|
|
|
|
|
|
by wbraun
1222 days ago
|
|
|
As a STEM PhD student I felt a bit jealous reading this. Then I remembered that law students pay tuition while many PhD projects are funded by companies in industry, often at a somewhat dubious value proposition. There is at least a mild expectation you would consider working for the project sponsor after graduation. There is a lot of money being thrown around towards recruitment in many fields. Tuition is worth a whole lot of free food and branded swag. |
|
|
In any other job, on-the-job-training is compensated as work, even if it takes a while to complete, even if the employer provides training or seminars to clients as part of its business. (Yes, a school is a business. If one wants to say that it isn’t, it should stop charging money for its services first.)
Job applicants in other sectors are warned that it’s the red flag of a scam to pay an employer for a chance at an offer or promotion. By normal standards, an employee paying their employer is bonkers.
Your scenario is enlightening. If paying a student’s tuition benefits the university and the student’s manager more than the student, what access or benefit might the corporate sponsor be able to derive from inducing a favorable bias in the teacher or school? Could we end up with a situation where Java, of all things, is taught to impressionable undergraduate students across the country? An obvious answer would be to secure a recruiting channel. The things researchers write can also be important to industry sponsors, and the opportunity to bias those exists as well.