Academic Laundering/Fraud (I should start my own Journal...)

[Brisketexan 105569]

27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Because the profit-driven mechanism of businesses requires being competitive and accountable. 
 

Hope that helps. 

They are also driven by short-term profitability as the god of all motivations.

There are plenty of endeavors in this world that should not be driven by those motivations.  There are even sub-parts of endeavors that shouldn't be driven by those motivations.

One can be competitive and accountable without being profit driven (e.g.., that's how I parented.  I wanted my kids to be competitive out in the world, I held myself accountable for my successes and failures with them, and my wife and I held each other accountable).  But our motive wasn't "profit-driven."  Not even a little bit.

Business and profitability can absolutely be good things.  But the universe and humanity aren't one-size fits all.  Love doesn't solve all problems, neither does war.  Different things have their place.

[SimonBolivar 10961]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Rightly or wrongly, but I suspect more rightly than wrongly, a lot of black academics probably feel like they're on the outside looking in.  Because this isn't outright fraud, more power to em.

I just realized that from k-12, undergrad, and grad school I had 0 black teachers/professors. 

[Shaggy3.0 1695]

29 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

1:25 to 1:38 sums it up succinctly

one dude lays pipe.

another dude dresses funny and can only write articles about laying pipe.

 

[Js1 85744]

Yes let’s turn universities into profit-driven businesses managed by shareholders. So that the focus is no longer on research or a well rounded education. We can just push our corporate drones and deliver them directly to the corporations. Maybe the corporations can just sponsor the schools so you obtain your Bachelor’s degree in Data Science form the Amazon School of Business and then become beholden to them

Things like history, social sciences, philosophy, art history, AA or any cultural studies would be cut day 1 

[Foosters 17918]

Yeah and while we're at it, lets get rid of the post-office. Free loading sons of bitches

[Dahobbs 17807]

Anyway, if I'm going to get upset about fraud in academic papers, it is going to be about fraud appearing in major publications and weaponized against the public interest: https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/anti-abortion-groups-studies-retracted-before-supreme-court-mifepristone-case/

Quote

 

Scientific journal publisher Sage has retracted key abortion studies cited by anti-abortion groups in a legal case aiming to revoke regulatory approval of the abortion and miscarriage medication, mifepristone—a case that has reached the US Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for March 26.

On Monday, Sage announced the retraction of three studies, all published in the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. All three were led by James Studnicki, who works for The Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The publisher said the retractions were based on various problems related to the studies' methods, analyses, and presentation, as well as undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Two of the studies were cited by anti-abortion groups in their lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA), which claimed the regulator's approval and regulation of mifepristone was unlawful. The two studies were also cited by District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who issued a preliminary injunction last April to revoke the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone. A conservative panel of judges for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans partially reversed that ruling months later, but the Supreme Court froze the lower court's order until the appeals process had concluded.

Mifepristone, considered safe and effective by the FDA and medical experts, is used in over half of abortions in the US.

Criticism

Amid the legal dispute, the now-retracted studies drew immediate criticism from experts, who pointed out flaws. Of the three, the most influential and heavily criticized is the 2021 study titled "A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999–2015" (PDF). The study suggested that up to 35 percent of women on Medicaid who had a medication abortion between 2001 and 2015 visited an emergency department within 30 days afterward. Its main claim was that medication abortions led to a higher rate of emergency department visits than surgical abortions.

Critics noted a number of problems: The study looked at all emergency department visits, not only visits related to abortion. This could capture medical care beyond abortion-related conditions, because people on Medicaid often lack primary care and resort to going to emergency departments for routine care. When the researchers tried to narrow down the visits to just those related to abortion, they included medical codes that were not related to abortion, such as codes for ectopic pregnancy, and they didn't capture the seriousness of the condition that prompted the visit. Medication abortions can cause bleeding, and women can go to the emergency department if they don't know what amount of bleeding is normal. The study also counted multiple visits from the same individual patient as multiple visits, likely inflating the numbers. Last, the study did not put the data in context of emergency department use by Medicaid beneficiaries in general over the time period.

In contrast to Studnicki's study, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists notes that studies looking at tens of thousands of medication abortions have concluded that "serious side effects occur in less than 1 percent of patients, and major adverse events—significant infection, blood loss, or hospitalization—occur in less than 0.3 percent of patients. The risk of death is almost non-existent."

