= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Sawin comments on The Neglected Virtue of Scholarship - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (153)
I've complained before about the same thing. My only answer is "it'll pass eventually, the only question is how much we'll have to suffer in the interim".
Fortunately, these ghost writers basically give us a rosetta stone for identifying the lost and valueless fields: anything they consistently produce work on and which can escape detection is such a field.
(Btw, change your last * to a \*.)
With the caveat that low-level undergraduate assignment substance levels are not the same as cutting-edge research substance levels, though they are related.
See my reply to Desrtopa: A non-lost field should have a large enough inferential distance from a layshadow that the layshadow shouldn't be able to show proficiency from a brief perusal of the topic, even at the undergraduate levels.
I think you've started to identify an empirical test to sort the wheat from the chaff in universities. I've read your post from June, and agree. My guess would be that the proportions would turn out to show a lot of very expensive (and heavily subsidized) chaff for every unit of worthwhile wheat. This is a big issue, and I think you've called it correctly.