But what's the evidence of this plagiarism? Is the poster a disgruntled grad flake? Jealous cohort member? Or what?
Some user claims CG@Harvard is a plagiarist
-
Does it matter? She’s obviously an inferior scholar relative to CF at Michigan. That’s all that really matters.
It matters. Being an inferior scholar is still better than being a plagiarist. Some user keeps accusing her of plagiarism, so I want to see evidence to support that charge.
-
Not that CG's work is original--far from that. For example, the 2004 APSR is obviously highly derivative of Dawson’s Behind the Mule, a 1994 book that also considers race and socioeconomic status among African Americans as factors for political choice, and also analyzes attitudes regarding "linked fate". But it doesn't seem like wholesale plagiarism, at least not at first glance. REP people should weigh in.
-
Not that CG's work is original--far from that. For example, the 2004 APSR is obviously highly derivative of Dawson’s Behind the Mule, a 1994 book that also considers race and socioeconomic status among African Americans as factors for political choice, and also analyzes attitudes regarding "linked fate". But it doesn't seem like wholesale plagiarism, at least not at first glance. REP people should weigh in.
This brings the question of whether or not we should treat derivative work as plagiarism. There is plenty of research that, if we look back even a decade, appears to be derivative. Even more research will seem redundant if we look beyond the borders of political science into sociology or economics.
If we can accuse her of plagiarism for having an idea that is not innovative, we might have to charge several other people of the same thing today. -
Third post of this thread.
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/is-academia-a-“very-questionable-and-damaging-enterprise”Most likely someone said it hoping to get that thread deleted. No reason to bring that guy’s twitter onto the site. He’s not even in political science anymore.
-
It depends. What is her value-added to Dawson's theory, methods, and findings?
Not that CG's work is original--far from that. For example, the 2004 APSR is obviously highly derivative of Dawson’s Behind the Mule, a 1994 book that also considers race and socioeconomic status among African Americans as factors for political choice, and also analyzes attitudes regarding "linked fate". But it doesn't seem like wholesale plagiarism, at least not at first glance. REP people should weigh in.
This brings the question of whether or not we should treat derivative work as plagiarism. There is plenty of research that, if we look back even a decade, appears to be derivative. Even more research will seem redundant if we look beyond the borders of political science into sociology or economics.
If we can accuse her of plagiarism for having an idea that is not innovative, we might have to charge several other people of the same thing today. -
Not that CG's work is original--far from that. For example, the 2004 APSR is obviously highly derivative of Dawson’s Behind the Mule, a 1994 book that also considers race and socioeconomic status among African Americans as factors for political choice, and also analyzes attitudes regarding "linked fate". But it doesn't seem like wholesale plagiarism, at least not at first glance. REP people should weigh in.
The paper is explicit that the theory is based on Dawson's work; its contribution is to test how neighborhood context moderates black racial attitudes.
The claims about plagiarism are absurd.
-
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
Not that CG's work is original--far from that. For example, the 2004 APSR is obviously highly derivative of Dawson’s Behind the Mule, a 1994 book that also considers race and socioeconomic status among African Americans as factors for political choice, and also analyzes attitudes regarding "linked fate". But it doesn't seem like wholesale plagiarism, at least not at first glance. REP people should weigh in.
The paper is explicit that the theory is based on Dawson's work; its contribution is to test how neighborhood context moderates black racial attitudes.
The claims about plagiarism are absurd. -
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
What on earth are you talking about? The tests (with confidence intervals) are shown in the table. The figures are either descriptive stats or predicted probabilities.
The fact that people are trying to equate a supposed lack of originality (despite identifying the original part in the same breath) with "plagiarism" is hilarious.
-
Third post of this thread.
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/is-academia-a-“very-questionable-and-damaging-enterprise”Most likely someone said it hoping to get that thread deleted. No reason to bring that guy’s twitter onto the site. He’s not even in political science anymore.
This. I post ridiculous and obscene things in threads I want taken down all the time. It gets the mods’ attention if they’re around.
-
Third post of this thread.
https://www.poliscirumors.com/topic/is-academia-a-“very-questionable-and-damaging-enterprise”Most likely someone said it hoping to get that thread deleted. No reason to bring that guy’s twitter onto the site. He’s not even in political science anymore.
who's twitter?
-
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
What on earth are you talking about? The tests (with confidence intervals) are shown in the table. The figures are either descriptive stats or predicted probabilities.
The reply reeks of ignorance. Someone please post some links to primers on probit regression, and testing and interpreting interaction effects. We know CG trolls this forum on a daily basis to send everyone "reminders" of what a success she is with her "5 solo top-3 hits" and a Harvard deanship, and what a failure everyone else is. Hopefully she will click on the links and learn the basics before retirement.
She also seems extremely confused about what she actually reports in those tables. Hint: it's not confidence intervals, it's standard errors.
-
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
What on earth are you talking about? The tests (with confidence intervals) are shown in the table. The figures are either descriptive stats or predicted probabilities.The reply reeks of ignorance. Someone please post some links to primers on probit regression, and testing and interpreting interaction effects. We know CG trolls this forum on a daily basis to send everyone "reminders" of what a success she is with her "5 solo top-3 hits" and a Harvard deanship, and what a failure everyone else is. Hopefully she will click on the links and learn the basics before retirement.
She also seems extremely confused about what she actually reports in those tables. Hint: it's not confidence intervals, it's standard errors.She has 5 solo top 3 hits and a Dean. Far more accomplishments than you, failed grad flake.
-
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
What on earth are you talking about? The tests (with confidence intervals) are shown in the table. The figures are either descriptive stats or predicted probabilities.The reply reeks of ignorance. Someone please post some links to primers on probit regression, and testing and interpreting interaction effects. We know CG trolls this forum on a daily basis to send everyone "reminders" of what a success she is with her "5 solo top-3 hits" and a Harvard deanship, and what a failure everyone else is. Hopefully she will click on the links and learn the basics before retirement.
She also seems extremely confused about what she actually reports in those tables. Hint: it's not confidence intervals, it's standard errors.Nice, more babbling nonsense! You guys are getting desperate! One poster idiotically claims CG doesn't do any hypothesis testing with CIs in that paper. Then it's pointed out there's a table with exactly that. Now the hilarious response is no, those are standard errors! Hahaha.
These racist idiots have pored through everything trying to find a real critique of CG's work and they got nothing. It's so sad.
-
Do you understand the difference between CIs and SEs?
Just googled the paper. Can't speak to the plagiarism claims as I haven't read that book. But her value-added, as you describe it, is testing the interaction effect of neighborhood. And she doesn't even put some confidence intervals on those graphs to check whether differences are significant? She can't test her hypotheses with those analyses. How was this not desk rejected, assuming it wasn't plagiarized?
What on earth are you talking about? The tests (with confidence intervals) are shown in the table. The figures are either descriptive stats or predicted probabilities.
The reply reeks of ignorance. Someone please post some links to primers on probit regression, and testing and interpreting interaction effects. We know CG trolls this forum on a daily basis to send everyone "reminders" of what a success she is with her "5 solo top-3 hits" and a Harvard deanship, and what a failure everyone else is. Hopefully she will click on the links and learn the basics before retirement.
She also seems extremely confused about what she actually reports in those tables. Hint: it's not confidence intervals, it's standard errors.Nice, more babbling nonsense! You guys are getting desperate! One poster idiotically claims CG doesn't do any hypothesis testing with CIs in that paper. Then it's pointed out there's a table with exactly that. Now the hilarious response is no, those are standard errors! Hahaha.
These racist idiots have pored through everything trying to find a real critique of CG's work and they got nothing. It's so sad.