As a professor of bank law I am increasingly inundated by competitions in which the industry offers prize money for master and doctoral thesis. Not only the issues are defined by the interest of these industries but where also the industry plays an important role in the evaluation of the thesis.

Since the industry already is the doorkeeper for the professional careers of our students and researchers the pressure to streamline our teaching and research according to industry interest has increased significantly. The university itself seems to see no limits as I get regularly from the Dean and the Head of my Department such announcements with the warm recommendation to further this to my students. Although one can find notions like "responsible credit", "sustainability" "green real estate" etc. in the hundreds of recommendations in the different prize categories the interesting question is whether this could be based on the existing independent research or should be focused on the interest of the industry.

While most German state's school legislation bans industry from direct influence and intervention on school children the legislation concerning universities and research knows no guidelines to limit the influence of profit orientation on research and higher education.

This is lamentable since especially the financial industry would thoroughly need qualified students and researchers which question their basic assumptions and policies after the financial crisis has shifted wealth from the poor to the rich and separated the world into (private) creditors and (public) debtors ruining social peace and progress in many countries.

French Asset Management Association: 50.000 €

I only take one recent example of a competition which came to German universities and was issued in France.

The university administration lobbied for the French Asset Management Association (AFG) and their prize money. I read its International Competition of Master degree Theses on Economics carefully and got angry about the detailed prescriptions with which this industry of derivatives interferes with University practices without taking into account that science and research should be impartial, make students aware of the whole range of interests the financial world has to face and stir them into a direction where they at least recognize that our economy needs some kind of ethical and social direction for the future.

In its goals for the competition the AFG is quite clear: What is good for us is good for research and education. It reads:

• Promoting the financial professions;

• Bringing together theoreticians and practitioners;

• Encouraging and financially supporting research and innovation;

• Mobilizing the students on problems that the financial professions are facing;

• Emphasising the students work for future employers.

• Helping the communication between the different circles of the economy and finance: banking, insurance, investment, advising, audit, information, public institutions, financial markets, and financial functions of the industrial and commercial businesses.

Sponsors can buy Jury

But more important than their intentions and the issues prescribed for the students is the question who decides what is good and bad.

In this respect no scientific and research standards of independence are met. All members of the Jury are named and paid by the Association. Those who provide the money get "each" a place in the Jury as well as the other "professional organisations". In order to exclude any control form outside the process is secret and "the Jury's decision is final, has not to be motivated and is not subject to appeal."

ARTICLE 4 : THE JURY

The Centre invites a number of distinguished personalities from the international finance world, both in and outside France, to form the Jury. The sponsors of the Grand Prix and each of the professional associations providing the other prizes appoint additional members. The Jury reserves the right to involve outside experts.

· The members of the Jury decide on the appropriate structure and frequency of meetings for the selection process.

· The selection process will take place behind closed doors and the Jury’s deliberations will not be made public. The Jury’s decision is final, has not to be motivated and is not subject to appeal.