User talk:Jacquelin5624

To keep this version, following edits are needed, otherwise it has to be reverted back:

SAS has been described as an "academic sweatshop" and an "abusive institution" by a former faculty member who canvassed the opinions of her colleagues and students for an article in openDemocracy..[18] - This is fine.

This article has been widely discussed in academic circles within Russia and beyond. In these discussions SAS has been criticised for not being open about the fact that it is run by faculty from Skolkovo Management School in Moscow, according to principles derived from soviet-era management guru Georgi Shchedrovitsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not fine. Widely discussed in what way? Seems like it's been discussed by a very small group, who have a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It's been widely discussed in academic networks on social media, by prominent Russian and Russianist academics like Nikolai Sorin Chaikov, Kevin Platt, and numerous others. This may be a small group in relative terms but it's the group of people with a professional interest in SAS as an initiative. It's an accurate statement and it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If it has been discussed, then a reference is needed to these discussions. Wikipedia is not an opinion page, but should present facts. Please add a reference and this part can stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Skolkovo Management School is a private business school which is involved in training university and corporate management teams across Russia and uses, in its organization of teamwork, elements of Shchedrovitsky methodology.[19] It is said on the Carnegie Moscow Center website that "Shchedrovitsky essentially viewed human beings as machines that must be programed to perform certain functions—essentially, the theory of “social engineering.”[20] - Seems fine.

However, the director of SAS, whose SKOLKOVO affiliation has now been included on his SAS bio in response to criticism that he concealed it, claims he has never been an adept of this management theory, that it only has a limited following at SKOLKOVO and is not nearly as radical as Carnegie center suggests. Although he has never himself been a faculty member in a liberal arts college, he says his vision of education and research was formed as a graduate student at St. Petersburg State University (Russia), at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as during his postdoc years at Columbia University and the University of Sheffield. He has described it as an "anti-human" philosophy in conversation with faculty, and compares it to the methods used in World Series Baseball by the Brad Pitt character in Moneyball. It is a model based on high attrition rates among students and faculty in order to find people willing to suppress their individuality as researchers in conformity with a rigidly abstract formula. - This whole section is without references. How do you know this, except if you have a personal relationship with SAS? If so, there's a conflict of interest.

People who contributed to this article know it because they were involved in SAS and in the many social media conversations around it over the past five years. There's no citation, but this paragraph contains the views of different sides of the conversation, and is an accurate account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Same as above. Also, you have just said that contributors of this article have been involved in SAS. This is not compliant with rules of wikipedia. That is a conflict of interest. Please stop editing page if you have one. Only add information that is publicly available online, not based on hearsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

SAS faculty are generally very unhappy about their jobs, as evidenced by the fact that 75% of the founding cohort left, were fired, or failed to have their contracts renewed in the first three years. - References missing. How do you know this?

It's known to people who follow SAS matters. The people who were originally hired are known, and the fact that 3 out of 12 are left is a factual statement that isn't contained in any single document that can be cited but that can be discovered if anyone wants to investigate. You should show why you think it's wrong instead of trying to hush it up because it reflects badly on SAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Same as above. If it's known to people who follow SAS matters, that is simply an opinion or a discussion, not facts. If no document is available, it cannot be included on this page. Please see Wikipedia reference rules and what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

However, the dire nature of the academic job market means SAS has a growing body of international faculty (currently representing 12 countries). - Reference to the cause and consequence?

Is the fact that academic job market is depressed in dispute? Is the fact that SAS is in crisis? No and no. You can say it's a correlation without an established causality, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, wikipedia is not a forum to do research on academic job market or SAS. Only facts and neutral language should be included. Please neutralise this section if you wish to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A less critical analysis of SAS has recently been published by a team of Stanford graduate students who interviewed management-approved faculty and administrators under the title "Reimagining Russian Higher Education".[21] - "Less critical", according to whom? Please remove biased language.

This isn't biased language. It's an accurate statement of the fact that this article says more positive things about the school than the openDemocracy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So who gets to decide which version is biased; OpenDemocracy or Stanford article? The problem is, both are based on the accounts of people who were of are affiliated with SAS. The first one is from a person who left SAS, the latter is from those who are still there. Who are you to stay which of these is correct? That is why it is biased, and should not be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both versions are biased, obviously, but one is clearly less critical than the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Current SAS faculty are contractually prohibited from publicly criticising the school and most have chosen to stay silent about the controversy surrounding it. - Reference?

How do you reference an employment contract? This is factual information known to the community of people interested in this school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Same as above. "Known to people" does not qualify to get into Wikipedia. That is information for other forums, such as OpenDemocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Those who did speak out did not have their contracts renewed. SAS has internal machinery devoted to cleaning the internet of the kind of critical commentary that is rife on social media;[22][23] - "Rife", based on two social media stories?

Hard to cite social media stories that quickly get lost down the feed, but these two are representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a good indicator that they should not be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

posting counterfeit testimonials;[24]- counterfeit, how?

Counterfeit in that they're written by SAS staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * So, people are still there and represent a positive view on SAS? This refers to my earlier point. Who are you to say that the negative version is "the right one" when there is no such thing as "the right version"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Counterfeit in that they're written by SAS staff and pretend to be by students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

and misleading independent journalism such as the article '"Go big or go home" - My first teaching experience', written for a blog edited by the SAS Education Director, by an adjunct faculty member whom he hired to cover a teacher-shortage created by the school's brutal measures against its own faculty;[25] - Misleading, in what way? Biased language; Reference missing for "hired to cover a teacher-shortage" - this is not said in the source.

It's misleading in that it's purporting to be a piece of independent journalism when it's propaganda engineered by the school by a temporary employee and also misleading because this is not said in the source, though it's a fact. What's your interest in suppressing these facts about SAS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, the same thing as with all the previous points. It sounds like you are actually not wanting to present a factual account of SAS, what this Wikipedia page SHOULD be about but instead only make the "negative version" the "true version". Why is that? Is it because you have a conflict of interest. By contrast, so far I have not suggested that the negative stories should be removed, only the biased language towards the "other side" of the story. And that is where our agendas differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelin5624 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the negative version of these events. It's the product of a conversation between holders of the negative version and SAS partisans who tried to turn this page into more SAS propaganda. You appear to be one of the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

or 'A Bold Move in Multidisciplinarity and Academic Hiring' written by a SKOLKOVO employee for University World News.[26] Fine if the previous section is edited too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.252.182 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)