2020! A total drag, right? ??

But if you're in the mood this morning for some more fear.…

• Avedon."

• Good Sailer cite—

The anonymous analyst writes:

This year will have the highest death rate in at least 50 years and probably more than 70 years. The one-year jump in death rates will be 13% or more. Since penicillin was invented, the highest one-year jump had been 3.5%, so 2020 is about 4 times worse than the previous worst year since World War II.

The CDC attributes most of the excess deaths to COVID, but the government is likely understating the number of deaths caused by the pandemic.

Sorry, here's the Sailer: https://www.takimag.com/article/lets-be-over-and-done-in-21/

Time to sleep? okay

I wonder how many people, while Cruise was yelling at them for not wearing masks were picturing this.

Avedon. ~ Crid at December 17, 2020 12:25 AM

Imagine having your wedding photographed by Richard Avedon. Imagine being a shoeshine man and realizing you gave your daughter Richard Avedon as her wedding photographer.

Imagine being the guest at the reception, perhaps the only one, who knew who he was when the group posed with the Happy Couple.

[1.] "I can't laugh out loud or it'll ruin it!"

[2.] "I'm getting my picture taken by Richard Avedon!"

"Divorce3"

Can't say this everywhere but to be honest, none of the PhDs, EdDs, etc I know go by "Dr." outside of academia, and even within it most people go by first names with students and colleagues and everywhere except formal letters and the like.

I'm not the only one whose experience this is I assume?

What is this Avendon shoeshine story you are talking about?

I'm not the only one whose experience this is I assume?

That's my experience as well. And most of the few people I know who insist you call them doctor are dicks.

"What is this Avendon shoeshine"

Oh, come on. Everyone knows THAT metaphor!

*How was your visit to New York?*

"Fantastic! I dined, I drank, I hooked up with a hottie who gave me an Avedon shoeshine."

*You lucky bastard!*

Another "do as I say" public "servant".

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo spotted at wine and paint event after urging others to stay home

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/17/gina-raimondo-ri-governor-spotted-at-wine-and-pain/

What is this Avendon shoeshine story you are talking about? ~ NicoleK at December 17, 2020 12:17 PM

The Avedon link from Crid at December 17, 2020 12:25 AM

Gog's Avedon shoeshine sounds intriguing.

• They're seriously withholding info about side effects.

• Sometimes it's a marvel that people who get so concerned about fringe cases of sexual identity are smart enough to tie their own shoes.

Yes, government is fucking this up, and it will cost Americans their lives.

If only we had a President with the best interests of the common man... An authoritative guy with the administrative and business experience to reach out and make things happen through the enormous workforce he has at his disposal.

Alas.

NicoleK Says:

"Can't say this everywhere but to be honest, none of the PhDs, EdDs, etc I know go by "Dr." outside of academia, and even within it most people go by first names with students and colleagues and everywhere except formal letters and the like."

In what sense is this really any different than MDs?

Medical Doctors in a hospital and in a private practice are on a first name basis with each other as well.

People usually do not insist that colleagues refer to them by honorifics in casual conversation or even professional discussions within the workplace.

Honorifics are typically used in any professional setting when being introduced in some official capacity (e.g. when giving a lecture, when submitting a grant proposal, when filing patent paperwork, etc...).

This is as true in industry as it is in academia. When giving an invited talk or being introduced to a customer where being on a first name basis hasn't yet been established ones honorifics will typically be used... you don't really want a customer to receive an official update from Mr. or Mrs. so and so when that person has a PhD.

The proper etiquette for these kinds of things is that in any situation where you would normally introduce someone with Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. you would instead use Dr.

One simply would not introduce someone with a PhD as Mr. or Mrs. so and so.

If one is in a non-professional setting one would go by first names anyway.

In terms of the etiquette in academia with students , usually the honorific of Prof. replaces the Dr. so such individuals are referred to as Professor so and so.

At the graduate level even the title of professor is dropped in favor of being on a more casual basis with the PhD's in training as they are in the profess of becoming a colleague and typically are teaching courses alongside the professor.

This entire thing is a nonsense political issue because the outrage machine is at it again... if you are on a first name basis you use someone's first name and drop all honorifics, if you are on a last name basis you use someone's honorifics until the status of the relationship changes.

There is nothing particularly confusing or offensive about any of this.

You're not American

Crid,

Can you please explain to me why there is a tendency for morons to engage in birther conspiracies?

You're not bright, and you're not interesting, you're just bitter. Why are you here?

Crid,

You're the one running around this entire blog trying to talk to me in multiple threads... based on that evidence I must conclude that you find me to be the most interesting person in the universe.

Actions speak louder than words.

If I bore you, then prove it by ignoring me.

You never cite anyone or express admiration for anyone in public life or literature. You have no discernible enthusiasms, history, expertise or principles. You take nothing from of us, delivering only quarrels. Why are you here? What do you want?

FTR, I'm with Nic on this. The guy on the (American) street rightly sustains and observes honorifics only for those who might be equipped to do him some good someday, as and MD might but any number of PhD's might not. Setting a broken limb is a handsome dividing like for a country with an egalitarian heritage. (And I'm fine with the "politics" that bring irritation to Ms. Biden.) Specifically—

> Honorifics are typically used in any
> professional setting when being
> introduced in some official capacity
> (e.g. when giving a lecture, when
> submitting a grant proposal, when
> filing patent paperwork, etc...).

By that measure, the courtesy will not need to be offered to Jill Biden.

Artemis, it is my experience that socially people with a PhD do NOT tend to go by Dr, but by Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss. This maybe a regional thing, which would explain both the article and the angry reaction.

As for Biden, is First Lady a professional role? Is she going to be pushing for educational stuff? If so it might make sense. I suppose since she's in the limelight she might be an exception... but yeah, generally it is considered a bit pompous to go by Dr if you're not an MD.

It's different in that MDs usually go by Dr socially.

Precisely.

NicoleK,

It is my experience that socially people go by first names and no one uses honorifics in general.

I don't believe I have ever used the titles Mr. or Mrs. in social events with friends. I would simply introduce them as Joe or Jill... as in, "This is my friend Jill... and over there is her husband Joe".

I certainly wouldn't have a bunch of friends over and say "Have you met Mrs. Biden before?".

I cannot recall ever using honorifics in casual social settings unless I was introducing an adult to a child.

As for Jill Biden... I am certain it would be fine to refer to her as First Lady Jill Biden... or as Jill if one is familiar with her or talking about her in a very casual sense... or as Dr. Biden if one is referring to her in a more professional sense. What would be rude would be to start calling her Mrs. Biden.

Just as it would be rude to refer to her as Miss Biden.

Those aren't the honorifics that are attached to her at this point. One would be better off just referring to her as First Lady Jill Biden and chopping off all of the honorifics altogether.

"By that measure, the courtesy will not need to be offered to Jill Biden."

Whatever you say Miss Crid.

Miss Crid,

It seems to me that you have a difficult time dealing with people expressing disagreement with you and believe that in some sense they should be coming to you for enlightenment.

Unfortunately from my perspective you haven't managed to establish yourself as any sort of intellectual or philosophical authority.

If you want me to be impressed then by all means say something impressive.

First off, Jill Biden does not have a Ph.D. She has an Ed.D. It's still a doctorate, but one in the practical application of education theory, not one in doing research and bettering our understanding of that field. Any number of school principals have Ed.D. degrees, as union and government employment rules mandate higher pay for higher degrees.

Second, has anyone here read Biden's thesis? I have not read any other Ed.D. theses, but this one is full of mathematical mistakes, grammar errors, and academic edu-speak. I don't know if hers is par for the course in Ed.D. theses. If so, I think I found the problem with modern education, the educators themselves.

Third, she was awarded that degree from the University of Delaware, a "public/private research institution," largely dependent upon federal and state funding. That her husband was the senior senator in the state's Congressional delegation cannot be ignored as having had some influence on her being awarded the degree, despite what appears to be a rather mediocre thesis.

