(04-18-2013 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: You are pathetic. Seriously. You have no idea how little respect I have for you. What type of asshat continues to prove they are clueless over and over again? Well, that type of person is you. EVEN BETTER, you know DAMN WELL that you have NO F* IDEA about this topic. NONE. I know that, because I know how stupid you sound. Yet, amazingly you can't let it go despite the fact you have to be aware, DAMN well aware, that you DO NOT KNOW the topic nor have any familiarity with it AT ALL.
"I'm not speaking from the authority of an idiot on a message board"...Man that is FAR TOO GENEROUS. IDIOT DOESN'T DO YOU JUSTICE. How is this for a shout: YOU ARE A F*CK* MORON. It is one thing to be ignorant, it is another to fein knowledge when all you have is ignorance, but continues to try to press the situation when called out and not even take the time to research the subject to learn more about it. That is my definition of a total ASSHAT FOOL.
And with that, I'm done. I can't suffer ABSOLUTE FOOLS like this any more.
And for anyone else, because this doofus is a lost cause, here is an example of Penn State in the CIC and what it has done since joining (and this is at least the second time this has been posted to bust the CIC urban myth).
People cite the increase in straight $ as how the CIC benefited PSU, but the actual truth is the federal government doubled its academic research budget in the 1990s so almost everyone's raw research $ went up. Penn State's % of total R&D expenditures and % of federal R&D expenditures actually fell during that time compared to its peers. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D expenditures among all US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally. It lost ground....and, gasp!, to schools that aren't in the CIC! Coincidentally, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has actually gotten worse by these measures. And to head off the inevitable poorly thought through comparisons sure to come in a few years that will undoubtedly make the suggestion that Rutgers will have received a positive impact from the CIC, they are in fact merging with UMDNJ this year and will see all of UMDNJ's research money combined with theirs, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the CIC. To suggest that CIC membership has some influence, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, over federal R&D allocations is a meaningless pile of BS those that haven't the foggiest clue what the hell they are talking about.
Let's be honest here. If you are an independent, unaffiliated person reading this thread, what would you think of this exchange? Who would you be more inclined to side with and believe?
Person A:
1. Spends most of his time in CAPS-LOCK, which gives the impression of LOUD and ANNOYING shouting and anger
2. Tries to attack their opponents credibility through continued ad hominen attacks
3. Backs up their evidence with unverifiable personal credentials and experiences, and few if any independent sources
Person B:
1. Tries to make reasonable arguments
2. Does not attack or vilify other poster
3. Shows clear evidence, charts/graphs, and sources
If you WANT people to agree with you, the way you have posted will not convince people. You sound angry, out of control, and unable to prove your points. It doesn't matter whether you think I am an idiot and completely wrong; the way I am arguing is simply much more informative and reasonable to an outside observer.
I'm NOT claiming these things because I "believe" in them or simply think the process works this way. I am claiming them because the statistics tell me that at some level CIC universities have an advantage. You have clearly shown that you don't believe there are is any way for that to be possible, but I'm not trying to show HOW it happens, just that it happens.
I'm NOT claiming that there is any direct benefit to the CIC. I AM claiming that there are indirect benefits, and that we observe the effect of those benefits. You may not believe me, but you don't have to believe me. I'm not asking you to believe in my personal credibility; I'm asking you to judge me based on the facts I present. For instance:
In a 1996 study, a university of Illinois professor found that as much as 40% of federal research dollars are allocated on the basis of congressional constituency bias, with appropriation committee membership having disproportionate effect:
Quote:In 1994 members of the Republican Party pledged to seek legislation to impose term limits on members of Congress. This pledge stemmed from the popular belief that senior members of Congress tend to promote personal interests or are more influenced by lobbying efforts that may not be representative of their constituents. Today, term limits continue to be discussed but have not been enacted; instead, many members have focused their energies toward minimizing the time spent on any particular committee of Congress, believing that tenure on a committee is a more serious concern than simple tenure in Congress. Implicit in these concerns is the issue whether as incumbent politicians plan to retire they will behave differently and, if so, whether tenure on a congressional committee exacerbates this behavior.
This article explores the role of membership on the appropriations committee on the distribution of federal research funding to universities. Specifically, it explores whether funding is diverted to these universities because politicians use their position on a committee to promote personal or constituent interests. Previous research on shirking compares the voting records of politicians on certain issues with demographic and economic characteristics of the politicians' constituents. This article explores the issue of shirking differently. I explore how membership on congressional appropriations committees affects the distribution of federal research funding to universities. I look at two types of relationships between the members and the universities. First, I consider the relationship between members and the universities that are located in the members' districts (states in the case of senators). Second, I examine the relationship between members and their undergraduate alma mater. I use district representation to proxy favoritism that reflects a politician's constituents. Given that in most instances an alma mater affiliation is not the same as district representation, I use alma mater affiliation to proxy favoritism that reflects the politician's personal interests.
That is an example of what I'm trying to argue. You can attack my personal credibility as much as you want, but I am not resting my argument on the basis of my familiarity with the system or my personal credentials. I'm arguing that personal and professional biases DO exist in the system, even if the bias is only existential (ie, bias that comes from being more likely to support the cause of a researcher or group that you know than one you do not). I'm not arguing which stage in the process introduces bias or who creates the bias, only that it exists and is documented.
Again, if you WANT people to follow you and believe you are correct (which you doubtlessly believe you are), then the best thing you can do is to put effort into debunking my sources and facts without using ad-hominen attacks or acting angry/SHOUTING. When you do so, you add credibility to my argument. If you calmly said "that isn't correct, I am a researcher with 15 years experience and the system does not allow that sort of thing for X, Y, and Z reasons," you would have ended the argument.