Posted on 03/18/2007 11:10:07 AM PDT by wagglebee
"Positive exceptions occur - and that's where the Ivy league comes in, to vacuum them up into Ivy graduate programs and post-docs. This, of course, only exacerbates the quality differential."
Careful your head doesn't explode.
Have you read about the grade inflation at Harvard?
You are talking undergrads. Graduate students [doctorals] are "graded" mostly on research work, as the course requirements for them are much less rigid. And there are ways to get rid of academically underperforming grads as well - why, I myself have seen it in action, in Princeton. As a charity gesture, they were usually given terminal Master's and pushed out.
"As a charity gesture, they were usually given terminal Master's and pushed out."
The mentality I've seen from the North East in the political and educational system is that if you aren't in the NE then you are a second rater.
Elitism has deep roots in the NE.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with elitism per se, as long as it is meritocratic. Indeed, meritocratic elitism is probably among the most conservative ideas around. As far as academic "pedigree" is concerned, one needs not to be in NE, or even in the Ivies- the word "Ivy" I used loosely, as in "major, highly selective school". For example, U of Chicago is not on the formal "Ivy" list [neither is MIT or Caltech]. But with the late Milton Friedman his students in economics department would easily rank as "Ivy".
The same mantra invoked around here for those who dare to disagree with the self-proclaimed elite. They fail to see that people are opposed to the abuse of science.
Knee jerk reaction by an evo.
If someone doesn't toe the party line, his degree is worth toilet paper no matter what it's in (as in this case).
If someone doesn't have a degree in evo or even science of any kind, and supports it, then they're right because they have the preponderance of evidence behind them (an actual response from an evo to me on FR to a question of why, if he didn't have a degree even in science, he had the authority to speak on evo when other PhD's allegedly don't).
In evoland, it clearly does not matter what ones qualifications are.
Which brings me back to my original question, if this scientist's credentials were worthless, then why did the Smithsonian hire him in the first place?
"The left's main desire is to destroy America's Judeo-Christian heritage."
Not surprising, considering that all leftism is of and from Satan.
You're absolutely right!
I guess some things are just meant to remain a mystery.....
The Washington Post article is remarkably fair for the ComPost, which is hardly a friend of I.D. or an enemy of liberal orthodoxy. Sternberg sounds like a guy who simply likes controversy, which can be good for science. When I was in grad school, it was obvious that many students who got PhDs had no original ideas and never would contribute anything new, but would be successful at "the game" anyway.
Anyway, the article documents how the establishment went after Sternberg, digging into his background, looking for evidence of religious leanings, etc. Classic political character assassination.
"This nothing to do with liberals."
That is factually incorrect.
Atheism, and, indeed, every notion that undermines, dilutes, or weakens faith in God, stems from the same source as leftism. Destruction of belief in God is one of the indispensible planks of leftism. This idea belongs to the left.
Skepticism and even outright atheism by themselves might not make one a liberal, but they do at least make one a substantially conservative person who nonetheless espouses one central principle of the left.
Further, an atheist conservative has in the final analysis no support for his beliefs beyond his personal preference.
"It about a non-scientific nut-job of an idea trying to pose as science."
For you, then, the idea that there is a Supreme Being who created the universe, all that is seen and unseen, by processes unknown and which may have taken billions of years, is a nut-job of an idea?
And of course, you're an expert on nuts.
Einstein did his greatest work, producing a string of the most important papers in the history of physics, while working at the Swiss patent office, which certainly wasn't a "scientific powerhouse" either. One reason he was stuck there is that his professors considered him a rebel, which is what Sternberg seems to be (not that he is another Einstein).
"There's absolutely nothing wrong with elitism per se, as long as it is meritocratic."
meritocratic meaning "i attended one of the ivy league schools"
Wonderful observations!
Those scientists who argued the earth went around the sun were persecuted by religious authorities, not other scientists.
I'm curious, how many of the primary inventors/discoverers of MAJOR technological or scientific breakthroughs of the past two centuries had doctoral degrees from Ivy League schools (or schools of similar stature)?
"Those scientists who argued the earth went around the sun were persecuted by religious authorities, not other scientists."
At the time the religious authorities and scientific authorities were one and the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.