Remember Condoleeza Rice? She had a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Denver when she served in the GW Bush cabinet. I don't remember feminists and media demanding she be addressed, or addressing her, as "Doctor Rice." Likewise, I don't remember her asking to be addressed that way either.

There have been other Ph.D. recipients serving in Cabinet-level positions, both Republicans and Democrats, who did not ask to be addressed as "Doctor," nor did the media insist on that for them. First Lady is not a Cabinet-level position, but is nonetheless one to which we give a level of respect.

Since Jill Biden does have an Ed.D., she is entitled to call herself "Doctor" Biden and ask that others address her as such. And the rest of the world is entitled to find that pretentious if it wants to.

Conan Says:

"Remember Condoleeza Rice? She had a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Denver when she served in the GW Bush cabinet. I don't remember feminists and media demanding she be addressed, or addressing her, as "Doctor Rice." Likewise, I don't remember her asking to be addressed that way either."

This is from the George Bush White House Website:

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/rice-bio.html

"Dr. Condoleezza Rice became Secretary of State on January 26, 2005. Prior to this, she was the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, since January, 2001."

You will note that she was not referred to as Mrs. Rice, or Ms. Rice... but as Dr. Rice.

It is possible that no one was talking about her honorifics because no one was trying to manufacture outrage over a completely trivial non-issue.

And look here... this is for Madeline Albright:

https://www.nafsa.org/people/dr-madeleine-k-albright

"As one of the world’s most respected diplomats, Dr. Madeleine K. Albright, continues to advocate for democracy and human rights across the world, while also championing the important impact international relations and educational exchanges have on the United States today.

In 1997 under President Bill Clinton, Dr. Albright was named the first female Secretary of State and became, at that time, the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. Albright served as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations and was a member of the President’s cabinet."

This entire recent obsession about the use of the honorific "Dr." is just silly... I would love to see an official white house or professional website for a former cabinet member with a doctoral level degree that referred to them as Mr., Ms., or Mrs.

Absent such an example I am forced to conclude that nothing unusual is going on and people are just upset over nothing.

It is possible that no one was talking about her honorifics because no one was trying to manufacture outrage over a completely trivial non-issue. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 6:38 AM

It's also possible you're splitting hairs in your zeal to condemn Republicans.

Likewise it's possible that no one was talking about Rice's honorifics because she didn't insist upon using them.

I never said the White House Web site didn't refer to her doctorate in an effort to establish her credentials for the job and to polish its own apple. The Bush White House also heavily promoted Bush's appointments of Rice and Elaine Chao to Cabinet-level positions. Remember the inane, "W is for Women" sloganeering?

A recent television teaser for famous lefty, Stephen Colbert's, upcoming interview with the putative First Couple, advertised an interview with "Joe and Dr. Jill Biden."

Whoopi Goldberg, in a moment of supreme idiocy, even for her, misconstrued Biden's use of the honorific and pronounced her a great medical doctor, suggesting she should be considered for Surgeon General.

Biden, herself, promotes being addressed as "Doctor." Her Twitter handle is "Dr. Jill Biden @DrBiden."

In 2000, Slate answered the question of disparity of title usage with regard to Ms. Rice and Dr. Madeline Albright in the New York Times in its Explainer column:

Q:

The New York Times uses the honorific "Dr." for both Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. So why doesn’t it do the same for Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D.?

A:

The Times’ policy is to let people with doctorates decide if they want to be referred to by this title. Rice, who earned a Ph.D. in 1981 from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver, in a rare blow for unpretentiousness, asked the Times to call her "Ms." (Most newspapers dispense with such formalities and on second reference call people only by their last names.) Albright was referred to as "Mrs." and then "Ms." during most of her tenure with the Clinton administration. In 1999 she found out that the Times left the designation up to the individual and asked for the upgrade. Henry Kissinger, Ph.D., told the Times he preferred "Mr." (He must not have told too many other people since he is almost universally called "Dr. Kissinger.") In recent years the Times has more or less taken him at his word, calling him "Mr." in about two-thirds of its references and "Dr." in the other third. According to etiquette columnist Miss Manners, the title "Dr." is more appropriately reserved for people who have been educated in addressing maladies of the body, not of state.

All emphases in the prior quote are mine.

Lefties seem to be hung up on honorifics and titles, equating the use of a title with respect. Witness Barbara Boxer's "Do me a favor, can you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it. Thank you." to a US Army general testifying before Congress.

You yourself, Artie, seem to be hung up on competitive credentialism. Witness your, "Unlike you, I am qualified to teach graduate level courses [at] a real university." and, "You aren't even qualified to be admitted to the courses I am qualified to teach."

I've known and worked with several Ph.D.s (in various disciplines) in my career and not one of them asked to be addressed or referred to as "Doctor." Nor did they make a big deal about being "qualified to teach graduate level courses at a 'real' university." In fact, most of the time, I found out from someone else that they had a Ph.D.

Conan,

I see you are in full outrage mode and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

As I've already shown you, folks with doctoral level degrees in government refer to themselves using "Dr." including Condoleezza Rice, Madeline Albright, and others... I can find no counter example on any official webpage (you are welcome to provide one if you can find it).

"I never said the White House Web site didn't refer to her doctorate in an effort to establish her credentials for the job and to polish its own apple."

Great... so we are on the same page that they used their honorifics.

"Whoopi Goldberg, in a moment of supreme idiocy, even for her, misconstrued Biden's use of the honorific and pronounced her a great medical doctor, suggesting she should be considered for Surgeon General."

That is because Woopi was a moron... that hardly has anything to do with Jill Biden.

"Biden, herself, promotes being addressed as "Doctor." Her Twitter handle is "Dr. Jill Biden @DrBiden.""

Oh no... not a twitter handle...

Again, trivial nonsense.

"Lefties seem to be hung up on honorifics and titles, equating the use of a title with respect."

No Conan... the people hung up on titles are the same lunatics who flipped out when Elliot Page came out as transgender and changed his name from Ellen.

People on the left simply do not care about these kinds of things. People on the right are obsessed with calling people what they want to call them.

"I've known and worked with several Ph.D.s (in various disciplines) in my career and not one of them asked to be addressed or referred to as "Doctor." Nor did they make a big deal about being "qualified to teach graduate level courses at a 'real' university." In fact, most of the time, I found out from someone else that they had a Ph.D."

For years your complaint was that I wouldn't tell you what my educational background was... not you are complaining that I told you and you weren't satisfied with the answer.

In professional environments people often are on a first name basis... no MD I have ever worked with has ever insisted we remain on a last name basis with honorifics.

Conan,

Just to drive my point home... this is you 4 years ago:

"I have nothing to say to you until you tell us who you are." - Conan the Grammarian at March 20, 2016 1:36 PM

You complained non-stop... for years that I didn't share with you my educational background.

Then when I decided it was relevant to a particular conversation we were having you have not stopped complaining that in some sense I am "hung up" on credentials.

If I was so very "hung up" on any of this stuff then none of your original bitching and moaning made much sense.

You want it both ways... you demand that I share with you the full details of my educational and professional experience... but if I do share any of those details you then get extremely upset and accuse me of being obsessed with them.

Please pick a lane because from my perspective you are the one who seems obsessed with these things. Demanding the details when you don't have them and complaining about the details when you do.

As I've already shown you, folks with doctoral level degrees in government refer to themselves using "Dr." including Condoleezza Rice.... ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 8:30 AM

No, Artie, you have shown me nothing of the sort.

You have shown third parties using honorifics to refer to people with doctoral level degrees, not the parties themselves. That usage is usually beyond the control of the parties themselves; and is often used to polish the apples of the users, not the degree holder - e.g., a consulting company bragging in presentations to potential clients about how many of its consultants hold advanced degrees.

