I agree with what others (such as Icarus and Miller) have posted.
I don’t see the logic allowing you to derive the conclusion “Subject X is bunk” from the premise “Person A successfully taught an introductory college class in Subject X without having a degree in it.”
A bright layman with a good textbook could teach most into level classes well enough not to get called on it. Indeed, TAs lead classes all the time. These classes simply aren’t that hard. That said, the class would probably be lacking in insight and inspiration, and he would probably have to deflect most of the questions.
A layperson probably wouldn’t be able to hold their own in research or get a legit article (without fabricated data) published.
And straight out “teaching the textbook” was not an unusual thing at all in Abnagale’s time frame (it has become less common at least in the USA), so he could have well got away with that part, it meaning little about whether the content was any good.
Sure, take a number of our own Dopers and there’s probably a whole passel of lectures we could give, or sections we could TA, at the introductory general-survey level unrelated to our respective degrees or training, if given the chance at a head start on an intensive review. We’d have a harder time if called to actually design the course syllabus, reading list, test questions – and in Q&A discussion sections with the more advantaged students.
If it hadn’t been for those meddling kids!
Exactly, he did not treat anybody. Interns did all the job for him. So he was not performing doctor’s duties, just as he did not perform pilot’s duties. But he did perform sociology professor’s duties: he read lectures. What does it tell us about sociology professors?
As noted above (e.g. Post #18), it would be more accurate to say that he performed guest lecturer’s or TA’s duties.
And even then, it still says very little about the quality of his work. Intro students are not known to be discerning.
But, Thudlow, that won’t validate anyone’s pet theories about sociology professors!
I could do that. Intro humanities (possibly all intros) are more about a knack for teaching than expertise. I’m pretty sure being a good con-artist and a good teacher have a lot in common. At least half of what I do every day is just about being interesting and presenting the material with a bit of flair and confidence.
Expertise in a field doesn’t really come in until you need to produce your own material.
Really, most jobs can be done by someone with native talent and brass reproductive organs rather than education. I’m excluding doctors and pilots and people like that, but teaching? Sure. Management? You bet. Politics? I’m sure Abnagale would make a great politician. And so on. True for my job, certainly.
Furthermore, it was just a part of a professor’s job, and one that is regularly farmed out to less qualified folks. Professors also design courses, conduct research, speak at conferences, publish papers, advise students, develop programs and contribute to the overall department.
The lesson here is that teaching into courses is not that hard, which is a surprise to no one except, apparently, the OP.
It may come as a shock, but do you know that Brigham Young was a prophet? He conversed with Moses, Aharon, and with that supernatural being, the so-called God. If you do not believe in fairy tales you should admit that he made it up. So Brigham Young and his ilk have a history of making stuff up.
Besides please answer the following question. If Abagnale made up the story about teaching sociology, why did not he make up a story of piloting an airplane?
I’m pretty sure that Brigham Young himself doesn’t actually keep the administrative records at Brigham Young University.
That doesn’t even make sense.
There are witnesses and records verifying he impersonated airline pilots. But his claim to have been a teacher is pretty much entirely his word - and let me emphasize again, we’re talking about Frank Abagnale here. He’s vague on the details and the witnesses and records which should exist if he had impersonated a teacher don’t exist.
I’ll also point out that Brigham Young died in 1877 so I don’t think anyone is going to be citing him on this.
Oh my god, this is hilarious.
Gosh, good question. What do you think?
You do not see the difference between sporting pilot’s uniform and piloting an airplane?
OK. Why did he make up this story and did not make up a story about piloting an airplane? Not wearing pilot’s uniform, but actually piloting an airplane?
Yes. But LDS still have another prophet and 12 apostles.
Is… is it your contention that if a person lies about something, they then lie about everything?
Why everything? Pan Am pilot was Abagnale’s leading impersonation. He wrote how he embezzled pilot’s uniform, faked FAA license and Pan Am ID. He wrote how he used those to get unlimited free flights on a specially reserved for pilots sit in a cockpit. Yes, he was hundreds of times in airplane cockpit. Now he wants to make something up to embellish the story. Why he did not write that one of the pilots got sick and he took his place and made a soft landing? Instead he introduces a new twist in the story telling about impersonating sociology professor. Why?
Obviously no one could answer that except Abagnale. Anyway, I really have no idea what the point of this thread was supposed to be. At best, if we take Abagnale’s teaching story at face value, you got some people to agree that teaching intro college courses isn’t exceptionally hard. Was that your goal? You haven’t made an actual statement of your own about what you think the episode shows and, if you’re trying to lead people to saying that sociology must be a hoax based on this story, it’s not going so well.
Now I haven’t read the book, but in the interview quoted above, he said he impersonated a teacher’s aide not a professor.