Jul 22, 2023·edited Jul 22, 2023Liked by William Stroock
A small number of Amazon ratings doesn't mean anything. People in academia commonly write for extremely specialized audiences. Publish a book on epistemic logic or *de re* modalities, no one outside your sub-sub-sub-field will ever even hear about it. And if it does get reviewed, it almost certainly won't be on Amazon. It may be some measure of success commercially and outside of academia, of course. And there *are* *some* disciplines in which people write for general audiences. So that'd be different.
Anyway--number of Amazon reviews means almost nothing. As I'm sure you realize. You're just ticked off.
(Still, coulda been fun to drop your page on him.)
Frank sounds like an asshat, as you've noted. And the fact that he wastes all his time on Twitter or whatever strengthens the evidence. (The extremely-online academician is now a type...) And, though I know more Ph.D.s than I could easily count, I don't think *any* of them put 'Ph.D.' at the end of their name--except in the rare, professional circumstances in which one is expected to "title up." In academia, anyone who insists on using 'Ph.D.' all the time will end up being the butt of jokes.
And, like numbers of Amazon reviews, Ph.D.s don't mean much...though not nothing, either. I know brilliant Ph.D.s and idiotic ones. Just like I know brilliant non-Ph.D.s and idiotic ones. The discipline matters. A Ph.D. in physics is very likely to be of [significantly] above-average intelligence. A Ph.D. in Anthropology could go either way. A Ph.D. in education or women's studies is probably a bad sign...perhaps even evidence of dumbness...
I know rather a large number of PhDs, in many different fields, over a period of some 35 years, and I have come dividing them into two basic types. The first type is still 'learning' and welcome pushback, logical argument, probing questions and such. The generally have a very good sense of humor and are a pleasure to be around.
The second apparently have decided that they know everything worth knowing (in at least their sub-filed and sometimes in the entire field,) and they don't care to learn anything that cuts against whatever their current stance is. They are generally unpleasant people, in my experience.
So . . . true researchers and lifetime learners vs certificate-seeker know-it-alls.
Many years ago only MIT and Cal Tech offered Sc.D.s. At MIT it was your choice which to take and I took the Sc.D. Given the way Ph.D.s now turn work that can't be reproduced or verified, it is good not to be associated with them.
We pump out so many PhD now, they are worthless. I will bet my master's in math, twenty five years ago, was far more challenging and rigorous than humanities, social science, and any soft "science" fields today.
In all likelihood you're correct. The worst, in my not so humble opinion are EdD, followed by PhD in any of the "Angry Studies", the DSW. I'm sure there are others but after those I prefer to not think about it further.
Oh. it's real enough (in that it's awarded and all), but it serves mostly as a kind of indicator of the intellectual quality of the person 'earning' it, in my estimation.
(I have known exactly one high quality person, both in the intellectual and the humanity/social sense, with an EdD, and he openly admitted the degree itself was a joke [about his dissertation -- "I seem to remember writing an 18-page paper, including biblio"] and that he pursued it because "I had 3 daughters I needed to make enough money to send them to college.")
It'd be nice if there were a quick way to graph a Twitter user's average tweets by hour of the day. You could call it a "losergram" and deploy it anytime you need a reminder that an online interlocutor shouldn't be taken seriously.
A small number of Amazon ratings doesn't mean anything. People in academia commonly write for extremely specialized audiences. Publish a book on epistemic logic or *de re* modalities, no one outside your sub-sub-sub-field will ever even hear about it. And if it does get reviewed, it almost certainly won't be on Amazon. It may be some measure of success commercially and outside of academia, of course. And there *are* *some* disciplines in which people write for general audiences. So that'd be different.
Anyway--number of Amazon reviews means almost nothing. As I'm sure you realize. You're just ticked off.
(Still, coulda been fun to drop your page on him.)
Frank sounds like an asshat, as you've noted. And the fact that he wastes all his time on Twitter or whatever strengthens the evidence. (The extremely-online academician is now a type...) And, though I know more Ph.D.s than I could easily count, I don't think *any* of them put 'Ph.D.' at the end of their name--except in the rare, professional circumstances in which one is expected to "title up." In academia, anyone who insists on using 'Ph.D.' all the time will end up being the butt of jokes.
And, like numbers of Amazon reviews, Ph.D.s don't mean much...though not nothing, either. I know brilliant Ph.D.s and idiotic ones. Just like I know brilliant non-Ph.D.s and idiotic ones. The discipline matters. A Ph.D. in physics is very likely to be of [significantly] above-average intelligence. A Ph.D. in Anthropology could go either way. A Ph.D. in education or women's studies is probably a bad sign...perhaps even evidence of dumbness...
Anway. F*ck that guy Frank.
Frank published a speciality book on an American War. I think Francine had written a couple of novels.
Heh, half my point was all that time working on your phd/tweeting you could be writing.
You made Instapundit! Sweet!
Slay.
I know rather a large number of PhDs, in many different fields, over a period of some 35 years, and I have come dividing them into two basic types. The first type is still 'learning' and welcome pushback, logical argument, probing questions and such. The generally have a very good sense of humor and are a pleasure to be around.
The second apparently have decided that they know everything worth knowing (in at least their sub-filed and sometimes in the entire field,) and they don't care to learn anything that cuts against whatever their current stance is. They are generally unpleasant people, in my experience.
So . . . true researchers and lifetime learners vs certificate-seeker know-it-alls.
Many years ago only MIT and Cal Tech offered Sc.D.s. At MIT it was your choice which to take and I took the Sc.D. Given the way Ph.D.s now turn work that can't be reproduced or verified, it is good not to be associated with them.
We pump out so many PhD now, they are worthless. I will bet my master's in math, twenty five years ago, was far more challenging and rigorous than humanities, social science, and any soft "science" fields today.
Masters in math! Smarter than me.
In all likelihood you're correct. The worst, in my not so humble opinion are EdD, followed by PhD in any of the "Angry Studies", the DSW. I'm sure there are others but after those I prefer to not think about it further.
EdD, not a real degree.
Oh. it's real enough (in that it's awarded and all), but it serves mostly as a kind of indicator of the intellectual quality of the person 'earning' it, in my estimation.
(I have known exactly one high quality person, both in the intellectual and the humanity/social sense, with an EdD, and he openly admitted the degree itself was a joke [about his dissertation -- "I seem to remember writing an 18-page paper, including biblio"] and that he pursued it because "I had 3 daughters I needed to make enough money to send them to college.")
I agree with your conclusions. Why punch down? These quaint souls that think a 'PhD' after their name means something are beyond me.
Yeah this guy was going on about his field and what not and I’m all, ‘dude, look me up on Amazon’ and ride away….ride away.
It'd be nice if there were a quick way to graph a Twitter user's average tweets by hour of the day. You could call it a "losergram" and deploy it anytime you need a reminder that an online interlocutor shouldn't be taken seriously.
I’d sell a kid for lots of Twitter action. It sells books.
There are too many Ph.D.s. In the stem fields, they are basically slave labor for the profs running the big research teams.
There are too many Ph.D.s period.
Reminder: PhD stands for "Phony Doctor."
Piled Higher & Deeper