In fact, it is I who showed you that some folks in government with doctorate degrees prefer to use the honorific - e.g., Albright requesting the upgraded title from the New York Times. I also showed you that some do not - e.g., Rice and Kissinger asking the Times not to use "Dr." in reference to them.

H.R. McMaster (History PhD), Stephen Chu (Physics PhD), and Ash Carter (Physics PhD) are further examples of Cabinet-level folks in government who did not choose to use the honorific, despite being entitled to it.

Can the First Lady be considered "in government?" She has nothing to do with running the country. However, her position is supported by and paid for with taxpayer monies.

For years your complaint was that I wouldn't tell you what my educational background was... not [sic] you are complaining that I told you and you weren't satisfied with the answer. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 8:30 AM

I have no problem with your education level. I'm neither satisfied with it nor dissatisfied with it. My issue is with your pretentious condescension.

Oh no... not a twitter [sic] handle... ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 8:30 AM

Nobody cares about the Twitter handle itself, Artie. It was used as an example of how she chooses to present herself to the world - i.e., in a non-professional environment which you insist does not require an honorific and in which they are not customarily used.

No Conan... the people hung up on titles are the same lunatics who flipped out when Elliot Page came out as transgender and changed his name from Ellen. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 8:30 AM

I have no idea who Elliot or Ellen Page is or who flipped out.

Nevertheless, what you describe in that case is just a wee bit more complicated than the pretentious use of an honorific; and is, therefore, not a good analogy.

I see you are in full outrage mode and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 8:30 AM

Your idea of "full outrage mode" needs to be updated, Artie, I don't give a flying rat's ass whether Jill Biden refers to herself as "Doctor" or "Emperor of the Universe." To castigate someone who suggests the usage of an honorific is pretentious, however, reveals a mighty thin skin on the part of the castigator.

Conan Says:

"You have shown third parties using honorifics to refer to people with doctoral level degrees, not the parties themselves. That usage is usually beyond the control of the parties themselves; and is often used to polish the apples of the users, not the degree holder - e.g., a consulting company bragging in presentations to potential clients about how many of its consultants hold advanced degrees."

Nonsense. When you are part of an organization you typically have a great deal of control with regard to how your bio has been written.

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/38168-black-history-month-condoleezza-rice

"Dr. Condoleezza Rice is the first black woman to serve as the United States’ national security adviser, as well as the first black woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State (2005-09). Condoleezza Rice was born in 1954 in Alabama."

Notice how after the initial "Dr." they just start referring to her without honorifics at all.

She could have easily asked them to eliminate the initial honorific.

No one is really obsessed about this stuff the way people like you are.

"H.R. McMaster (History PhD), Stephen Chu (Physics PhD), and Ash Carter (Physics PhD) are further examples of Cabinet-level folks in government who did not choose to use the honorific, despite being entitled to it."

Wrong again...

https://www.energy.gov/contributors/dr-steven-chu

"Dr. Steven Chu served as the Secretary of Energy from January 21, 2009, to April 22, 2013.

Dr. Chu was charged with helping implement President Obama's ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs."

"I have no problem with your education level. I'm neither satisfied with it nor dissatisfied with it. My issue is with your pretentious condescension."

That is all in your head Conan... you see anyone who isn't deferential to you as pretentious and condescending.

I simply don't acknowledge you are my superior and that is enough to ruffle your feathers.

Conan,

I'll also point out that I believe Ash Carter makes for an interesting case because if you look at how his bios are setup:

https://www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Biographies/Biography/Article/602689/ashton-b-carter/

"Secretary Carter has spent more than three decades leveraging his knowledge of science and technology..."

and

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty/ash-carter

"For over 35 years, Secretary Carter has leveraged his experience in national security..."

As you can see, in his case he chose to stick with the honorific "Secretary".

So it seems to me that if you are going to insist that Jill Biden is in some sense "pretentious" then logically speaking you'd have to feel the same way about Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Chu... yet their use of honorifics did not seem to disturb you at all.

It seems to me that this while thing has less to do with the use of honorifics than the fact that you just happen not to respect Jill Biden as a person.

This whole thing is just petty nonsense.

Can we please focus on more important things like the fact that we have a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum in the white house who has indicated to some of his aides that he will refuse to leave come January 20th?

That seems like a more substantive topic than twitter handles that bother you.

Then when I decided it was relevant to a particular conversation we were having you have not stopped complaining that in some sense I am "hung up" on credentials. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 9:17 AM

Commas, Artie. Use your commas.

Artie, you've huffed to at least two people on this forum that they are "not qualified to be admitted to the courses [you are] qualified to teach." And not as statements of fact, but as put-downs, assertions of your intellectual superiority in all matters.

Nonsense. When you are part of an organization you typically have a great deal of control with regard to how your bio has been written. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 10:38 AM

How is Rice "part of" Lewis and Clark Law School's Black Law Student Association?

Rice did not write that biography. Now, go to the biography.com site from which the BLSA took the information for that blurb. Nowhere does that source refer to her as "Dr. Rice."

I'm willing to bet Rice had more influence on the source bio than she did the BLSA blurb at Lewis & Clark Law School. The source site certainly respected her stated wishes more than the BLSA did with regard to the use of "Doctor" in referring to her.

Steven Chu's DoE biography mentioning his doctorate is not a pretentious use of it. He does, after all, hold a Ph.D. in physics, something that could be considered relevant to his position as Secretary of Energy.

What I don't recall are instances where he insisted, "Call me 'Doctor Chu.'" The Wall Street Journal referred to him as, "Energy secretary Steven Chu." His nobelprize.org biography does not refer to him as "Dr. Chu." Nor does it refer to either of his co-awardees as "Doctor."

None of your examples indicate that either Condoleeza Rice or Steven Chu have insisted on the use of an honorific in addressing them or referring to them where it is not relevant to their professional status. Nor do they use one when referring to themselves.

Biden wants the honorific, "Doctor," used in reference to her. And, Artie, that's her right. No one is arguing it isn't. Calling such usage pretentious is not denying her right to be addressed or referred to as "Dr. Biden."

Acknowledging that an Ed.D. is not a rigorous degree is not denying Dr. Biden her right use the honorific either. Pointing out that her thesis is full of mistakes is not denying her the right to use the honorific either.

Pointing out that other, with considerably more difficult doctorates or more accomplishments have chosen not to use the honorific impairs, in no way, Dr. Biden's use of it.

You're the only one taking umbrage here, Artie; the only one with ruffled feathers.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you've huffed to at least two people on this forum that they are "not qualified to be admitted to the courses [you are] qualified to teach." And not as statements of fact, but as put-downs, assertions of your intellectual superiority in all matters."

Good grief you are as obsessed as you are insecure.

There is a reason you refuse to link to whatever conversation you are referencing and it is because it would demonstrate that I don't bring up my own education in a discussion to rub it in anyone's face. My background was brought up by the offending party and I gave a snarky retort, which is a reasonable and measured response.

I didn't even bring up my background in this conversation... you did.

It seems to me your constant demands about me telling you my accomplishments amount to the following stupid summary:

"I demand you tell me your educational and professional background so I can later insist you rub my face in it."

This is just your own irrational insecurities Conan.

I don't care about background information... I am only concerned with facts and evidence.

"Steven Chu's DoE biography mentioning his doctorate is not a pretentious use of it. He does, after all, hold a Ph.D. in physics, something that could be considered relevant to his position as Secretary of Energy."

Just this morning you insisted that Chu "did not choose to use the honorific, despite being entitled to it.".

Now he did use it but it wasn't pretentious so it was okay.

As I've been saying, this whole thing has nothing to do with the usage of honorifics in general and your personal feelings about who is using them.

You are entitled to feel however you want... but the world has zero obligation to be concerned about your particular sensitivities.

"Acknowledging that an Ed.D. is not a rigorous degree is not denying Dr. Biden her right use the honorific either. Pointing out that her thesis is full of mistakes is not denying her the right to use the honorific either."