Re-review

Upon receiving a complaint about the quality of Studnicki's 2021 study, Sage began a review, asking an independent reviewer with statistical expertise to look it over. The reviewer found two of the study's data figures misleading. "[T]he article's presentation of the data in Figures 2 and 3 leads to an inaccurate conclusion and that the composition of the cohort studied has problems that could affect the article's conclusions," Sage wrote in its retraction notice.

Sage also looked into the concern that the authors had conflicts of interest—finding that they did. All but one of the study's authors were linked to one or more anti-abortion advocacy organization, despite that they all had declared no conflicts of interest when they submitted the article for publication or in the article itself, Sage noted. Moreover, one of the peer-reviewers—tasked with reviewing the study manuscript and deciding if it was worthy of publication—was also associated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute at the time of the review. Sage determined that the peer review process was compromised and noted that the same reviewer also reviewed two other studies led by Studnicki—the two other studies Sage retracted, one published in 2022 and the other in 2019.

The 2022 study is the other study referenced in the mifepristone legal cases, titled "A Post Hoc Exploratory Analysis: Induced Abortion Complications Mistaken for Miscarriage in the Emergency Room are a Risk Factor for Hospitalization." This study also had problems with its methodology and conflicts of interest, Sage found.

In all, Sage had two subject-matter experts start a fresh peer review for all three of the studies and concluded they should all be retracted. In the retraction notice, Sage summarized the findings:

"In the 2021 and 2022 articles, which rely on the same dataset, both experts identified fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part. In the 2019 article, which relies on a different dataset, both experts identified unsupported assumptions and misleading presentations of the findings that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and render the authors’ conclusion unreliable."

Studnicki told Retraction Watch that the retractions were "a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative." He also shared a point-by-point rebuttal to findings by Sage's reviewers.

According to reporting from the conservative news outlet the Daily Wire, Studnicki was also removed from his position on the editorial board for the Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology following the decision to retract the studies late last year.

 

 

[52-80 19277]

20 minutes ago, tigol said:

Accountability. Yes, that’s what comes to mind.

Yes, I'm sure your employer demands nothing of you and give you a paycheck out of purely charitable motivation

[Dahobbs 17807]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Yes, I'm sure your employer demands nothing of you and give you a paycheck out of purely charitable motivation

Yeah, imagine if entities like airplane and car manufacturers and banks weren't subject to profit accountability, you'd have over leveraged banks failing, car manufacturers begging for government handouts, and airplanes that fall out of the sky or have their doors fall off. Thank god we never have those things thanks to that all powerful for-profit accountability.  

[52-80 19277]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, we've never seen profit driven entities not be held accountable for their actions. Oh, wait...

Every product you own, touch, and use, including that with which you accessed Surly, was the consequence of a manufacturer saying "lets make the worst product at the highest prices because we dont have to care".  Oh, wait...

[Dahobbs 17807]

7 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Yes, I'm sure your employer demands nothing of you and give you a paycheck out of purely charitable motivation

Also, are you under the impression that non-profits have no demands of their employees or give them paychecks out of purely charitable motivation? Like, really? 

[Js1 85744]

Could you lick corporate boot any harder, my dude? You’re nothing but a number. And when the math doesn’t add up, you’re gone.

We should not run universities or the government like a business. That’s now what they’re designed for. You cannot continue to be so hostile towards them. I mean, you can, but you should not 

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Every product you own, touch, and use, including that with which you accessed Surly, was the consequence of a manufacturer saying "lets make the worst product at the highest prices because we dont have to care".  Oh, wait...

Hey, I'm a big fan of the power of market forces. That doesn't necessarily mean you need a for-profit entity or that market forces are a universal panacea. 

[52-80 19277]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, imagine if entities like airplane and car manufacturers and banks weren't subject to profit accountability, you'd have over leveraged banks failing, car manufacturers begging for government handouts, and airplanes that fall out of the sky or have their doors fall off. Thank god we never have those things thanks to that all powerful for-profit accountability.  

Imagine if the founder of car and airplane companies and banks were not motivated by profit, all of the cars and airplanes and banks that would even exist today:

 

[Newdoc 3465]

56 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

In what way do colleges and universities not have accountability? They (mostly) aren’t for-profit institutions, and they/we are held accountability by various governing bodies. 

Financial accountability should be the focus. Educational accountability should be another subject.   Do you mean financial accountability from "governing bodies" like our government or sycophant boards of trustees with friends needing a tax break? And "not for profit" is utter bullshit. Sure, capitalist, amoral greed has ruined modern business but "for profits" are made to run efficiently or the suffer a monetary accountability.  Unless our amoralistic government responds to favors and lobby money and bails them out. 

