🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:40:36 UTC No. 16583821
is the climatic fad finally over?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:51:09 UTC No. 16583827
>is the ******** fad nearly over
Beats me. Apparently we can't even ask that now.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:54:40 UTC No. 16583831
>>16583827
>>16583826
there should be somebody here in the climatic sciences that can confirm or deny the grant situation
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:58:03 UTC No. 16583874
>>16583831
It will happen. It is just a question of hours before DOGE descends on academic fraud and grants, and from then it is a matter of minutes before the axe comes down, hard.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:11:56 UTC No. 16583889
I look forward to papers on climatε instead.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:16:36 UTC No. 16583936
>>16583874
Trump is going to eviscerate modern Academia, and if you think it doesn't NEED it, then you are a brainlet.
Modern academia is bastardized money farms.
>Yeah let's just shit 40,000 students/year through our degree programs, and yeah these people will totally learn everything they need to actually be productive in these degree fields in courses that are 300 students to 1 professor.
Modern academia is such a monetary driven price of shit, that it would probably improve if Trump banned the concept of schools altogether for a year or two, then we re-establish them from scratch.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:22:02 UTC No. 16583948
>>16583936
Lol 300 is rookie numbers
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:28:17 UTC No. 16583955
>>16583936
>and if you think it doesn't NEED it, then you are a brainlet
I was a postdoc and left academia and went to industry. I still follow the continuing horror show known as Retraction Watch, and there can be no doubt that academia has to face Musk and Trump at their most brutal. Nearly 20 years of Alzheimer fraud translates to serial mass murder, and the crooks got fame and fortune instead. The honest guys finished last.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:29:20 UTC No. 16583957
>>16583936
It's easy to break things, it's not easy to build things that work better. Modern academia is sick in many ways, but right now it serves two real purposes: 1) giving credentials to filter people in the labor market, and 2) scientific research. It doesn't make sense to entirely destroy it without some viable replacement for these functions.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:32:35 UTC No. 16583962
>>16583955
Alzheimer studies are medical research. Most of the retracted papers are in medical research. Do you really think research by the pharmaceutical industry is a better alternative and more trustworthy?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:39:57 UTC No. 16583973
>>16583962
>Most of the retracted papers are in medical research.
That is where they focus their attention. Also solid state has had a few high profile cases and I attended a conference where one guy was unmasked as a fraud. I think the rot has permeated the entire academia.
Sadly, I don't think the pharmaceutical industry is much better either. We will probably get the details when this administration starts looking into the COVIS-19 vaccines. We are used to FDA taking years and years to approve new drugs but there entirely new classes of vaccines just flew through and anyone asking questions were immediately branded a conspiracy theorist.
The rot goes to the core and the corruption reaches the top. Few people have any odea how dire things really are.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:51:26 UTC No. 16583979
>>16583973
>We will probably get the details when this administration starts looking into the COVIS-19 vaccines
Well, that was actually started under the first Trump administration so I doubt there will be any consequences.
The more practical the research is, the more likely there is to be incentive for fraud. I don't think this problem is solved by moving support for research from academia to industry. All that does is leave pure research (in math, theoretical physics, etc) out in the cold, which are fields that I don't believe have a fraud problem precisely because they aren't practical.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:02:55 UTC No. 16584090
>>16583957
>Credentials to filter people
No.
That's horse shit, and you know it.
There are complete utter retards that have gotten 4 year degrees in STEM fields from accredited institutions. There are midwit achievers getting degrees from MIT because muh race.
You know this to be true if you attended any University in the last 15-20 years. You KNOW those people l. I know those people.
The percentage is there. It's really not a good enough filter.
Plenty of people that are more capable than those rimjobs don't get a degree for plenty of reasons.
If you think HR should filter by that stuff, you're an idiot and should be working at a mid-tier OEM like HP or something. (They believe that horse shit.)
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 06:11:58 UTC No. 16584367
>>16583957
>>16584090
would be cheaper and more reliable just to allow IQ tests for hiring
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 06:15:46 UTC No. 16584370
>>16583821
Good.
It's about time.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:11:07 UTC No. 16584406
>>16583821
>bsky.social
I'm still reveling in the amount of impotent rage from pozzhole academics like this faggot >>16583936 who somehow think that universities won't have instructors because of the slightest amount of scrutiny being applied to federal funding.
