It absolutely makes sense when considering where to donate (or volunteer i.e. donate time). If there’s less attention on an area, there’s likely to be easily identifiable funding gaps.
It doesn’t make as much sense when considering where to work, because if something is neglected and has funding gaps you’re going to have to spend a bunch of time trying to get people to give you a salary. Clearly the ad-hoc metric should be roughly opposite here: you want to work in a really well funded field (where funding is wasted due to talent inefficiency) and then make really good use of all that funding.
Here’s my problem with neglectedness:
It absolutely makes sense when considering where to donate (or volunteer i.e. donate time). If there’s less attention on an area, there’s likely to be easily identifiable funding gaps.
It doesn’t make as much sense when considering where to work, because if something is neglected and has funding gaps you’re going to have to spend a bunch of time trying to get people to give you a salary. Clearly the ad-hoc metric should be roughly opposite here: you want to work in a really well funded field (where funding is wasted due to talent inefficiency) and then make really good use of all that funding.