BlogU

  • Third World Corruption as a Behavioral Science, Part 2

    By UD October 9, 2008 1:32 pm

    Start here: The more highly corporatized the university, the more corporate in their attitudes the faculty. Especially faculty imports from the corporate world -- people who aren't really professors, but who, usually for reasons of vanity, play them on campus.

    I mean, if you want to understand the origin of catastrophes like Emory University's Charles Nemeroff, you need to understand his mental world.

    So start here: Start with a recent news story about the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

    The man who presided over the collapse got five hundred million dollars in compensation while doing so. To be sure, he and his family have suffered like everyone else because of the economic crisis:

    'Mr. Fuld was once worth close to $1 billion and now has a net worth estimated at about $100 million. He and his wife have been forced to sell some of their renowned art collection.'

    Start there. Start with the understanding that Charles Nemeroff's understanding of his personal value, his social status, comes from Fuld's world. He's not about ... whatever professors are about ... intellectual discovery, pedagogy, communities of scholars...

    He's not comparing himself to Freud. He's comparing himself to Fuld.

    If one hundred million dollars a year represents your sense of what your compensation should be, and if you find yourself in a university, you're up shit's creek. There's no way, even with a medical professor's salary, you're going to get there.

    But you can make a respectable, extra-university ton of money by selling your reputation to drug companies.

    Keep front and center the fact that in this sense the university is immensely valuable, even to people like Nemeroff, for whom the shabby, earnest ethos of the institution is a joke and a personal insult. To play the professor is to play the man with integrity, the man who has eschewed the corporate world because he's above single-minded profit-taking. He's motivated by science and altruism.

    And it is precisely everyone's appraisal of the university professor as a serious person, motivated more by ideas than money, that Nemeroff and his corporate clients exploit. Professor Nemeroff shares with you his admiration for our new drug! This admiration emerges solely out of his intellectual scrutiny of its properties. You can trust his sober, disinterested point of view because... he's a professor...

    The character emerging from what UD's been describing comes out of a nineteenth century novel. The fraud, the poseur, the hypocrite, the confidence man who breaks the rules more and more flagrantly because he's sure he can get away with it. The world, after all, is a cynical place. He knows how to play it.

    This is a comic character, full of high sentence and secret hoardings. The only writer today who can do him justice is Tom Wolfe.

    Charles Nemeroffs are amusing in novels. Their reality is sad, sad, sad. If you care about the American university.

Advertisement

Comments on Third World Corruption as a Behavioral Science, Part 2

  • Third World Corruption?
  • Posted by Vukoni on October 21, 2008 at 12:40pm EDT
  • I was expecting to come away from reading this entry greatly enlightened about the beast called Third World corruption. But all I got was a Maureen Dowd-esque fizzle of a suggestive phrase, which transferred the meaning of American greed to kleptocrats in a part of the world that has been thoroughly corrupted and subverted by the West's disastrous insistence that we can civilize them.

  • Professors
  • Posted by G on October 25, 2008 at 4:50pm EDT
  • Arguing that university professors are above corruption and greed because they've dedicated themselves to a certain set of ideals seems laughable to me.

    Consider in the science departments of the university, professors clamor for grants to fund their research. Their very well being and the continuation of their research is not dictated by what is right, but what can get funding.

    Or consider the humanities. What sets the names in the humanities departments of the university apart is how much they publish. No publishing, diminished university support and eventually no tenure. In the humanities field, I hear of influence for study of the "correct" ideas. If one is so dedicated to their ideals they don't relent to the common wisdom, eventually they pay the price with their job. In a system set up where new recruits have to obtain approval from their superiors simply to succeed, why is it unreasonable to believe that students would adjust their thinking and tailor their papers to gain acceptance?

    To imply that corporate interests are secondary to the university in terms of the sciences is incorrect, because they're inextricably linked. In the case of the humanities, there may be no corporate involvement, but its not a convincing argument to say that "real" professors haven't compromised their ideals to "game the system."

  • Corruption in higher ed
  • Posted by sk on November 6, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • Try instead: “The Cost of Corruption in Higher Education,” Comparative Education Review, Feb 2008 52/1, 1-25.
    Corruption is Bologna’s Achilles heel
    According to a recent study of corruption in the European Union, “Universities or university systems with reputations for corruption, whether experienced or perceived, will likely end the Bologna Process.”

    Corruption is the illegal changing of student grades and exam scores, hiring unqualified faculty, and even corrupt ministry officials selling “accreditation” certifications for institutions!
    “Were [the Bologna] process to actually take effect, it would constitute the educational equivalent in the European Union of unilateral disarmament,” writes Stephen Heyneman in the Feb 2008 issue of Comparative Education Review. “It is difficult to imagine why a country or a university with a high reputation would allow its degrees to be made equivalent to those of a university or a university system with a reputation for corruption.”
    If what Heyneman says is true - and the July 5th 2008 issue of The Economist use of the same www.transparency.org database on pages 63-64 lends credibility to Heyneman.

    The study does not limit corruption to only monetary bribes, or the changing of grades, but includes the giving of favors “in support of family, friends, or important personalities” - something even the US could implement some safeguards against.