Modern universities are a racket filled with students who got swindled into thinking 6 figures was a good investment for their teaching, philosophy or modern western art degrees.  Add the incredible cost and bloat in the administrative part of these universities, then you see why higher education is in serious need of a major correction. Maybe we can lump in the unsustainable US healthcare system as well. 

[52-80 19277]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Could you lick corporate boot any harder, my dude?

Could you pretend like it's not your first year in college?  corporation badddd, bro

[Dahobbs 17807]

Just now, 52-80 said:

Imagine if the founder of car and airplane companies and banks were not motivated by profit, all of the cars and airplanes and banks that would even exist today:

1) We'd still have them, profit isn't the sole motivator for a society creating those sorts of entities 2) again, I have nothing against the concept of profit or the power of the market to allocate resources, and 3) for-profit entities can definitely be a societal good. But it doesn't mean for-profitness is sufficient or necessary for accountability.   

[Brisketexan 105569]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Could you pretend like it's not your first year in college?  corporation badddd, bro

"Corporate approach is the key to success in all endeavors" is no less stupid than a universal "corporations badddd" approach.  

There are a lot of things in this world that should be pursued and supported because they are good, not because they are profitable (at least as "profitable" is defined in practice: dollars in my pocket next quarter).  Your worship at the altar of profit creates a world where nobody plants a tree, because why would I invest time and effort in something that won't bear fruit until I'm gone and can't profit from it?

 

2 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Sure, capitalist, amoral greed has ruined modern business but "for profits" are made to run efficiently or the suffer a monetary accountability.  Unless our amoralistic government responds to favors and lobby money and bails them out. 

Actually, what you're saying is not true (although the role of the rules being rigged in their favor is real, for sure).  Modern for profits are made to maximize extraction of dollars to the governing class.  Suck all the money they can out as fast as they can, robbing Peter (planning, safety, investment) to pay Paul (short term profit numbers and executive compensation), and leave a husk with a shitty-long term future for someone else to deal with.  E.g., Boeing.  

Boeing is the archetypical modern American for-profit corporate model.

And I say this not as an enemy or opponent of capitalism in general at all.  I believe in a market economy.  I just know that anarcho-capitalism isn't the end-all-be-all of everything.

[52-80 19277]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

1) We'd still have them, profit isn't the sole motivator for a society creating those sorts of entities 2) again, I have nothing against the concept of profit or the power of the market to allocate resources, and 3) for-profit entities can definitely be a societal good. But it doesn't mean for-profitness is sufficient or necessary for accountability.   

Q: Why must everything function like a business (not be a business... but function like one)

A: Because business as we all know* it is the most ubiquitous and best example of a system with the shortest feedback loop and most direct accountability.  Is it perfect? No.  (what's that Churchill saying about Democracy?)

And apparently we don't all know, because some people insist on acting like they're trying to impress girls at an emo show.

 

[Js1 85744]

10 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Could you pretend like it's not your first year in college?  corporation badddd, bro

I like how you incorrectly assume I want to eliminate all for-profit businesses. I don't. Nor have I said that even once.  But go off, king. 

Keep your for-profit bullshit out of education and stop running on platforms to run the government like a business.  For-profit education is terrible.  A great many people have been scammed by such endeavors. 

Universities should not exist to churn out corporate drones, but a well-rounded and educated population.  I know such things scare you because these people will then want to *gasp* advocate for themselves and their well-being instead of being paid slave wages and treated like shit. 

Edited February 7 by Js1

[Brisketexan 105569]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

Q: Why must everything function like a business (not be a business... but function like one)

My family unit does not function like a business.  And I do not want it to.  Some ASPECTS of my family function like a business (e.g., we have to track dollars in vs. dollars out).  But a lot of aspects do not.  There is no cost-benefit analysis or profit motive in me holding my daughter as she cried about something that frightened her.  I will not see profits from reading to my kids (at least, that's not why I did it when they were young).

That's just one example.  No, not everything should "function like a business."  Not because business functions are focused on profits, but rather because they are focused SOLELY on profits, at the expense of every other interest.  That is a cold and inhuman, and ultimately self-destructive way, to approach every human endeavor.

Business approaches and thinking have their place and use.  So does planting a tree or reading to a kid.  It's not an either-or.  The sane approach is "both and."

