Comment by bpt3
14 hours ago
Why would they not accept money to do something they are interested in doing?
What is the downside to the school of a nicer student union or a public policy/international relations campus in the nation's capital?
14 hours ago
Why would they not accept money to do something they are interested in doing?
What is the downside to the school of a nicer student union or a public policy/international relations campus in the nation's capital?
Because that's not what the GP was talking about. For example, say there is some controversial economic policy passed by one of the parties. Then a researcher goes out to research if the policy is working or not. But when they do the research, they find out that the policy doesn't work and has bad side effects too. However, the majority of the university votes and supports the party that passed the policy.
So the researcher intentionally changes some of the ways the data is collected and poof, it looks like the policy works. Extra funding comes your way but now you have committed academic fraud. Not that anything will happen to you for this, but still, you know you did it. That's what the GP is talking about and it happens quite a bit in the humanities and economics. Its why private economists and public economists almost seem like different species.
The GP invented some sort of conspiracy theory that doesn't really seem like it's worth discussing, whether it happens a lot or not in reality.
Whether you believe what he said or not, my questions remain.
They are interested in doing some of these things precisely because they are being paid to.
They're interested in a new student union because they're being paid to? What does that mean?
They get the money for facilities etc off someone, and then do their bidding.