(03-19-2012, 06:16 AM)Really? Wrote: Splendid advice, but certainly off-topic. The original post was about someone who shops his book to an alleged university, gets a "degree," then shops the exact same work to another alleged university (this one now out of business) and gets a second Ph.D.

When Princeton will grant a PhD from a 15 person group study, I would believe that since pretty much anything is possible at the top schools, it's possible anywhere.

(03-19-2012, 08:49 AM)Ben Johnson Wrote: When Princeton will grant a PhD from a 15 person group study, I would believe that since pretty much anything is possible at the top schools, it's possible anywhere.

Many people in the study, but one author of the dissertation that led to that person earning a Ph.D.:

http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/thesis/1900/...981-10.pdf

Seems like Princeton knew what they were doing after all.

(03-19-2012, 12:22 PM)Really? Wrote: Seems like Princeton knew what they were doing after all.

The field of nuclear physics is apparently different. Incest is encouraged. Didn't other publications came from the same research? I am unsure if any others created a doctor or just raised their pay scale. How do we know that George never had his head up his ass through the whole project and just took good notes - maybe copied from the Asian guy? We don't. It was a 15 person freaking group project.

(03-19-2012, 02:49 PM)Ben Johnson Wrote: The field of nuclear physics is apparently different. Incest is encouraged. Didn't other publications came from the same research? I am unsure if any others created a doctor or just raised their pay scale. How do we know that George never had his head up his ass through the whole project and just took good notes - maybe copied from the Asian guy? We don't. It was a 15 person freaking group project.

How would you have these insights about any doctoral candidate? That's what dissertation proposals, advisors,committees, and viva voce exams are for. As the casual observer, you get access only to the dissertation.

A research program conducted by a group of scientists, one or more of whom earned doctorates from their contributions. This is a problem?

Perhaps you and others have some other problems with Dr. Gollin. I don't know. But arguments like this only serve to weaken them and distract from whatever real concerns you might harbor.

---

And getting (once again) back to the original post, let's add that the person submitting the same work for more than one degree also created said work outside the supervision of a university, committee, and advisor. Did it take the form of a dissertation--literature reviewed, research questions and/or hypotheses posed, research methods described, research conducted under supervision, results analyzed, conclusions drawn, and implications for the academic literature, practice, and future research described.

Doctoral degrees are not awarded for books. Nor is a book the basis for earning two degrees from the same work. Thank goodness this is only hypothetical. I'm glad it never actually happened.

(03-19-2012, 12:22 PM)Really? Wrote:

(03-19-2012, 08:49 AM)Ben Johnson Wrote: When Princeton will grant a PhD from a 15 person group study, I would believe that since pretty much anything is possible at the top schools, it's possible anywhere.

Many people in the study, but one author of the dissertation that led to that person earning a Ph.D.:

http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/thesis/1900/...981-10.pdf

Seems like Princeton knew what they were doing after all.

That Gollin is a complete fraud is old news and well documented. Gollin himself confessed that his dissertation was a "collaboration," and even referred to his co-conspirators as "collaborators." ("My collaborators from then remain some of my closest friends.")

The group "dissertation" is largely verbatim from the group "article" credited to 16 authors. They both have been posted here for years.

Compare:

http://www.dltruth.com/attachment.php?aid=160

http://www.dltruth.com/attachment.php?aid=161

Verdict: Gollin = fraud, liar, scumbag, hypocrite

(03-20-2012, 02:11 AM)Herbert Spencer Wrote: Verdict: Gollin = fraud, liar, scumbag, hypocrite

If Dr. Gollin is the source of your information, and he's the one doing the describing, how can he be a fraud, liar, or hypocrite? (Can't comment on the other--it has no precise meaning in this context.)

As for the process itself, we have to balance the weight of opinions from a few (?) anonymous posters on an obscure website with no discernible claims of higher degrees--the only one using his name and degrees claims two from fake schools--with the weight of the faculty from an Ivy League school. Well, the choice is clear: Gollin, the process for earning your Ph.D. is hereby declared suspect!

(03-20-2012, 02:11 AM)Herbert Spencer Wrote: Verdict: Gollin = fraud, liar, scumbag, hypocrite

Too bad they didn't have Turnitin back in the olden days. Gollum would have been tossed out of school on his empty bald head.

Compare "Gollin's" diss with the 16-author article. Either Gollin put 15 other guys' names on his article or 15 other guys wrote his diss. Either way, he's a lying fuck.



The only significant difference between the two abstracts is that the order of the last two sentences is inverted. Clearly this is someone trying (ineptly) to disguise the fact that the abstracts are identical. This shows the perpetrator knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he did it any way. Mens rea in stars.

Imagine the nerve of such a creep to dare criticize anyone else's degree. The guy is a fraud, a fake, a dissembler, a sham.

Quote:Doctoral degrees are not awarded for books.

Hmm...
If i mention "degrees by published work", are you going to hand me my a$$ back once again the way you did with the "paratrooper ID" thing? Just asking...

---

(03-20-2012, 05:52 AM)Dickie Billericay Wrote:

(03-20-2012, 02:11 AM)Herbert Spencer Wrote: Verdict: Gollin = fraud, liar, scumbag, hypocrite

Too bad they didn't have Turnitin back in the olden days. Gollum would have been tossed out of school on his empty bald head.

Compare "Gollin's" diss with the 16-author article. Either Gollin put 15 other guys' names on his article or 15 other guys wrote his diss. Either way, he's a lying fuck.



The only significant difference between the two abstracts is that the order of the last two sentences is inverted. Clearly this is someone trying (ineptly) to disguise the fact that the abstracts are identical. This shows the perpetrator knew that what he was doing was wrong, but he did it any way. Mens rea in stars.

Imagine the nerve of such a creep to dare criticize anyone else's degree. The guy is a fraud, a fake, a dissembler, a sham.

Come on...the guy wanted some publicity...teamed up with some perverts and nutcases to get it...and got it....integrity can be an expensive thing these days...as long as he toes the party line, the thing is always going to slip away...until one day...maybe...

(03-20-2012, 11:49 PM)ham Wrote: Hmm...
If i mention "degrees by published work", are you going to hand me my a$$ back once again the way you did with the "paratrooper ID" thing? Just asking...

Of course not. Provided, of course, we're talking about someone who earned a doctorate via published work the way it is properly done at recognized universities: by submitting a body of research published in refereed academic journals, brought together in a further piece of writing/research that binds the body of work into a cohesive unit of research. That work is then judged by a committee via viva voce and a determination of if an award is offered and at what level is made.

If we're talking about a book (self-published, no less) whose contents are not a result of a research process judged by peer review (see above), perhaps your use of the term "degrees by published work" deserves a bit more scrutiny. Because that isn't what it means. Not by a long shot.

And it's still OT. We're talking about the same piece of work submitted for two different degrees at two schools. The fact that neither supervised the work nor required further supervised and refereed work is just extra, as is the lack of degree-granting authority of either school.

Quote:If we're talking about a book (self-published, no less) whose contents are not a result of a research process judged by peer review (see above), perhaps your use of the term "degrees by published work" deserves a bit more scrutiny. Because that isn't what it means. Not by a long shot.

Peer review? You mean the kind of stuff mentioned here, with the two identical abstracts? PFFT!
I suspect the degree by published work in the uk is pretty well established beyond whatever anyone may insinuate.