[mchookem 16517]

32 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yes let’s turn universities into profit-driven businesses managed by shareholders. So that the focus is no longer on research or a well rounded education. We can just push our corporate drones and deliver them directly to the corporations.

or, closer to home...

[SimonBolivar 10961]

31 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Yes, I'm sure your employer demands nothing of you and give you a paycheck out of purely charitable motivation

I have 9,000 posts on a sports message board for a school I didn't even attend and most of those posts are during working hours.

Edited February 7 by SimonBolivar

[SimonBolivar 10961]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I like how you incorrectly assume I want to eliminate all for-profit businesses. I don't. Nor have I said that even once.  But go off, king. 

Keep your for-profit bullshit out of education and stop running on platforms to run the government like a business.  For-profit education is terrible.  A great many people have been scammed by such endeavors. 

Universities should not exist to churn out corporate drones, but a well-rounded and educated population.  I know such things scare you because these people will then want to *gasp* advocate for themselves and their well-being instead of being paid slave wages and treated like shit. 

Stupid lib, everyone knows that the University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University provide the best educations in the country.

[bolverk 29813]

Doesn't the OP claim to live in Norway?

[52-80 19277]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Universities should not exist to churn out corporate drones, but a well-rounded and educated population.  I know such things scare you because these people will then want to *gasp* advocate for themselves and their well-being instead of being paid slave wages and treated like shit. 

Are these 'corporate drones' the people begging for student loan forgiveness because they're paid slave wages?

I like they're such a perpetual villain in your personal movie.

[Pancho 45430]

14 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Financial accountability should be the focus. Educational accountability should be another subject.   Do you mean financial accountability from "governing bodies" like our government or sycophant boards of trustees with friends needing a tax break? And "not for profit" is utter bullshit. Sure, capitalist, amoral greed has ruined modern business but "for profits" are made to run efficiently or the suffer a monetary accountability.  Unless our amoralistic government responds to favors and lobby money and bails them out. 

Modern universities are a racket filled with students who got swindled into thinking 6 figures was a good investment for their teaching, philosophy or modern western art degrees.  Add the incredible cost and bloat in the administrative part of these universities, then you see why higher education is in serious need of a major correction. Maybe we can lump in the unsustainable US healthcare system as well. 

 

There are a lot of assumptions here with nothing to back it up with except for your weird hatred of certain things that you have no idea if they are happening or not. 

You’re just making shit up based on what? 

[elfenix 34385]

For someone who really hates discussing politics online, OP sure does love posting threads that will inevitably skew to politics, and fully participating in the skew

Edited February 7 by elfenix

[52-80 19277]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

For someone who really hates discussing politics online, OP sure does love posting threads that will inevitably skew to politics, and fully participating in the skew

I steer clear of topics about politicians, elections, legislation, (until it crosses over into topics of business).

Have you considered not skewing my threads?

[Dahobbs 17807]

27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Q: Why must everything function like a business (not be a business... but function like one)

A: Because business as we all know* it is the most ubiquitous and best example of a system with the shortest feedback loop and most direct accountability.  Is it perfect? No.  (what's that Churchill saying about Democracy?)

And apparently we don't all know, because some people insist on acting like they're trying to impress girls at an emo show.

 

I partially agree; someone on this thread is acting like an emotional child. I'd posit it is the person insisting that everything can/should only be done one way. I speak from experience, as I currently have three emotional children who have trouble adapting to anything other than the one-way they want things.  

Edited February 7 by Dahobbs

[52-80 19277]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Maybe the corporations can just sponsor the schools so you obtain your Bachelor’s degree in Data Science form the Amazon School of Business and then become beholden to them

What a fucking trainwreck it would be if Amazon were to sponsor Cockrell for its Science hub.  Not to mention what would happen at MIT, UCLA, USC, Columbia, John Hopkins.  Could you imagine?

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Very little on the second page has to do with academic fraud which is the original thread emphasis. An examination of how public universities are funded, administrated, legislated, and held accountable by various entities would belong in the Cloak Room due to various reasons. Similarly to the way on page 1 @Armybrat brought up the government (federal level) in K-12 education, one cannot escape the ties, incentives, and restrictions placed on institutions by local, state, and federal governments. The mission of student development first and foremost would be ideal but the CR would be the best place for that discussion because the "mission" has been political for over 60 years. Higher ed is similar but with research and other parameters added.

