[aleks224]

>The question is, how do you select for those whose research will ever amount to something truly interesting

You can't, as "truly interesting" is context dependent, changes over time and something that everyone deems as futile may become interesting - that's the point of research. You just increase the bar of entry to get people who work very hard and leave it to them to decide.

[auggierose]

Working very hard is not well-defined in this context. What does it even mean? You can work hard when you have a clear goal, let's say put those 10 barrels onto that truck over there. Or, let's write a new web browser within 2 years. Putting out 20 papers per year can also be considered working very hard.

You don't want people who work very hard. You want people who will EVENTUALLY put out new, original, and truly interesting research. HOW they do this is not up to you.

And there is a difference between truly interesting research, and just busy work research. It's not that easy to identify truly interesting research without the benefit of hindsight. It is somewhat easier to identify busy work research for an objective subject matter expert (but of course this is not 100% either, and personal preferences can definitely cloud the experts judgement).

[guhidalg]

You need people who got excellent grades in their undergrad program, who have somehow demonstrated that they like the field they’re going into academia for (as in clubs, extracurriculars, and whatnot), and who peers recommend as being likely to do novel research. The last one requires, gasp, talking to the applicant and seeing if they’re full of shit.