I don't have the slightest idea how rigorous her particular degree happens to be.

That being said, none of this is really supposed to be a pissing contest between people of differing fields of expertise. Neurosurgeons don't typically denigrate podiatrists for example despite differences in the rigor of their specializations.

That being said I would like for you to help me with the following items:

1 - Please tell me who was on Jill Biden's thesis committee

2 - Please link me to a full digital copy of her thesis

If it is as "full of mistakes" as you claim it is I would like to see for myself.

We can then go through it together and you can let me know what your primary criticisms happen to be.

Conan,

Incidentally, from everything I have been looking at it appears as if folks with doctoral degrees tend to select one honorific to use. As a result they seem to go by "Secretary So and So" or "Dr. So and So"... or they just go by their name with no honorifics at all.

"His nobelprize.org biography does not refer to him as "Dr. Chu." Nor does it refer to either of his co-awardees as "Doctor.""

That isn't surprising at all. The point is that it doesn't refer to any of them as "Mister" either.

As I've been saying, dropping all honorifics is normal... replacing them with "Mr.", "Ms.", or "Mrs." in anything official isn't something that is at all normal or expected (it is possible that exceptions exist but I am not aware of any).

An interesting thing I came across when looking at Bush's Cabinet was the position for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was headed up by "Secretary Dr. James Peake".

To me it seems a bit over the top to stack honorifics like that, but he is an MD.

So if we really want to look at the trend it seems like Ph.D.'s select to go by either "Dr." or "Secretary"... and MD's go by "Secretary Dr.".

Using that as a guideline I think it is fair for Jill Biden to choose either "First Lady" or "Dr."... but "First Lady Dr." seems overboard.

> Whatever you say

Your idioms are just too clumsy— It's like you've read about America, but have no experience with her.

You have a "spouse," not a wife or husband. Perhaps because of something you've read, you imagine Americans will quiver and quake when accused of bigotry, but there's no reason to believe you've so much as shaken hands with a person of a different skin color… Or an American of any description. You think calling a man "miss" is a sick, clever burn.

Chinese. Or institutionalized… One or the other. Or crazy young. You're too needy & defensive to land a punch of any kind. You're a submissive personality, with no impulses toward independence.

Chinese.

Miss Crid,

The word "spouse" is a perfectly fine word to use... I suspect you would have absolutely no issue with it's use by someone you met in person.

You simply object because it prevents you from knowing in this anonymous space if the person I am married to is a man or a woman.

The unknown bothers you... it makes you uncomfortable.

I select such language on purpose because it is important for folks such as yourself to learn how to deal with ambiguity in life.

"You think calling a man "miss" is a sick, clever burn."

Nor a burn Crid... I am just pointing out that if you insist on using any honorifics you life with anyone you run across you should be comfortable being treated in the same manner.

I have no evidence that you are a man anyway. You are just a bunch of words on a screen.

Bitter Anti-Social Crid,

I'll do you a favor though, you shall be greeted with an honorific of your own design.

"I'm a bitter, anti-social blog-visitor" - Crid at July 27, 2006 11:23 AM

It seems to me that you've been bitter and anti-social for at least 15 years now by your own admission.

You've been spending a sizable portion of your life telling complete strangers how bitter they are and as far as I can tell it's always been projection.

You are a broken person and I feel sorry for you... that is genuine by the way. I honestly think you could benefit by getting some help.

> a perfectly fine word to use...

Tellingly desiccated.

> I suspect you would…

Your suspicions are intriguing! Do go on!

> have absolutely no issue with it's
> use by someone you met in person.

We'll, I'd regard them as a stick-up-the-ass, robotically provincial personality, which is what comes to mind here. But I wouldn't throw a drink in their face or anything… I'd swing by the hors d'oeuvres, then get a fresh glass before finding another circle for chat.

> The unknown bothers you...
> it makes you uncomfortable.

Integrity failure bothers me… it makes me annoyed.

> if you insist on using any
> honorifics you life with anyone
> you run across

ESL, right?

> I honestly think you could…

Aren't you always honest? You so often come back for a second swing, as if the moment will always wait for you…

An only child from Tianjin?

"I don't care about background information... I am only concerned with facts and evidence."

Now he did use it but it wasn't pretentious so it was okay.

Do you honestly believe he wrote his DoE bio? It's more likely he scanned the copy he was given and approved it. And his doctorate was likely included to add gravitas. He was, after all, the first scientist to be appointed to a Cabinet position (according to Stanford Univ.). So, using "Dr. Chu" gave the DoE, not to mention Obama, great publicity and reminded people of this important "first."

That being said I would like for you to help me with the following items ... Please link me to a full digital copy of her thesis

Ordinarily I reject your "requests" out of hand, but this time I'll go along with it.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20407226/bidens-dissertation.pdf

Now, you get to complete a request for me:

1. Read Biden's "dissertation/executive position paper
2. Tell me it deserves a doctorate, of any type, and why
3. Tell me that you, with your academic reputation on the line, would have voted to give this woman a doctorate based on this dissertation/executive position paper and why
4. Tell me how this dissertation/executive position paper increases the sum total of knowledge on the education process

Conan Says:

"Do you honestly believe he wrote his DoE bio?"

I certainly believe he had approval over it and could have insisted he was referred to as "Secretary".

I think you are too obsessed with titles. You are focused on meaningless nonsense.

If they really wanted to get "great publicity" they could have even forgone "Dr." and listed him as "Nobel Laureate" which is decidedly more prestigious than "Dr.".

"Ordinarily I reject your "requests" out of hand"

As I said before... your issue is not one of having anything against "pretentious condescension"... you just can't handle it when you aren't the one doing it.

Typically you reject my requests for evidence because you don't actually have it.

As for your questions let's get a few things straight first:

1 - You said it was riddled with mistakes, so please start listing them.

2 - The thesis committee signs off on any degrees. The dissertation itself is simply one piece of how one obtains a degree. After you have written your dissertation you then have to defend the dissertation in both an open and a closed forum that is open to questions. The open session can receive questions from the public and the closed session is where the experts on your committee grill you on your work. Since I was not at her defense (either the open or closed session) I am in no position to render judgment on her work. That someone might have questions about her work would be addressed at the defense itself. Considering she passed I must conclude that she answered any questions and challenges to the satisfaction of her committee.

3 - I am not qualified to be the judge of an Ed.D. degree. As a result I would not stake my academic reputation on it even if it was the finest thesis to ever be written. That should give you pause to think you are qualified to judge any thesis. A thesis committee is selected from a group of experts in fields that are able to accurately assess the quality of the work being scrutinized. There are fields where I would be a relevant expert to judge such scholarly work... this happens not to be one of them.

4 - In order to do such a thing first I would need an extraordinary level of knowledge about the so-called state-of-the-art in this particular field. Some folks will earn doctoral level degrees in comparative literature for example and I wouldn't have the slightest clue if it increased the sum total of knowledge in the field or was merely a rehash of something well known to true experts.

You see Conan, that is the fundamental difference between an expert and a layperson in any field. The expert knows what is known and what isn't known... the layperson doesn't have a good feel for what is known, therefore they don't have a sense of what is unknown either.

In any event, I would love for you to highlight the specific scholarly errors that make you suspect this dissertation should have been tossed in the trash.

So, you didn't read it. After making a big deal about getting ahold of a copy, you made some sanctimonious objection about not being able to judge it and wimped out. You're a piece of work, Artie. You're also full of crap.

You said it was riddled with mistakes, so please start listing them.

You're so smart, you list 'em yourself. But, to do that, Artie, you'll actually have to read the dissertation/executive position paper. When you've done that, let us know.

You can critique the grammar and math errors, or the poor writing, without being an expert in education theory. Remember, Biden taught remedial college English, so she should at least be able to write at a college level.

