The University of Michigan spends over $10 million a year on the salaries of 82 people whose job is to enforce diversity policies. The $10 million could pay the full tuition for 708 students.
I hate being in opposition of this view, because I'm opposed to the trend we're seeing in academia. The bogus papers that passed peer-review are great vehicles for exposing the dogma that has infiltrated higher education's humanities programs, but using fraudulent data collection to build a case is problematic.
I know it seems pretty, because the numbers are somewhat ludicrous, but if we are to maintain the integrity aligned w conducting scholarly research, we have to concider the potential harm that can be caused by this blatant disregard of academic honesty. We swear to an oath that the data we collect will be done so in a truthful manner, accurate to the description in our work. Where is the line in the sand, if outright lying becomes acceptable, based on the researchers purpose (i.e., how will ever be able to rely on the data, if we have no way of deciphering its validity)?
Even before the study is launched the initially paperwork that is submitted to the school's board of review committee (BRC) is supposed to contain reliable information regarding the following: the study's purpose (lit review), methodological approaches, data collection, analysis, and the discussion/conversation section. Granted, our interpretations may contain inaccuracies, but using false data is unacceptable. The reason we provide accurate info is so other researchers can duplicate the study and observe the cause and correlation to find inaccuracies and discrepancies. If there is no ethical foundation of truth to measure the work then we set the tone for a dangerous future (e.g., peer-reviewed research is used by Congress to pass legislation; it aids in shaping a portion of the zeitgeist; changes the trajectory of "bad thinking," etc.).
This is dangerous territory. We are already in times where the truth is being questioned at every turn — and rightfully so — but where is the utility in accepting lies in a place where truth is the required inhabitant? Our world doesn't need this — there's other ways.
I’m so glad I went to a jr. college and got an associates in 3D design. I make great money and did not have to suffer through the university political indoctrination.
The University of Michigan spends over $10 million a year on the salaries of 82 people whose job is to enforce diversity policies. The $10 million could pay the full tuition for 708 students.
My sociology teacher should watch this also arts and culture one🔫
I hate being in opposition of this view, because I'm opposed to the trend we're seeing in academia. The bogus papers that passed peer-review are great vehicles for exposing the dogma that has infiltrated higher education's humanities programs, but using fraudulent data collection to build a case is problematic.
I know it seems pretty, because the numbers are somewhat ludicrous, but if we are to maintain the integrity aligned w conducting scholarly research, we have to concider the potential harm that can be caused by this blatant disregard of academic honesty. We swear to an oath that the data we collect will be done so in a truthful manner, accurate to the description in our work. Where is the line in the sand, if outright lying becomes acceptable, based on the researchers purpose (i.e., how will ever be able to rely on the data, if we have no way of deciphering its validity)?
Even before the study is launched the initially paperwork that is submitted to the school's board of review committee (BRC) is supposed to contain reliable information regarding the following: the study's purpose (lit review), methodological approaches, data collection, analysis, and the discussion/conversation section. Granted, our interpretations may contain inaccuracies, but using false data is unacceptable. The reason we provide accurate info is so other researchers can duplicate the study and observe the cause and correlation to find inaccuracies and discrepancies. If there is no ethical foundation of truth to measure the work then we set the tone for a dangerous future (e.g., peer-reviewed research is used by Congress to pass legislation; it aids in shaping a portion of the zeitgeist; changes the trajectory of "bad thinking," etc.).
This is dangerous territory. We are already in times where the truth is being questioned at every turn — and rightfully so — but where is the utility in accepting lies in a place where truth is the required inhabitant? Our world doesn't need this — there's other ways.
https://youtu.be/IDnt_SEFR_s here is my brother tell me what you think he’s in Japan good guy!
I’m so glad I went to a jr. college and got an associates in 3D design. I make great money and did not have to suffer through the university political indoctrination.