Universities charge tens of thousands of dollars of tuition per year per student. If we assume $10k/year and an average student takes 10 classes per year, that's $1,000 for each class per student. A class of 30 yields $30k, put 1/3 of that into overhead and you get $20k per course to allocate to instructors from students alone. An instructor can teach 2 courses per semester, which gets them $80k/year without any supplementing from grants. Take-home might be closer to $50-60k due to additional taxes. Most places have higher tuition now, and most places cram more than 30 students in a classroom. Standard degree programs are already self-funding, and are comfortably so if you include supplementary funding received by the state and federal government independent of research grants. Not to mention endowments, sportsball, intellectual property rights, and other supplementary sources of revenue that have made universities immensely profitable and ought to be used to offset overhead so that more money can be given to instructors.
I'm anticipating further increases in the amount of Dunning-Kreuger academics flooding into the public space (bsky mostly, because actual public forums are too scary) thinking that they can sell any bullshit they please to the general public if they put their mind to it. And yes, we know that research is a non-linear ROI, and we know that getting sufficient funding is already difficult for a lot of people who do impactful and promising work. However, take that gripe out with the institutions that already saddle their faculty with obscene overheads and then delude you guys into thinking that it's necessary.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:19:36 UTC No. 16584409
>>16583957
Degrees are so reputable that employers don't even put you through 3 rounds of interviews just to make sure you aren't a retard... oh wait. Research will continue, and the correct keywords to use in impact statements have always changed with the tides. Do you actually think this is a new thing?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 07:36:49 UTC No. 16584417
>>16583821
>YOU IDIOTS STOP USING THE TERM "CLIMATE CHANGE" NO ONE BELIEVES IT ANYMORE, CALL IT "WEATHER SHIFTING" OR SOMETHING
Global warming is a hoax.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:28:50 UTC No. 16584536
>>16583979
>The more practical the research is, the more likely there is to be incentive for fraud.
Perhaps, but fraud is also in the less applied fields. Academia is a dog eat dog world that incentivizes people without a moral compass. From my own time I know better qualified people who lost out in the question of tenure.
>I don't think this problem is solved by moving support for research from academia to industry.
Probably true. what would help, is to come down hard on those who commit fraud, instead of promoting them. I know cases where fraudsters were protected by their academic institutions simply because their serial fraud helped improve the overall publication count for the institution. There is way too much moral hazard going on.
>All that does is leave pure research (in math, theoretical physics, etc) out in the cold, which are fields that I don't believe have a fraud problem precisely because they aren't practical.
There is less but there still is some, though mostly it is about prestige.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 17:59:02 UTC No. 16584930
>>16584367
>would be cheaper and more reliable just to allow IQ tests for hiring
This is a fair idea. But the actual classes one takes at a university do have some value, certainly in STEM fields at least.
Perhaps it would be best if the job market moves towards combining something equivalent to an IQ test (like an old-school SAT test) with some more flexible certification for basic competence in things like programming and undergraduate level mathematics and physics. Grades would be done away with. The tests for certification would be harsh, and it is either pass or fail. An employer would select which classes/certifications they are looking for. If training for classes has a more direct tie to the job market, perhaps the teachers of those classes (the equivalents of adjuncts in the current system) would have more economic value.
For people in people-centered jobs like management, perhaps employers would look for some basic certifications in mathematics and economics, or even management theory, but the main filter would be getting an internship at a company.
Universities could be kept around as scaled back research institutes that also train future researchers. Probably the humanities would suffer in this set up, but there is a lot of decay in those fields.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:31:55 UTC No. 16584951
>>16584090
>There are complete utter retards that have gotten 4 year degrees in STEM fields from accredited institutions.
Yes, and they are the floor. The people who cant even manage that are even more retarded and should be filtered.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:42:03 UTC No. 16587048
>>16583821
Do they still have to put DEI statements in grant proposals?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:45:14 UTC No. 16587054
>>16587048
No, but guys like him enjoyed putting them in because it required nothing of substance from him but still gave him a leg up.
>>16584417
They do have a new term: Climate Disruption.
They're also using "Bridge" to hide DEI/ESG and "SOGIE" to hide LGBTQ+2.