3 ms·

Do you work in higher ed? It’s ok to admit that you weighed in on a topic you don’t understand, then bow out gracefully, since you’ve repeatedly been given accu

by lc9er 2y ago

Do you work in higher ed? It’s ok to admit that you weighed in on a topic you don’t understand, then bow out gracefully, since you’ve repeatedly been given accurate responses to your assertions.

like_any_other 2y ago
More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legislation_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_the_IRB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legisla... The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Like blaming being three hours late on a single red light.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Please stop.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Such assertions are a lot more persuasive if you can point to significant errors the poster has made.
    - exe34 2y ago
      > The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Could you give some hints as to what would constitute sufficient evidence to convince you?
      - achierius 2y ago
        Just looking in from the outside of this conversation, > More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: ... Is it that those were just bad examples and the actual bulk of the work is coming in from elsewhere? Or is it the case that these areas were already in place, but have since come to demand additional work that they didn't before (for what reason?)? &c
        exe34 2y ago
        Have you considered the other "half"? (note, the claim of "half" was from the person dismissing all the arguments).
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- kzs0 2y ago
  His/her first statement was directly answered in the original comment. When that was noted, they swapped to undermining the basis for the comment. It’s pretty typical for techies to provide an opinion without basis and desire for it to be treated on the same level as those “in the know” So everyone should always be included in conversations if desired, but coming in with an uninformed opinion spoken loudly, desiring more to be “right” than to come to an understanding, won’t typically be appreciated.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  Please have an informed opinion. Mouthing off about things you don’t understand based on distorted statistics with political bias that you also don’t understand is not the same thing as having an informed opinion. Believe me, plenty of folks who work “in the industry” of higher ed have ill-informed opinions on this subject as well, but the folks throwing rocks without even trying to understand what’s really going on are just trolls.

by lc9er 2y ago

like_any_other 2y ago

More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legislation_in_the_United_States#Rise_of_the_IRB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research_legisla... The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Like blaming being three hours late on a single red light.

skywhopper 2y ago
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Please stop.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  Such assertions are a lot more persuasive if you can point to significant errors the poster has made.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > The "accurate responses" were non-explanations. Could you give some hints as to what would constitute sufficient evidence to convince you?
    - achierius 2y ago
      Just looking in from the outside of this conversation, > More than half of the explanation for the administrative bloat since 1976 was blamed on factors that did not change much since the 1960s - with the notable exception of foreign sanctions, which were much worse due to the cold war. Also blamed were IRBs, which have been a requirement since 1974: ... Is it that those were just bad examples and the actual bulk of the work is coming in from elsewhere? Or is it the case that these areas were already in place, but have since come to demand additional work that they didn't before (for what reason?)? &c
      - exe34 2y ago
        Have you considered the other "half"? (note, the claim of "half" was from the person dismissing all the arguments).

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

kzs0 2y ago
His/her first statement was directly answered in the original comment. When that was noted, they swapped to undermining the basis for the comment. It’s pretty typical for techies to provide an opinion without basis and desire for it to be treated on the same level as those “in the know” So everyone should always be included in conversations if desired, but coming in with an uninformed opinion spoken loudly, desiring more to be “right” than to come to an understanding, won’t typically be appreciated.
skywhopper 2y ago
Please have an informed opinion. Mouthing off about things you don’t understand based on distorted statistics with political bias that you also don’t understand is not the same thing as having an informed opinion. Believe me, plenty of folks who work “in the industry” of higher ed have ill-informed opinions on this subject as well, but the folks throwing rocks without even trying to understand what’s really going on are just trolls.