02posting, when you’ve already decided
29:03that I won’t win it anyway, you
29:05won’t hire me, because you’ve
29:06already decided who has to win this
29:08posting. You’re playing me for a fool
29:11twice; you’re making me waste a ton
29:12of time and then I get a little
29:13depressed and I walk away. That’s why
29:15you either respect the rules or we call
29:17it quits. Let’s just make it easier,
29:19guys, there are two options here, in my
29:21opinion, at least. Either we really
29:23decide to make job postings transparent
29:24, not our clownish legislative bills,
29:26or we just get rid of job postings
29:27altogether. No, I'm serious, okay?
29:29Let's eliminate them. At least when
29:31someone needs to enter another person's
29:32lab, like, I don't know, a PhD student,
29:34a post-doc, let's cut that out. We
29:36should do it like they do abroad, like
29:38some labs I've worked in. You talk
29:40directly to the lead professor for that
29:42position, and then they handle it; if
29:44they want to hold a call and interview
29:45various people, they do that and decide
29:47on the best one based on their own
29:48standards and research, autonomously.
29:51Otherwise, if there’s already someone
29:52they like, they just take that person
29:53and that’s it. Then, it’s their own
29:55problem, eh. If you pick shitty people,
29:57your research group will be crap. Your
29:59university becomes a sewer. If you pick
30:01worthy people, you publish a lot and
30:03become an authoritative entity. In
30:04short, it’s a system that, at that
30:06point, becomes natural selection. You
30:08choose the best thing for yourself. Or
30:09maybe not.
30:10And that is the fundamental
30:11misunderstanding. The one doing the
30:13hiring is not the professor. This thing
30:15, I swear, makes me incredibly,
30:17horribly angry. It's the institution
30:20that hires, the university, not the
30:22professor. The institution has no likes
30:24or dislikes. If we open the door to
30:27likes and dislikes, then we open it to
30:29professional—no, wait, personal—
30:31discretion. And then long live the
30:34Bernini reform, long live rigged
30:35competitions, we aren't talking about
30:37anything anymore. When a professor
30:40tells you "I want them because I get
30:42along with them," it’s almost never
30:44tied to scientific or academic merit;
30:46it’s very often tied to a question of
30:49manipulatability, blackmailability,
30:51malleability. If we were in an honest
30:55system where people actually evaluate
30:58your resume, as can be the case abroad,
31:01and evaluate your potential as well,
31:04then everything would be great. The
31:08problem is that we are in a system that
31:10has been super corrupt for 1,000 years.
31:13There is an incredible link between
31:15politics and universities, which is why
31:17it’s unthinkable for me, even in
31:18chemistry—if you knew how many
31:20reports I have in chemistry, well, I
31:22could make a life of it myself. Sure
31:24thing, absolutely. It’s right to get
31:26rid of the competitions. In my opinion,
31:28in Italy, it’s unthinkable, at least
31:30until we equip ourselves with good laws
31:32.
31:33In short, I honestly don't know what
31:35the best solution is. I only know that
31:36this is what is happening right now.
31:38What I’m saying is, just make up your
31:40minds and stop jerking people around.
31:42Damn it!

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Baronato universitario – Come si truccano i bandi in Italia by Barbascura eXtra, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,921 words across 949 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.