Somebody looked at the times looked it up. Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon, but if I'd broken a leg out on the prairie three days from town, I'd let him set it while someone went for help. I wouldn't let Jill Biden tell me ANYTHING about the schoolroom, even in a well air-conditioned downtown Hyatt conference room. With a fully-stocked bar just outside the door.


Maybe Orion's in an office in Hangzhou doing all this through some translation tool, and he truly *doesn't* know how to read English… Maybe expecting him to spot flaws in doctorate-level English exceeds his skills in any case.

I scanned the PDF randomly. The first sentence I read was "The unique nature of the classroom allows for a complexity of problems as well." Never seen that word used that way, and it's not especially deft.

I discussed this with my PhD husband yesterday. He agrees that in the US people don't usually use Dr, but he thinks they should and that Dr. Biden is setting a good example.

We chatted a bit about how whether it was one of those American things where people with status make a big show of how they're just one of the guys, like the CEO of a huge corporation riding the shuttle with co-workers, or whether it was a sign that Americans don't value education as much as other places.

He's Germanophone in origin, and in those countries if you're a professor traditionally you get called Herr or Frau Doctor Professor Lastname, even socially on wedding invitations and stuff. Up until recently your spouse would be called that too. Maybe part of the reason it is changing is because of more female professors and their husbands not wanting to be called Mr. Dr. Professor.

Anyhow, just to point out, this is a regional thing and ideas of modesty and when to show honor to someone differ from place to place.

He's Germanophone in origin, and in those countries if you're a professor traditionally you get called Herr or Frau Doctor Professor Lastname, even socially on wedding invitations and stuff. Up until recently your spouse would be called that too. Maybe part of the reason it is changing is because of more female professors and their husbands not wanting to be called Mr. Dr. Professor.

Anyhow, just to point out, this is a regional thing and ideas of modesty and when to show honor to someone differ from place to place.

NicoleK at December 18, 2020 10:39 PM

If the Deutsche Leute had any idea how academically worthless an ed. Dr. was, they would be laughing and pointing too.

In the US it is considered pretentious to use the title outside of an academic setting.

The father of a friend, very proud of his doctorate in Chemistry acquired many years ago, stopped using it after getting pulled from his seat on airplane to resuscitate the guy a few rows back who just had a heart attack.

Conan Says:

"So, you didn't read it. After making a big deal about getting ahold of a copy, you made some sanctimonious objection about not being able to judge it and wimped out. You're a piece of work, Artie. You're also full of crap."

No Conan... in the ~1 hour from when you posted the link I did not read an entire thesis to form a detailed scholarly analysis.

No serious person would do such a thing.

Now back to the subject... what are your scholarly objections to the work in question?

Notice I am asking for scholarly objections... I can name a few subjective cosmetic defects right off the bat, but those don't amount to much in terms of passing of failing a doctoral candidate. For example, I find her typographic alignment to be off putting because I do not believe that so-called "flush left, ragged right" looks particularly professional for a completed thesis. I believe it is more appropriate to use justified typographical alignment to make each side of the text flush. However, that is superficial stuff that doesn't warrant calling her degree into question.

Conan, unless there is some serious scholarly flaw that you can point to I don't see how you can make the kinds of claims you are making.

Are your criticisms in this case cosmetic or serious?

"You're so smart, you list 'em yourself. But, to do that, Artie, you'll actually have to read the dissertation/executive position paper. When you've done that, let us know."

You are the one with the burden of proof here Conan... you claimed it was riddled with errors that would justify negating her degree entirely. I am giving you the chance to let us know exactly what those errors are.

Ugly type setting for example wouldn't warrant what you are talking about.

What substantive critique of the scholarly work do you have here?

NicoleK Says:

"I discussed this with my PhD husband yesterday. He agrees that in the US people don't usually use Dr, but he thinks they should and that Dr. Biden is setting a good example."

I am glad you had a nice chat with your husband.

What I am trying to wrap my head around though is all of the situations folks are running into where they are being required to refer to their MD friends and associates with honorifics in casual settings.

The overwhelming majority of my friends and associates have advanced degrees of one sort or another and we are all on a first name basis.

The only time I refer to a medical professional as "Dr. So and So" is when I am in their office for a medical appointment.

Not one of my MD friends or family insists that I use honorifics at the dinner table.

All of this is exactly the same for folks with PhDs.

I feel like folks are imagining that you're going out to dinner with a friend with a doctoral degree and they are demanding that you refer to them as "Dr." instead of just calling them by their name. I have never seen anything like that happen.

Crid Says:

"Maybe expecting him to spot flaws in doctorate-level English exceeds his skills in any case.

I scanned the PDF randomly. The first sentence I read was "The unique nature of the classroom allows for a complexity of problems as well." Never seen that word used that way, and it's not especially deft."

This is the part you don't seem to really grasp.

That isn't a scholarly critique.

One passes or fails their thesis defense on the basis of the scholarly substance of the material... not on subjective assessment of "deft" word choices or sentence structure.

If you were looking for cosmetic defects you need not have traveled much further than the second sentence where the misspelled word "undeserved" appears. This was obviously supposed to be "underserved".

However, this isn't how one actually assesses a doctoral candidate. This is how unqualified folks might imagine that doctoral candidates are evaluated.

The committee is interested in the scholarly merits of the work, not nitpicking style choices or an unfortunate typographical error.

To fail on the basis of cosmetics the errors would have to simply be all over the place... and even then it would probably be subject to massive revisions assuming the committee found the substantive merits of the work to be worthy of a degree.

I'd like to draw your attention to an important section of a thesis that is often overlooked (it is on the title page):

"A dissertation/executive position paper submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements..."

That word "partial" isn't there by accident. The thesis itself is simply one component of a much larger picture being assessed.

This is why I stress that the defense is at least as important as the dissertation itself.

If you hand in a thesis but don't defend it before the committee you receive nothing.

Often times the degree to which a doctoral candidate is grilled depends on the perception of the quality of the work.

If you have actual substantive scholarly criticisms feel free to share them. No one is the least bit interested if you happen to believe that a particular sentence is "especially deft" or clumsy.

Isab Says:

"In the US it is considered pretentious to use the title outside of an academic setting."

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom must really bother you.

On a more serious note though, this is a particularly bad time for your argument.

We are presently in the middle of a viral pandemic that has killed more than 300,000 Americans.

The folks who developed the vaccine are PhDs and in every single publication I can find on the subject they are referred to using their professional honorifics:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/us/african-american-scientists-vaccine-development-trnd/index.html

Dr. Fauci was sure to refer to them using their honorifics as well:

"The very vaccine that's one of the two that has absolutely exquisite levels -- 94 to 95% efficacy against clinical disease and almost 100% efficacy against serious disease that are shown to be clearly safe -- that vaccine was actually developed in my institute's vaccine research center by a team of scientists led by Dr. Barney Graham and his close colleague, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, or Kizzy Corbett,"

I suppose you find all of that terribly pretentious since none of those folks are in an academic setting. Those folks work in industry and they are reporting an update through the media.

I suppose you would be more comfortable had Dr. Fauci said that the team of scientists was led by Mr. Barney Graham and his close colleague, Ms. Kissmekia Corbett.

Let's get down to brass tacks... the odds that you deal with scientists on a professional level at all is extraordinarily low. As a result you personally find the honorific pretentious because you've never had cause to use it.

That is because of your lack of exposure, not because this kind of thing is actually unusual or atypical.

> That isn't a scholarly critique.

Never said it was, only that it was more effort than you've put into the project for which you demanded the Coney equip you.

You're not American, Orion: You don't say nice things about others.

We've had a lot of pretenders visiting Amy's blog over the years, people across the planet loading her website after a long day work in some unfathomably weird time zone to unzip their pants and indulge in a few minutes of rococo masturbatory fantasy about being American.

