NU grad here. I consider it a high likelihood that the people that made this decision didn't realize that group resides in this building. Consider this a university administrated by the tour office.
The researchers may as well be chuck-e-cheese automatons to the administrators, just marketing materials housed in a fancy glass box to show off to visiting delegations of money-havers, to convince them to become money-givers.
As long as glossy appearances are kept, what the researchers actually do is of little to no consequence to the folks operating the money and influence infrastructure.
Don't worry. Their phds in educational leadership are still considered more valuable than those in actual topics on account of the number of permanent, high salaried jobs available to them at the University compared to scientists, engineers, etc.
To make claims that the communications were encrypted when the survieled in question were a room full of researchers capable of dumping and reversing the firmware is beyond stupid.
The administration should be held to account simply for that lie alone.
"we submitted for approval" - "we didnt submit for approval" - "we dont need approval"
That is a more egregious lie - I congratulate whoever pitched the "human resarch subject" argument and managed to walk the administration into a poorly thought out sequence of lies.
> Luzzi says that they submitted a proposal to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)—which ensures that human research subject's rights and welfare are protected—only to admit that this never happened when a faculty member reveals the IRB never received any submission.
Every time I read about a university eliminating a program or restructuring how funds/space are allocated, the cynic in me immediately thinks “they’re going to use those resources to expand the athletics/sports team”.
I think this is probably because I feel like the leadership and administration at most universities only seek to productize their students. It seems like most efforts these days aren’t even geared towards squeezing more money out of the student, but trying to figure out how they can turn the students into a form of uncompensated production. Whether it be benefiting off student research with patents, or their bodies through sports.
Does anyone immediately jump to similar conclusions when they see an article like this?
Nowadays "the cynic in me immediately thinks" the funds are going to be allocated to hire more administrators.
They've generally taken over running universities from the faculty, and as I recall they're where the vast bulk of increased expenditures have gone, not counting buildings which are often built with earmarked funds since alumni have steadily fewer reasons to trust these administrators.
12 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 46.1 ms ] threadThe researchers may as well be chuck-e-cheese automatons to the administrators, just marketing materials housed in a fancy glass box to show off to visiting delegations of money-havers, to convince them to become money-givers.
As long as glossy appearances are kept, what the researchers actually do is of little to no consequence to the folks operating the money and influence infrastructure.
The administration should be held to account simply for that lie alone.
That is a more egregious lie - I congratulate whoever pitched the "human resarch subject" argument and managed to walk the administration into a poorly thought out sequence of lies.
> Luzzi says that they submitted a proposal to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)—which ensures that human research subject's rights and welfare are protected—only to admit that this never happened when a faculty member reveals the IRB never received any submission.
I think this is probably because I feel like the leadership and administration at most universities only seek to productize their students. It seems like most efforts these days aren’t even geared towards squeezing more money out of the student, but trying to figure out how they can turn the students into a form of uncompensated production. Whether it be benefiting off student research with patents, or their bodies through sports.
Does anyone immediately jump to similar conclusions when they see an article like this?
They've generally taken over running universities from the faculty, and as I recall they're where the vast bulk of increased expenditures have gone, not counting buildings which are often built with earmarked funds since alumni have steadily fewer reasons to trust these administrators.