How corrupt is academia?

How corrupt is academia?

Other urls found in this thread:

andrewgelman.com/2012/08/08/gregor-mendels-suspicious-data/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Probably one of the least corrupted professions

A lot of Ivy leagues supposedly have a big problem with grade inflation. They keep accepting donations from rich foreigners so their dumbass kids can go there and fuck around for four years, so the faculty inflate the grades cause "muh a harvard man never gets a C"

Pretty damn bad.

i did engineering for an academic group for many years and the most corrupt thing i encountered was using grant money left over from one project to kick start development on the next project.

Technically you're not suppose to do this but it is fucking nothing compared to the shitshow in the private sector

Years later I have to leave my house to the end and then again I'm going for skiing and I have no snow at the canyon today because of the discord I have been waiting to be on the stream tomorrow is the best day Sunday I've had ever seen a lot on the show tonight

i'm certain most professors would commit murder if it meant getting funding. i felt for the meme on academia being a meritocracy but in reality it's just researchers whoring themselves out and pulling any strings they can to get money. dishonestly is obviously a big part of it.

t. undergrad and/or retard

not really from what ive seen, at least in math. no one can pay mathematicians to do fake number theory research or something. im getting sick of it though and im considering quitting my phd program so i dont have to slut it up for a postdoc and a shitty job out in nowhereville to whore myself out for grants and have mentally retarded students who hate me. i might go into finance instead.

Depends on the department. I think the more "applied" departments tend to be cutthroat, but the more "pure" departments (Math, English, and Philosophy) tend to have more politics and petty squablings.

Kind of, and in a number of ways. Even disregarding the *huge* problem of blatantly false results being published as a result of negligence, malevolence or pursuit of profit (which seems to be big in "sensitive" areas such as biology, medicine, chemistry, psychology, etc.), there's also the obvious problem of academia being a pyramid scheme, with universities producing several times more PhDs per specialty each year than there are positions open.
The situation of professorships being what it is, there is a huge risk involved in pursuing graduate studies with the hope of getting an academic position, and some pretty shady maneuvers in the recruitment of professors: Even assuming that there is a relatively objective way to assess the level of a candidate and dismissing the occasional occurrence of actual geniuses on which everyone can agree, you can usually find several people among 50 or 100 postdocs applying for the same position that display a similar level of ability. On what basis is the choice made then ?

Pretty fucking bad. It's as much politics as anything else. Even though you have to be guarded as fuck in the private sector with your research, at least you know that at the end of the day it's about money. In academia people fuck each other over for brownie points. If they can lease their research to companies.. whew lads, then it takes the corruption to a whole new level.

nobody cared who I was until I faked some data for a research paper

>i'm certain most professors would commit murder if it meant getting funding. i felt for the meme on academia being a meritocracy but in reality it's just researchers whoring themselves out and pulling any strings they can to get money. dishonestly is obviously a big part of it.
It's only legal laws and threat of jail that keep most people from rape and murder, male and female both.
But there are whores in every profession. Granted, likely a far higher percentage in religions.

There is a big problems with made up results being published in papers.

There is a huge pressure to push out scientific papers for funding, degrees, and resumes.

if someone exposed you, will you die?

Fucked is more the word. Used to be run by educators and professors, now privatized and run by administrators, bureaucrats that don't give a hoot about the work (cliche, I know).

Not saying it was paradise levels of better or that theft, faking data weren't around back in the day but even a bit better is better still.

Actually, a lot, and has been the case for the past half century at least

It would be incredibly unintellectual

>It's only legal laws and threat of jail that keep most people from rape and murder

Fairly certain empathy contributes.

>empathy
this sounds like some sort of brainlet thing, what does it mean?

field occupied by 90% leftists commies,

gonna say at least 95% corrupt

the only thing that researchers want is more money. they will exaggerate and play ball with a donor without fault.

it's becoming more common to recruit professors for lecturer or other non-tenure track positions while you have 80 year old shitstains still hanging onto their tenure and unaware of recent advances or techniques. it's especially bad in engineering where you have old as fuck professors that never worked in the industry teaching you about what you'll need to now on the job.

t.

i've read parts of the thesis of a previous lab member that graduated before i joined and i have never met him. the guy's data looked like a simulation. all the points were nicely spaced out, there was no scatter, and he had these perfectly nice and smooth profiles.

now to give you an idea, it takes about 30 experiments for us to sweep out a profile. i can usually do 6 a day. sometimes if i'm lucky the points will be decently spread out and i can get a profile going in as little as 2 days. more realistically, and typically, you get these areas where you just can't land a data point and instead you keep landing them on or near already existing data points. i've had days where i spent all 6 experiments trying to just land a single point where i had none, and all 6 would land on previous points. now, these redundant points rarely perfectly overlap with the previous point(s). you end up with some scatter. this guy had absolutely none of it.

i don't know if he cherry picked his data, or if he adjusted the points, i.e. made up data, but at this point i've dealt with, taken apart, or read about virtually every part of our experimental set up and i know that we are incapable of producing data like that. it's simply impossible with the uncertainties we have in our apparatus.

then there's another guy that cited another lab member's paper and outright said his calibration was shit.

t. chink

all

If you ask in binary form the answer is unambiguous: it is corrupted

>naturalnews
>ever

Most of the Ivy Leagues have grade inflation that isn't much worse than the average state school.

Apart from Harvard, of course.
>median grade literally an A-
>literally participation trophy U

You're a smart guy

very

loans are harsh aren't they goy? o u can't learn on your own with just textbooks and the net goy you need to pay this arbitrary brand to give you recognition in order to appease your je- i mean teachers goy.

>the faculty inflate the grades cause "muh a harvard man never gets a C"
source?

reminds me of this

andrewgelman.com/2012/08/08/gregor-mendels-suspicious-data/

>he doesn't understand the purpose of credentialing

law, medicine, and engineering are all legally defined for a reason. but i wouldn't expect a NEET to understand having a profession.

for you

Shoulda gone into private.

At Columbia, at least, this trend is exaggerated. We do inflate to avoid C's, but we inflate more to the B- range than we do to the A- range, and we don't really inflate at all beyond the A- range. A "normal" GPA here is around 3.0 - 3.3.

There's also the factor that a lot of these kids are legitimately gifted and slacking off because >lol college!!1.