'America's so obviously the most exciting and personally fulfilling land on the planet,'

'But I should be there too! I can even out-American the Americans with respect to the petty freedoms & dignities which are so poignantly denied to me in real life!! And none of the people reading this typical American chat venue can tell I'm not really there! On this blog, no one can even tell that I'm not one of them!! I *deserve* to be in America!'

'In America, I would be able to maintain the illusion that I'm always right about everything, by answering each response more than once, even without any evidence, reading or experience to defend my beliefs!! THAT'S how great it would be for me if I lived in America!!!!'

Not the first time this quote has been used here. And the emphasis is mine, because the metaphor is so powerful—

The Third World attitude toward the United States is also easy to understand if you think of it in terms of adolescence. The citizens of the Third World are in a teenage muddle about us--full of envy, imitation, anger and blind puppy love. I have been held at gunpoint by a Shi'ite youth in West Beirut who told me in one breath that America was "pig Satan devil" and that he planned to go to dental school in Dearborn as soon as he got his green card. In Ulundi, in Zululand, I talked to a young man who, as usual, blamed apartheid on the United States. However, he had just visited the U.S. with a church group and also told me, "Everything is so wonderful there. The race relations are so good. And everyone is rich." Just what part of America had he visited, I asked. "The South Side of Chicago," he said.

We are a beautiful twenty-year-old woman and they are a wildly infatuated thirteen-year-old boy. They think of us every moment of the day and we take no notice of them whatsoever. If they can't have a chance to love us, a chance to pester us will do--by becoming "Communists," for example. Anything for attention.

PJ O'Rourke
Give War a Chance
©1992, First Grove Press

Miss Crid Says:

"Never said it was, only that it was more effort than you've put into the project for which you demanded the Coney equip you."

Pointing out that you don't like the style of a particular word choice in some random sentence isn't effort.

As for my request to Conan... did you happen to miss this part?

"We can then go through it together and you can let me know what your primary criticisms happen to be."

I wanted the document in front of me so I could then see for myself what his primary issues were.

He sent me the document but failed to send me his scholarly criticisms... so I asked for those as a follow up.

"I'm a bitter, anti-social blog-visitor" - Crid at July 27, 2006 11:23 AM

This is perhaps the one and only time you relayed anything genuine on this blog.

We all get it, you are bitter, lonely, and anti-social... you've been that way for well over a decade... your unfortunate pathology is clear to pretty much everyone.

We feel sorry for you.

All these clumsy idioms… "Brass tacks"… "I'm a live and let live kind of guy"… You're reading them out of a book for ESL students.

Chinese, right?

He sent me the document but failed to send me his scholarly criticisms... so I asked for those as a follow up. ~ Artemis at December 19, 2020 10:57 AM

I'm not doing your homework for you, Artie.

Read the document without the influence of my opinions. Form your own opinions.

Conan,

For someone constantly complaining about folks being "pretentious" you have no qualifications or authority to assign "homework" to anyone.

This is a discussion... you can choose to participate or you can choose to evade your responsibility to be rigorous in your scholarly criticism.

Not to put it to harshly... but if you were reviewing a scholarly work in a professional capacity and you refused to actually identify your specific objections you would be challenged and excluded as a competent referee by the editor.

You cannot simply say "find the errors yourself".

This is your chance to show everyone your chops as a real scholarly critic.

I eagerly await your scholarly analysis.

For what it is worth, of your original assertion:

"but this one is full of mathematical mistakes, grammar errors"

Based on cursory assessment, I simply do not see the kind of density of grammatical errors to warrant rejecting her thesis based on that alone. The document is legible by any reasonable standards. It is not written in broken English and is understandable.

As for mathematical errors, that might be more substantive if it resulted in her conclusions being unsupported by the underlying data.

If you are asking me if I believe her thesis meets the standards of rigor that were required for my own?... the answer would be no... but that is neither here nor there.

I'm not a snob about these things... her degree takes away nothing from my own. Everyone also understands that a doctoral dissertation in the sciences is fundamentally different than that for a doctoral dissertation in the field of education... or history... or philosophy... or literature.

Just as people understand that there are differences between the rigor of training required to be a pediatrician versus a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Neuro surgeons do not spend their time denigrating dermatologists... I do not spend my time denigrating other folks with doctoral degrees even if my own required different standards for successful completion.

So please, explain the scholarly basis for your objections and I am happy to consider if what you argue makes sense.

Crid,

If you knew anything at all you would understand that non-native English speakers do not really use idioms at all.

I recall once working with someone from Hong Kong and in passing I mentioned that a particular scientific apparatus had "all the bells and whistles"... he didn't have the slightest clue what I was talking about despite otherwise being very competent with conversational discussions.

If you ever had any exposure to people internationally you would know this... but it seems like your life experience is very limited.

You're making shit it up.

> you would understand that
> non-native English speakers do
> not really use idioms at all.

They do when they're trying to pass, but they usually fuck something up... Like forgetting their conversational contractions. I've spent my life in profoundly cosmopolitan cities, from earliest school days to this hour. My childhood apartment building was like the United Nations, only with better softball and friendships. I know the vibe of someone desperate to fit in.

I think you're in the hinterlands of China, maybe the Takla Makan or someplace, and lonely as Hell. Everyone around you squelches your ego all day and night, so this blog is where it allllll comes together…

Except that you're not an American.

That's gotta suck.

So please, explain the scholarly basis for your objections and I am happy to consider if what you argue makes sense. ~ Artemis at December 19, 2020 2:07 PM

No, Artie, you're trying to weasel out of something you got yourself into. Like you always do.

You asked for the link to the document so you could judge it for yourself. I provided it to you. So read it and judge it for yourself.

If you think I'm wrong, say so. I'm not giving you the Cliff's Notes version. You're gonna have to do this one on your own.

Crid,

Your xenophobic nationalistic tendencies are of no concern to me.

"I've spent my life in profoundly cosmopolitan cities, from earliest school days to this hour."

And yet you have not managed to achieve any sense of shared humanity with those around you... you are constantly vigilant about discovering the "other" in your midst... this has apparently made you spiteful and insular.

There is a fundamental difference between being surrounded by different cultures and having that result in a sense of anger... and being surrounded by different cultures and having that result in a sense of acceptance.

Conan Says:

"You asked for the link to the document so you could judge it for yourself. I provided it to you. So read it and judge it for yourself."

Are you illiterate?

This was exactly what I said:

"If it is as "full of mistakes" as you claim it is I would like to see for myself.

We can then go through it together and you can let me know what your primary criticisms happen to be."

I was extremely clear that after sending me the document my expectation was that you would clearly state what your primary criticisms were so we could examine them together.

The only one trying to weasel out in this conversation is you.

I am giving you a chance to express your scholarly criticisms and take a look.

As it stands you took it upon yourself to just assert the existence of "mistakes" that would warrant failure... unfortunately typos and clumsy sentence structure aren't the kinds of errors that cause anyone to fail a thesis defense.

Only substantive errors that directly impact the conclusions matter here.

I suspect you are silent at this time because all you have to fall back on are cosmetic defects... but those aren't sufficient on their own to fail a doctoral candidate.

Bring something substantive to the table or I must conclude you don't have anything meaningful to talk about.

Conan,

Since you seem to have very strong views on this, but no actual experience to back up what you believe... here is a completely independent person expressing the same exact sentiment I have been telling you:

https://www.editage.com/insights/i-found-some-typos-in-one-of-my-publications

"I found some typos in one of my publications but these do not affect the concept or change the meaning/conclusions of the paper. I was told by the editors that such typographical errors can remain and there is no need for an erratum."

Here is the response:

"Minor typographical errors that do not lead to meaning change are acceptable. Of course, as an author I can understand how you are feeling about readers spotting the errors. However, since teh Editor has said that these errors do not require correction through an erratum, I guess you need not worry. Editors have long-standing experience in the field and they would definitely recommend correcting an error that would create a negative impression on authors. However, please be more mindful of typos in your future publications and make sure you do a thorough proofread at the galley proofs stage."

