> You seem to assume that cutting funding by 20% will cut exactly the fraudulent parts.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that, based on (a) the astronomical amounts involved, (b) the absence of previous audits on the spending of said amounts, and (c) the fact that the institution is immediately agreeing to a settlement:
(1) it seems pretty improbable that there's not some sort of misuse of funds
(2) it seems pretty improbable for a cut this size not to touch at least some of the fraudulent parts along the way.
I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Is it that you somehow believe in Hardvard's perfect integrity, or in the administration's exclusive targeting of legit programs?
> I'm likely just as stupid as my friends.
That's probably it, but it's not uncommon at all. When choosing their friends, most people optimize for similarity rather than difference. You could also think of it as being likely as intelligent as your friends!
Not at all. What I'm saying is that, based on (a) the astronomical amounts involved, (b) the absence of previous audits on the spending of said amounts, and (c) the fact that the institution is immediately agreeing to a settlement:
(1) it seems pretty improbable that there's not some sort of misuse of funds
(2) it seems pretty improbable for a cut this size not to touch at least some of the fraudulent parts along the way.
I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Is it that you somehow believe in Hardvard's perfect integrity, or in the administration's exclusive targeting of legit programs?
> I'm likely just as stupid as my friends.
That's probably it, but it's not uncommon at all. When choosing their friends, most people optimize for similarity rather than difference. You could also think of it as being likely as intelligent as your friends!