I think the root cause in a lot of this comes from the fact that the govt. funding and solicitation of college students for colleges/universities as their income streams heavily shapes the "ivory tower" mentalities found there, which hardly maps at all to how money is made outside of there. What you are taught in the ivory tower is what works well inside the ivory tower.
That argument assumes a level playing field when negotiating terms for employment to be valid, which does not exist for that level of employees. You could justify just about any type corporate practice using that argument.
Coding a prototype of something that's rapidly changing in huge ways should be done differently than production code that's worked on by lots of different developers. One will not be optimal for the other.
...wait a minute...
Another +1 for Redmine. Very simple to use and manage without pushing any manifestos down your throat.
Give your estimate, but also give the variance on that estimate. If it's low, they will ask why. This will lead into the technical barriers and uncertainty discussions, which is really what the business types and PMs need to do and don't do enough of.
This is actually also prevalent in academia. You get profs. who write Ph.D. qualifying exam questions that narrowly focuses on whatever sub-area they specialize in and just expect that everyone should be fluent in it, but in fact most of the other profs in the department couldn't answer them correctly.
Really it is a culture who have been mining in a pit for so long that they reason that getting to China is the easiest way out. They might be right.
I've heard this before, but the problem is that those items that are referred and somewhat spun in a positive light are cherry-picked. In particular, they don't talk about the "items" of how this all gets paid for (more taxes, more deficit, taken out of medicare, etc...) and the general downstream ramifications of the law. Sure, there is partisanship going on, but it's not what this study suggests.
...to be met, like being able to be completely interchangeable with other members on your team, and having prior art to reasonably predict every aspect of effort. If that's not the case (say, in an R&D project where certain people are specialists in certain areas), this method does more harm than good. My best suggestion for using which method is to let the nature of the project choose the method, rather than the other way around.
..several years ago, without the C++ experience. I was applying for a good 5+ months. I was fortunate to get hooked up with a research institute associated with the university for a year doing more grunt-workshy stuff while I finished up my dissertation. It gave me some experience in image processing, which IMO is one of the most in-demand fields to get into if you want to stick with industry research. That was that on top of the Ph.D that got me my current position.
...but it also puts more and more pressure on principal investigators to color their conclusions in the direction of whatever is currently trendy in the eyes of the grant reviewers in that field in order to get future grants. It's not good.
You can only sue for actual harm that was caused. This would imply they would have to convince a jury that people took that campaign seriously.
But the NSA would be free to mention that fact and thus explain away their denial. But, they didn't.