Keep in mind this is a conversation about work published in the literature and not even a personal thesis.

No one wants typos in their professional work... but the standard for earning a doctoral degree is not work that is completely free from cosmetic errors.

What we care about is if an error changes something meaningful about the conclusions of the work.

This is why I keep saying you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

If you have evidence of a mountain then please share it... cosmetic mistakes are not things people lose their mind over when it comes to a thesis.

To be honest, what I find really interesting are the following two thoughts you seem to hold simultaneously... the first is that people with doctoral degrees are supposed to be infallible in the sense that they *never* make even the most minor mistake... yet at the same time it is "pretentious" for them to presume that they know more than you do in their field of expertise.

You demand both utter perfection and complete deference from the same group of people, which is of course irrational... if they are as perfect as you expect them to be, then naturally you should be deferring to them and humbly asking for their input and guidance.

I was extremely clear that after sending me the document my expectation was that you would clearly state what your primary criticisms were so we could examine them together.

I really don't care what your expectation was Artie.

Simple question for you, Artie: Do you honestly believe the person who wrote this dissertation demonstrated enough in-depth knowledge of her subject matter to warrant a doctorate?

Based on cursory assessment, I simply do not see the kind of density of grammatical errors to warrant rejecting her thesis based on that alone. The document is legible by any reasonable standards. It is not written in broken English and is understandable. ~ Artemis at December 19, 2020 2:07 PM

Is legibility the chief criterion by which a doctoral dissertation is to be judged worthy? Might we want to hold it to higher standards?

> Your xenophobic nationalistic
> tendencies

Oh, I'm as mean as a guy can be.

Do you deny that you're not an American?

That's a yes or no question, by the way. You won't answer it.

Conan Says:

"I really don't care what your expectation was Artie."

Then you have no business of saying I was trying to weasel out of anything.

I made it clear from the beginning that I wanted the document so I could have it in front of me when you described your issues with the scholarship of the work in detail.

There was no chicanery on my side of the conversation.

You on the other hand linked me to the document and then went completely silent and refused to share your critique.

This reminds me of ~60 recent failed court cases where the plaintiffs failed to show their work and instead demand that the court just buy into their nonsense claims.

That isn't how serious people think about such things.

"Simple question for you, Artie: Do you honestly believe the person who wrote this dissertation demonstrated enough in-depth knowledge of her subject matter to warrant a doctorate?"

I'm not pretentious enough to believe I am a subject matter expert in a field I have no experience in.

You on the other hand seem to believe that you know better than an entire thesis committee who are recognized experts in the field... and your knowledge level is so very high that you don't even have to bother explaining to anyone what your specific objections are.

This really shouldn't be that difficult for you Conan... stop being pretentious and instead explain your reasoning.

No one cares what Conan's personal feelings are on any particular dissertation. You haven't earned the stripes to be that guy.

If you want to be the guy who just dismisses academic work with a wave of your hand then you need to work very hard and become an editor on a peer reviewed journal... they get to dismiss submissions just because they don't like the title... you are a random blog commenter with no professional experience assessing work of this nature.

For you the bar is set higher and for good reason.

I welcome your scholarly criticisms of the substance of the work.

Assuming you cannot do this I have no choice but to conclude that you are just being emotional.

Crid Says:

"Oh, I'm as mean as a guy can be."

Sure... we all get that you are "mean"... but no one thinks you are tough.

As for being an American, none of this should be confusing for you.

I talk all the time about voting in US elections and my participation in the US tax system. Only citizens do those things legally... and I am not a criminal.

If you cannot comprehend what that means in terms of my citizenship then I cannot help you.

Now that in and of itself wouldn't demonstrate that I was born here, but the thing is that I don't want to participate in your xenophobia by in some sense implying that because someone has lived here their entire life that makes them "better" than someone who may have immigrated and worked their way through the system.

Only racists think in those terms.

If you were genuinely curious about any of this stuff for a legitimate reason I'd be happy to discuss it with you... but your xenophobia is not a legitimate reason to engage because I do not buy into your premise.

You so very badly want to be one of the cool kids....

But you're not American.

"Participation in the US tax system"

I'm not pretentious enough to believe I am a subject matter expert in a field I have no experience in. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2020 5:31 AM

You mean, unlike law enforcement, academic tenure, primary education, economics, medicine, and all the other subjects on which you've never hesitated to comment when you think you can criticize someone else's position, even if that person has vastly more experience in that field than you.

I'm not asking you to be a SME in education, Artie.

We can all recognize when a document is littered with spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors, no matter our field of expertise. We can all recognize a half-assed effort when we see one.

You, on the other hand, refuse to review the document because you want only to sit on the sidelines and snark on the comments of the posters on this forum, to whom you consider yourself superior.

You're demanding that I give you the points on which you'll hang your snarky comments, your petty criticisms. I'm refusing to dance to your tune.

Read the document. Tell me if you think it reflects doctorate level writing - no matter the field. It's that simple. This time, no qualifying comments like "after a cursory examination." Actually read it. If you're as smart as you claim you are, you should have caught several errors even with only a "cursory" examination of it.

You're like the person on the project team who never does any of the work, but sits in the meetings and interjects, "it'll never work." The one who then runs off to the boss to report, making sure to cover his own ass.

You can't be an observer forever, Artie. This time, you'll need to actually commit without having someone else's comments from which to hang your snark.

Assuming you cannot do this I have no choice but to conclude that you are just being emotional. ~ Artemis at December 20, 2020 5:31 AM

Assuming you refuse to do what I've asked, I have no choice but to conclude that you are just being a weasel.

I would love for you to highlight the specific scholarly errors that make you suspect this dissertation should have been tossed in the trash. ~ Artemis at December 18, 2020 5:22 PM

Notice how you turned what I said were spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors into "scholarly errors" so you could huff and sniff about qualifications - and back out of actually reading the document. That's why I called you a weasel.

You demanded I "highlight the specific scholarly errors" when my criticism was of the spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors that litter this document.

Tell you what, Artie, I'll make a deal with you. You actually read the document - no "cursory" qualifiers this time - and, if you tell me that it reflects doctorate level writing, that it's not littered with spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors, I'll tell you the spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors I've caught in it so far.

Conan,

There is a fundamental difference between having an opinion about matters of public interest... such as how law enforcement operates or how our educational system functions... and presuming to overturn the decision of an entire thesis committee when you have no experience at all in judging the merits of scholarly work.

That somehow you think these are similar in any way is disturbing.

I may for example have opinions on how doctors should handle the confidentiality of patient records... but I would *never* presume to tell a surgeon that they botched a surgical procedure without providing extremely good evidence (such as demonstrating that they amputated the wrong appendage based on the medical documentation).

You are presuming to know more than an entire panel of experts and adamantly refuse to show your reasoning.

That is about as pretentious as it gets.

You are presuming to know more than people who are subject matter experts in a field you know next to nothing about.

If you can show some gross issues with the conclusions of the thesis itself then you might have something... outside of that I am not sure what you are doing other than stomping your feet.

"Tell me if you think it reflects doctorate level writing - no matter the field."

Conan, I have tried to explain this to you before, but you live in a fantasy realm when it comes to this kind of thing.

There is no magical threshold of writing quality that elevates doctoral candidates above a reasonably well educated college graduate.

Some folks are incredibly gifted with the written word and others are less so.

Furthermore, writing style is often dictated to some extent by ones thesis advisor... unfortunately one does not have complete freedom to write however they choose.

As an example, in my published work I tend to favor compound-complex sentence structure. This means I usually mull over a given sentence for a while to ensure that I get it just right... and then I later go back and edit when I realize I came up with a better way to express the same ideas. My advisor liked to give doctoral candidates the academic freedom to have their own voice so to speak and was primarily concerned if the results were being accurately represented.