 

[52-80 19277]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I speak from experience, as I currently have three emotional children who have trouble adapting to anything other than the one-way they want things.  

I wonder where they get it from.

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

What a fucking trainwreck it would be if Amazon were to sponsor Cockrell for its Science hub.  Not to mention what would happen at MIT, UCLA, USC, Columbia, John Hopkins.  Could you imagine?

 

You don't really think that is the same thing as getting a degree from Amazon University, do you? 

Just now, 52-80 said:

I wonder where they get it from.

Being young and having underdeveloped brains. Where do you? 

[Samson's Wig 3195]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Yes let’s turn universities into profit-driven businesses managed by shareholders. So that the focus is no longer on research or a well rounded education. We can just push our corporate drones and deliver them directly to the corporations. Maybe the corporations can just sponsor the schools so you obtain your Bachelor’s degree in Data Science form the Amazon School of Business and then become beholden to them

Things like history, social sciences, philosophy, art history, AA or any cultural studies would be cut day 1 

This is already happening through corporate sponsorship and direct involvement with university departments.  The saddest part is how many folks think it's a good thing (I suspect mostly folks without a well-rounded education).  

[52-80 19277]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

You don't really think that is the same thing as getting a degree from Amazon University, do you? 

Do you think this phrase "Maybe the corporations can just sponsor the schools" I quoted actually means something else?

[Dahobbs 17807]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Do you think this phrase "Maybe the corporations can just sponsor the schools" I quoted actually means something else?

I do. The hub isn't a degree granting institution, which is what the post you quoted from @Js1 seemed to be suggesting. That said, I generally don't have an issue with private/public partnerships so long as the public entity remains independent. Others, like @Js1, may feel differently. 

[Beau Vine 54840]

9 hours ago, slorch said:

Hard to believe that ever happened with the lack of cash flow in the academic world.

Hard to believe that I didn't do it first.  GODDAMMOTHERFUCKERSONOFABITCHSHITFUCK.

[Beau Vine 54840]

20 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

This is already happening through corporate sponsorship and direct involvement with university departments.  The saddest part is how many folks think it's a good thing (I suspect mostly folks without a well-rounded education).  

I can happily report that my department is completely free of corporate influence!  We value academic freedom far too much to sell it out for the corporate dollar.  Also, no one has ever asked us.

[Incredulity 11686]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Samson's Wig 3195]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I can happily report that my department is completely free of corporate influence!  We value academic freedom far too much to sell it out for the corporate dollar.  Also, no one has ever asked us.

So you're saying you're in the English department?  Or is it philosophy?

Edited February 7 by Samson's Wig

[52-80 19277]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Stupid lib, everyone knows that the University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University provide the best educations in the country.

University of Phoenix was kept afloat by govt $.  It was consistently the largest recipient of Pell Grants and GI Bill in the country.  (The nearest ones were also for profit -- Kaplan, Everest, Ashford, etc).

It also suffered reputational loss and declining enrollment, leading to its recent sale.

It was sold to a non-profit.  Bets are open as to whether that makes it a better institution.

[52-80 19277]

39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I do. The hub isn't a degree granting institution, which is what the post you quoted from @Js1 seemed to be suggesting.

"When the guy said corporate sponsorships are bad, he seemed to suggest something else".  One marvels at your well-rounded education.

[Dahobbs 17807]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

University of Phoenix was kept afloat by govt $.  It was consistently the largest recipient of Pell Grants and GI Bill in the country.  (The nearest ones were also for profit -- Kaplan, Everest, Ashford, etc).

It also suffered reputational loss and declining enrollment, leading to its recent sale.

It was sold to a non-profit.  Bets are open as to whether that makes it a better institution.

I think you're confused. The students received the grants/GI benefits. The for-profit institution targeted those students. I guess we could take bets as to why it did so or how exactly this is helpful to make your case that running an entity as a for-profit business is the best way to introduce accountability. 

[Dahobbs 17807]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

"When the guy said corporate sponsorships are bad, he seemed to suggest something else".  One marvels at your well-rounded education.

He said sponsorship where you'd get your degree from the Amazon Business school was bad. That suggests a much closer relationship than what is essentially an entity that grants/assists students in gaining research funding. I see an important distinction there. Maybe @Js1 feels any sort of sponsorship/collaboration is bad. I don't really know. I'm telling you that I do not. 

