I think it’s pretty clear those so-called “deaf” people have been faking it all these years. They probably just wanted the attention and the good parking spaces.
I’m starting a petition to take back Marlee Matlin’s Oscar.
You have the story all wrong. It was a high school, not a university, and Fonzie hadn’t been a juvenile for a couple decades at that point.
-or-
Well, it was BYU.
Take your choice: Stupid joke or cheap shot with a possible anti-Mormon flavor? I’ll wait.
You guys strongly underrated me. I am Charles Lindbergh.
It would be so incredibly awesome if he never did any of the things he claimed.
And then he turned out to be Andy Kaufman.
You strike me as more of a Hauptmann. Still, any chance to hobnob with celebrity…
To keep the PG rating.
The movie had an early scene where a young Abagnale is caught teaching a French class as a substitute, so the BYU scene would have been redundant. And since it’s unverified, it would have cast the “credibility” of the story in a bad light. Also, not all that “thrilling”.
To pilots and flight attendants Abagnale said that he graduated from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. This is a 4-year college, which gives a bachelors degree. The graduates also get FAA Airline Transport Pilot ratings. Right upon graduation they are hired by airlines to fly passenger jets.
To get hired to teach sociology Abagnale faked a Ph.D degree. To get one you need to study at least three more years beyond B.S. Why the job which requires at least 7 years of study is easier to fake than the job which requires only 4 years?
It takes four years of study to fly an airplane. It doesn’t take four years of study to hang out in a pilot’s lounge writing bad checks - which is all Abegnale did with his fake degree.
Likewise, it takes seven years of study to do primary sociological research with proper scientific controls, and write papers that can withstand rigorous peer review. It doesn’t take seven years of study to teach a frosh Soc 101 class - which is all Abegnale did with his fake degree.
Because I could stand before a crowd of students who don’t speak Chinese and pretend I was teaching them Chinese by making up a bunch of words. The students don’t know Chinese so they wouldn’t know I’m faking.
But this doesn’t mean the Chinese language is fake. If I tried to pretend I could talk Chinese to genuine Chinese speakers, my fakery would be exposed within seconds.
Same thing with Abagnale if he did actually teach a class in Sociology. He was able to teach fake Sociology to students who didn’t know the subject. But if he had tried to give a lecture to genuine Sociology professors, his fakery would have been obvious to them.
Like this one
To teach a 101 course at a university you need a Ph.D, that is 7 years of education.
Besides do you think Abagnale could teach flying 101, that is a course leading to Private Pilot license?
No, not like that one at all. From the link:
The fact that the journal was not in any way peer reviewed was rather the problem.
No you don’t.
You need a Master’s degree (in any discipline) and 18 graduate hours in a specific field to teach that field.
I have a Master’s in English. My Bachelor’s degree is also in English, and I never studied sociology. However, if I go to my local University and take 6 graduate-level sociology classes, I could then teach sociology at the undergraduate level.
Same with math, history, or any other discipline.
My boss has a Master’s in Interdisciplinary Studies, plus 18 hours of English, so she teaches English.
Universities often, for their own individual policies, only hire PhD’s for full-time positions, but you do realize that the bulk of intro courses are farmed out to part-time adjuncts, right? Many/most of whom only have the minimum of a M.A./M.S with 18 hours in-discipline. There are also the aforementioned T.A.'s, who actually ‘teach’ the classes, grade the homework, etc. for the professor on the schedule–the T.A. is a graduate student.
The PhD isn’t so much a teaching credential as it is a decent indicator that the person can research and publish (thus generating prestige/grants for the college or university.
Intro./Survey courses simply aren’t that difficult–in terms of skill, I could have taught them by my junior year of college.
This is not true. Many introductory courses at universities are taught by graduate students who at the time they are teaching them have only a Bachelor’s degree themselves.
To be hired as a full-time professor at a university, a Ph.D. is indeed a typical requirement, but that’s more relevant to the other duties of a professor than to the teaching of intro courses.
Sure he could. As long as he was just giving classroom instructions. The stuff he’d be teaching his students would be wrong but they wouldn’t know that until they tried to actually fly a plane.
No. Chronos was wrong to refer to Social Text as a respected sociology journal. Social Text identifies its subject as cultural studies, which is more akin to literary criticism. I doubt Alan Sokal could have gotten his parody published in American Sociological Review.
My MS and I disagree with you.
If you read the article carefully you see
This means that the article was reviewed. The fact that the editors did it themselves instead of sending article to an external reviewer is not essential.
Besides why do you believe that peer review can solve any problem? It can only create them. Imagine that automotive mechanics are reviewed not by customers but by peers, that is by other mechanics. What a nightmare would it be. But this is what happens in sociology. Since one sociologist reviews a paper of another sociologist.
That’s how all the sciences work.
It’s true that to some degree peer review is garbage in/garbage out. That is, if your field is made up of cranks who think crank things, then the only thing peer review will accomplish is making the exact grade and flavor of crankery you get somewhat consistent.
Even when crankery isn’t involved, peer review can have legitimate issues with resisting legitimate revelation in a field. If all the reviewers know something “isn’t possible”, it can cause legitimate work to get edited or go unpublished. This is almost always self correcting, and the new correct idea will win out eventually, but it is a valid problem. (And honestly, one might consider some conservativism in what reviewers are willing to accept a feature and not a bug, even if it triggers some false positives now and then).
However, when it works it works well. The fact is, you can’t submit highly technical fields for the public to review. Average Joe has absolutely no clue whether this or that is true or valid. Yeah, sure, society can place some judgment on progress in some respects; people will be pleased as punch with how fast their quantum computers run in 2050. However, in between major consumer products based on decades of research, you need some technical review process to keep the field’s progress correct and focused. The public simply doesn’t have enough knowledge (nor can they reasonably be expected to have such knowledge) to review the findings of every journal report.
It’s kind of like the saying “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.” Peer review has plenty of legitimate issues, but it’s important and the best we’ve got.
Now, is sociology in particular in the “crank field full of cranks who believe crank things” category? I’m sure it at least in part depends on the exact journal you’re referring to; however, legitimate claims and progress have come out of it. Could it be improved? Certainly. Are there problems in the field? Probably, I’m not qualified to make such a judgment. However, unlike obvious crank such as Demonology it seems to at least be grounded in reality and makes attempts at using valid statistics and methods, even if it stumbles and fails now and then. Sociology is also pesky in that it’s hard to run really focused trials with minimum confounding variables like you can for, say, chemistry.
It doesn’t help that sociology, like psychology, is one of those fields that’s easy to have an opinion on even if you’re in no way qualified. It’s easier to have an opinion on how people will act in a given situation than it is to have an opinion on whether or not the newest pathfinding algorithm is appropriate for the next generation of Mars rovers.