Suppose that our friends Alice and Bob are both academicians (academician: a member of the faculty of a college or university) in universities A and B respectively.
University A requires a lot of teaching and administrative work, whereas university B requires a certain amount of research and only a small amount of administrative stuff.
Alice enjoys research very much but she cannot spend enough time to conduct research and be productive in terms of publications. Bob, on the other hand conducts research since it is part of his job and does not really spend effort to improve his projects.
Let Charles be a member of the admission committee in university C that has an open PhD position. If both Alice and Bob applies to the position, he will see that Bob has been involved to more research projects than Alice, moreover, Alice has no publications and has spent her time on teaching.
The thing is, Alice does teaching really nice and gets positive feedback from both professors and students. It is clear that Alice can do her job above-the-average. Bob, on the other hand does not even need a feedback. He proved that he can do research by his projects and publications.
Suppose that both Alice and Bob are started working as faculty when they were master's students and now they are PhD students who want to find a position in a different university because of their own reasons.
Considering that both Alice and Bob are currently faculty members, Bob is one step further from Alice in terms of getting the PhD position, if not many steps.
What can Alice do to prove that she can be a way more better researcher given time and opportunity? Is there any "Charles" who is ready to give that chance?
If you are "Charles" (a member of an admission committee), would you give that chance to Alice? If you would, under what conditions?