Professors suspected of Ph.D. bribes

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around allegations of bribery involving professors in Germany who are suspected of facilitating Ph.D. degrees in exchange for money. Participants explore the implications of this situation on academic integrity, the structure of doctoral supervision, and the potential impact on students' qualifications.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disappointment at the scale of the allegations, noting that 100 professors being involved is particularly shocking compared to the expectation of isolated incidents.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in academic structures between Germany and the US, particularly regarding who is allowed to supervise Ph.D. students and the existence of dissertation committees.
  • Concerns are raised about whether the students involved were aware of the bribery and if they genuinely earned their degrees despite the misconduct of their professor.
  • One participant suggests that the situation resembles a diploma mill, implying that the students may have been unaware of the unethical practices occurring.
  • Questions are posed regarding the adequacy of oversight and reporting mechanisms that allowed the bribery to continue for an extended period without detection.
  • Another participant questions the plausibility of the professor's financial claims, suggesting that 200,000 euros would not suffice for significant renovations on a mansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disappointment and concern regarding the situation, but there is no consensus on the implications for the students involved or the adequacy of academic oversight. Multiple competing views on the structure of doctoral supervision and the nature of the misconduct remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note differences in academic practices between countries, particularly regarding the supervision of Ph.D. students and the role of dissertation committees, which may influence perceptions of the situation.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
22,591
Reaction score
7,554
This is really disappointing!

Germany: 100 professors suspected of Ph.D. bribes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090822/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_university_investigation

Well - academicians are only human. So much for the Ivory Towers.

. . . .
The professor, whose name was also not released, was found guilty as well and sentenced to three years in prison for accepting the bribes.

The professor confessed in court to accepting nearly euro200,000 to serve as a faculty adviser to more than 60 doctorate students between 1998 and 2005.

The professor said he needed the money to renovate his Hamburg mansion.
:frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
He needed to renovate his Hamburgh mansion.

Wow, what a need.

What a disapointment.
 
Disappointing, and really surprising so many are involved. I'd be disappointed, but less surprised, to find out there was one or two bad apples, as there are in every profession. But 100? That's shocking!

What's also odd is the article states the people involved were mostly teaching on contracts, not full time professors. I'm surprised they are even allowed to take on a Ph.D. student. That's certainly something quite different from the US universities I've worked at where you need to be tenure-track and voted in as a member of the graduate faculty in order to be allowed to supervise a student (mostly, this is done for stability to ensure that students don't end up suddenly without a mentor when someone's contract isn't renewed).

Do they also not have dissertation committees? Again, the US system, and I think the Canadian system as well, require students have a dissertation committee, not just one supervisor. I don't know if official committees exist in other countries, but I do know they at least ask for impartial "readers" for the dissertations from outside their own institutions. All of this is again done so there isn't just one person making the decision whether a student is ready to graduate with a Ph.D. It's supposed to both protect the student from a mentor who might delay their graduation for selfish reasons of keeping a good student doing more work for them longer, as well as to protect the faculty member when a student isn't cut out for the degree and it's more than one person "ruining the life" of the student. But, it's also supposed to help avoid impropriety like this, because it's not just one person you need to please with your work, but a committee of several, anyone of whom can intervene and say you are not ready yet.

I guess the real question then arises...did these students demonstrate sufficient competence to earn their degree? Clearly there was motivation of their primary mentor to push them through and get them to graduate whether earned or not, but were the other checks and balances in place to ensure these students did manage to earn their degree, in spite of the impropriety of their professor?

If the students weren't aware of the bribes (i.e., they thought they were paying to get help with the application process only), and really did do the work they needed to do to earn their degree, I'd feel very sorry for them to now have their credentials tainted by this.

The other question is how did it go on so long without getting reported sooner? How many others turned down the bribes, but remained complicit by not reporting the offer?
 
It sounds like it was a huge scam, a diploma mill of some kind and that the students were simply unaware of the bribes.
 
200,000 euro? Mansion? Professor? 200,000euro does not renovate a "mansion" and why would a professor have one (he could be old money maybe)