I know of other advisors who insisted on their doctoral students only using simply sentence structure because they had a philosophical belief that it added clarity to the presentation.

To then set my thesis next to theirs and claim that their writing somehow doesn't demonstrate doctoral level authorship while mine does because of controls imposed by their advisor would be unfair.

I have no idea what constraints Jill Biden was under in writing her own thesis. Did she have complete freedom?... did she have a micromanaging advisor?... I don't have the slightest clue and as a result I cannot judge the document in the manner you demand.

What I am trying to explain to you is that I've written a thesis before... I know many many many other people who have written a thesis before... you are presuming things about the process that likely are unfounded.

I am happy to explain more in terms of how it works if you are truly interested, but experience tells me that you already think you know how it works despite having no direct experience in the process at all.

"Notice how you turned what I said were spelling, grammar, and mathematical errors into "scholarly errors" so you could huff and sniff about qualifications - and back out of actually reading the document."

Conan... despite your ideas on the subject, doctoral candidates are not failed on the basis of spelling or grammar errors unless they are to egregious that is utterly destroys the scholarship of the underlying work.

A thesis is not the pristine and error free document that you dream it to be.

It is something that someone composes over a relatively short period of time on very little sleep with a hard deadline on submission prior to a thesis defense.

The author does not have an editorial staff pitching in either.

It is a solo operation under time pressure.

If you ever wrote one you would understand this in a way that you simply cannot lacking that life experience.

Conan,

Since you are very unlikely to take my word for it, please read the following:

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/144106/phd-manuscript-with-grammatical-errors-and-informal-phrases

"I have made a very good contribution in my PhD and just graduated two years ago from a top university with honors.

Today, I revised my PhD manuscript and surprisingly found several grammatical errors, informal sentences that I don't feel comfortable with now, and honestly also found two technical errors (they are correct in my published papers but not in my PhD manuscript). I am really disappointed, and feel like "I don't deserve to be graduated from a top university" with a PhD manuscript that contains a lot of grammatical errors and several informal things.

When I wrote the manuscript, I was happy with the informal things I added, but today I feel really sad by having them in my manuscript since I think they decrease the reputation of my work.

Although that after my defense the committee gave me one month for the minor corrections, but I don't think I have really benefited well from this opportunity. Is this normal? Any suggestions?"

Response 1:

"Yes this is normal. Suggestion: Just forget about it. Most likely, you cannot change anything. Most likely, the only people looking into this are friends who want to read the acknowledgements."

Response 2:

"If all of the technical content of your thesis is contained in other papers, chances are that very few people will read your thesis. If not, write those papers. And it's a thesis — the language doesn't have to be as formal as for a journal paper (although ideally the technical content will be completely correct)."

Response 3:

"Oh mate, I have mine under lock so I don't look at it. It was also 2 years ago, but the day after I submitted, I found 3 typos in the first page, one of them being a word in a completely different color. Its part of the job, we go learning along the way, hopefully"

Anyone who has written a doctoral dissertation knows this phenomenon occurs... you are complaining about something that is fairly par for the course.

Instead of bringing other materials to the discussion, why don't you just read the ones you wanted him to provide?

> As an example, in my published
> work I tend to favor compound-
> complex sentence structure.

Got a sample?

Crid,

I'm not providing you with a sample of writing from my published work.

Artie, I'll agree with you on a few matters, but I feel compelled to point out that you've not yet actually read the dissertation and indicated if you believe it reflects doctoral level work. And now, you're excusing the grammatical errors you haven't read the dissertation to find. You're giving her a pass without actually reviewing her work.

That said, I'm okay with people making some mistakes on a paper. Lord knows, I've made a few. That happens. However, Biden taught English for years and still made obvious and basic mistakes in her own field of expertise.

Whatever committee reviewed her dissertation did not point out these issues - despite representing the college of education. It's one thing for a physics committee to miss some grammar errors. It's quite another for a panel of educators to let them slide.

The basic math errors are another matter.

The other problem is the paper doesn't go into depth, but mostly repeats things from other cited publications. The her credit Biden is good about crediting authors' work she cites. It seems that, unlike her husband, Jill seems to understand what plagiarism is.

Her paper is more of a condensation of other's research than any original research of her own. That may be sufficient for a professional degree, but it does call into question the insistence on the use of the honorific, "Doctor," when referring to her.

My own professional graduate degree did not require a thesis, but the professors were sticklers about grammar and mathematical errors on class papers. Biden's dissertation would not have met a single one of my grad school professors' writing standards. Reading her dissertation, I can't help but wonder if the standards were relaxed for the wife of the state's long-serving senior senator.

Nor have I added any initials or honorifics to my social media profiles - as I've seen done by others with the same degree.

Like I said before, Jill Biden is entitled to ask that people address her as "Dr. Biden." She's free to add "Dr." to her Twitter profile. She has the doctorate degree. Whatever standards the doctoral committee at the University of Delaware expected her work to meet were met. However, others are also entitled to consider that request pretentious. I have no stake in it either way; and don't want one.

I would also like to point out that this is hardly a partisan thing limited to one party, nor is it a misogyny thing. The Washington Post gave Sebastian Gorka a hard time about using the honorific, "Doctor," when he worked in the Trump administration, despite holding a Ph.D. in political science.

Not to mention that psychologist, Phil McGraw, has caught considerable flack for using the honorific to which he is entitled by his Ph.D. in clinical psychology in order to sell his TV show and add legitimacy to the advice he offers.

And I'm not providing you any of the Rare Jewels of Araby which I keep in a series of jars on my basement workbench. Nor will I allow you to bed any of my supermodel girlfriends. You'll never drive any of my European supercars, certainly not my spectacular '95 McLaren F1. You won't be allowed to marvel at my Picasso drawings, or either of my two paintings of his, nor the Botero & Giacometti overlooking the garden in the rear of my estate. You'll never see any of the autographs in my enormous personal library, including Lincoln and Einstein. You'll die of hunger without knowing the tang of the bespoke Pink Starbursts from my personal, sworn-to-secrecy source at the confectioner's experimental kitchen…

…Because you're full of shit, and those things don't exist any more than does your "published work."

Coney— Also Dr. Laura.

> Whatever standards the doctoral
> committee at the University of
> Delaware expected her work to
> meet were met. However, others
> are also entitled to consider
> that request pretentious.

👍

Coney— Also Dr. Laura. ~ Crid at December 20, 2020 8:55 PM

Indeed. Her degree is a Ph.D. in physiology. She later received training in counseling from USC and is, or was, a licensed marriage and family therapist in the state of California.

She has caught considerable flack from the political left for both her traditional views on marriage and family and her use of the honorific, "Doctor" in her radio show and in her professional life.

Part of the Feel-Old algorithm is the passage of such seemingly enormous personages from public consciousness, slickened by their unworthiness for broad attention to begin with. For the last years of her career, Laura (can't think of her last name in this moment, and how about that) (ah, Shlessinger) was thought of and described as a horrific threat to the Republic, a grave moral atrocity casting shame and wretchedness across the vast American cultural tapestry. She was getting older anyway, so she retired.

Two weeks later, we could almost hear the crinkly whistle of the Star Trek transporter as her molecules were removed from our shared time-space continuum.

But it happens with most everyone who isn't a Beatle, Jordan, Woods or, inexplicably, Cher. A remarkable champion in Formula One nearly my exact age is Damon Hill, whose late father Graham was a beloved winner in the racing series, though never himself a champion. Damon had considerable helpings of skill and luck, but only a fraction of his Dad's charisma. Still, champion is champion: He beat mid-career Schumacher! He does commentary for Sky Sports. He can walk around the pits and paddock without interruption. No hot young women, no formerly-hot older women, no overweight middle-agers of any description: NO ONE notices him or pesters him for autographs. Everybody fades away.

On August 27, 2008, Biden was almost there.