[52-80 19277]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I think you're confused. The students received the grants/GI benefits. The for-profit institution targeted those students. I guess we could take bets as to why it did so or how exactly this is helpful to make your case that running an entity as a for-profit business is the best way to introduce accountability. 

The schools inherent shittiness and uncompetitiveness led to its decline, which is a feature of the system. It was sold due because of unprofitability.

The school was kept alive longer than it deserved due to easy money -- grants from the government -- with no barrier to enrollment.

But yeah, the name of the student on the check matters?  Thanks for clarifying how that works.  Must've been an enlightening discovery.

[Beau Vine 54840]

27 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

So you're saying you're in the English department?  Or is it philosophy?

I would think that you could look at any of my nearly 30K posts in thishere chatroom and quickly deduce that I'm not an expert in the English language.

[Dahobbs 17807]

11 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The schools inherent shittiness and uncompetitiveness led to its decline, which is a feature of the system. It was sold due because of unprofitability.

The school was kept alive longer than it deserved due to easy money -- grants from the government -- with no barrier to enrollment.

But yeah, the name of the student on the check matters?  Thanks for clarifying how that works.  Must've been an enlightening discovery.

1) Are you under the impression that neither Pell Grants nor GI Benefits have barriers to enrollment? That's a very interesting perspective on military service.

2) Why does how the student paid for tuition matter to you? If the school had primarily been fleecing rich students that could afford to pay for tuition directly, how does that change anything?

3) I find more than questionable the argument that a for-profit entity failing and having to be taken over by a non-profit is an example of the benefits of for-profit accountability and "a feature of the system." I mean, I agree it is a feature of an entirely profit driven system. I just don't find it compelling evidence of for-profit accountability as the sole/best means to introduce accountability.  

Edited February 7 by Dahobbs

[Samson's Wig 3195]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

I would think that you could look at any of my nearly 30K posts in thishere chatroom and quickly deduce that I'm not an expert in the English language.

I made my post with nothing but love, as someone with a couple of those completely worthless bleeding heart liberal arts degrees that some posters seem to despise so much.   

[52-80 19277]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) Are you under the impression that neither Pell Grants nor GI Benefits have barriers to enrollment? That's a very interesting perspective on military service.

2) Why does how the student paid for tuition matter to you? If the school had primarily been fleecing rich students that could afford to pay for tuition directly, how does that change anything?

3) I find more than questionable the argument that a for-profit entity failing and having to be taken over by a non-profit is an example of the benefits of for-profit accountability and "a feature of the system." I mean, I agree it is a feature of an entirely profit driven system. I just don't find it compelling evidence of for-profit accountability as the sole/best means to introduce accountability.  

1. The govt grants flows more easily into UoP, because it has no admissions standards.  You know this - because you literally said they targeted those students.  Interesting how you pivoted from being generous with literal interpretations to basically arguing on semantics.

2. It doesnt matter for the terminal outcome: school would eventually fail, on its merit.  It matters for the path: it would have failed much sooner, had the spout been drier.  Do you want to argue against the distorted effects of 'free' money?

3. I didn't suggest for-profit is how universities should be run.  I saw the hackneyed 'durrr business bad' softball lofted up and I'll swing at it everytime.  (Even you wouldn't deny the bloat in the academic ecosystem and that elements of business' "ruthlessness" would actually be positive).  I'm unabashedly pro-capitalism because I've lived outside that system and seen how well capitalism works for me. (sucks if it dont for anybody else).

Really, the existence of UoP neither proves 1 thing or another.  With or without it, schools like Our Lady of the Lake or Concordia wouldn't suck any less.  Atleast Phoenix gave everyone a athletic stadium for a few years....

[956 Worldwide 34912]

Accountability is the reason public institutions can’t be treated like businesses. Businesses have accountability to one stakeholder— owners or shareholders. Narrowly defined, it is relatively simple to make accountability focused decisions, but you strip away broader accountability in that process of simplifying.  Take a look at the Boeing thread to see where that goes at the extreme.

 Universities and all other public institutions have multiple overlapping stakeholders built into the cake and must balance accountability among all of them. They must be accountable to students, legislators, the executive, tax-payers, donors, oversight bodies, and the list goes on. This is a feature and not a bug of democratic governance. 
 

Separation of powers means this will always, always be the case— (not just for universities).  When you have executive agencies dependent on the legislative for funding and the judiciary gets a veto over both, “running government like a business” just smacks right up against the reality of how government works. We designed it that way.