Maybe that's why after 300 years people still love Mozart. 300 years from now, people will be saying "Britney who????"
Conductor Pierre Oundjian and soloist Peter Serkin perform Mozart's Concerto #24 in C minor, K.491 at Tanglewood, 2005.
Posted on 05/22/2006 8:21:58 AM PDT by george76
Ethnic studies — a relatively new field — could be harmed by the plagiarized passages and made-up facts discovered in University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's work, a panel found.
But scholars of ethnic studies, and those who have been closely watching the investigation, have varying opinions on whether there will be a "Churchill effect" on the field.
The stinging report that became public last week rejected Churchill's assertion that there are different research standards for ethnic studies scholars.
Panel members also found that the tenured professor strayed from the "bedrock principles" of scholarship.
The five-member investigative panel arrived at its conclusion that Churchill's patterns of academic misconduct were "serious" largely by looking at the damaging effect his misconduct has on his colleagues at CU and those who study American Indian issues.
Vernon Bellecourt, a senior leader from the Minneapolis-based American Indian Movement, said Churchill's work does irreparable harm to the cause and discredits the scholarly work of others.
"We really think his work is an attack on academia," Bellecourt said.
"I'm also concerned about all the students — particularly Native American students — who have gone through Churchill's classes and were exposed to his shoddy research."
Scholars who have cited Churchill are "innocent" because they did not know Churchill fabricated information, but they also could have done more thorough research, said Tom Brown, a sociology professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
My buddy and I went to rent a video the other day,and came across a DVD on West Point. Hmm. That looks interesting, we thought.
When we turned it on, the PBS logo came up, and we looked at each other, shrugged our shoulders and thought..."Hey, it is about West Point...how bad could they screw it up?"
As the actual video began to play, they showed cadets doing various things at West Point...Two black cadets...an Asian cadet...a hispanic cadet and a woman, a white guy, a black guy and a white guy, a hispanic guy and a black guy...more women, etc...etc.
Of course, they spent ten times the attention on the first black cadet to graduate than they did on General George S. Patton, probably 20 times as much on women, and 50 times as much on how flawed the institution was with things like hazing, low standards and such.
The high point was obviously the Kennedy presidency, and all men wanted to go into either West Point or the Peace Corps, and how the men who went into both were made up of the same stuff...then Kennedy was killed.
Here is the transition into the Vietnam era, with the low, ominous quagmire music, burning palm trees, wounded GIs, GI's mistreating prisoners and so on. They talked about how mistreated and demoralized West Pointers became, going to football games and being called "baby killers", having to wear wigs off campus, and so on.
The thing that INFURIATED me about this was these scumbags who made this PBS "documentary" talk about the mistreatment of West Pointers and our military as if the stigmatization and mistreatment is some kind of thing they had no hand in...something that someone "else" did to our troops.
I am still steaming from watching it.
I should explain what got me off on that track...it seems somewhat disconnected, but I don't think it is. It all boils down to Political Correctness, and how it affects all aspects of academia.
The hiring and tenure granting to the these worthless people and making their garbage, mandatory classes is one of the main reasons, the cost of going to colleges/universities is so expensive.
Thanks. BTW, tune in to Michael Medved's show today, 4-5 and I'll be on, and on "Fox and Friends" tomorrow morning, somewhere around 6:15 EST.
That's fine arts. It's not judged on standards of "research".
Tenure really means keeping the lazy bums who could never get nor keep a real job in the real world.
Many only work 5 hours per week, get the summer and every holiday invented off ( paid ), great benefits like free health care, discounted housing, lovely retirement plans...plus $100,00 per year.
Then then can get book deals, speaking fees...
All thanks to the taxpayers. And they hate the taxpayers.
Don't forget other motivations. Accrediting agencies have been forcing multiculturalism for some time now.
And, of course, universities that care about racial and gender balance (and even though 60% of students are women, "gender balance" means getting more women in the sciences and engineering and racial balance doesn't count Asians of any stripe) figure the easiest way to get it is to have racial- or gender-based areas of study.
Plain old history departments tend to have a lot of white guys.
When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department.
Why the expect anyone to believe them about anything at all with that track-record boggles the sane mind.
As George Bernard Shaw once brilliantly observed...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
Thanks for the feedback.
At age 67, I'm out of the university world.
Most of our younger relatives, nieces, nephews and cousins are in their mid 30's, late 30's and early 40's. The ones who have children entering college age or about to are very concerned about what their children will face.
Re the old white guys in history departments, even in the late 1950's/early 1960's, the old white haired guys in history and political science for the most part were liberal democrats.
That is why there should not be tenure. The lazy ones should know that they will re-enter the real world with us.
"When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department."
Bingo.
My son and some his cousins, (my nephews and nieces) labeled them BS Instant Unemployment Degrees. The only way they could get a job with those degrees was to work on their masters on the way to getting Phds to teach the same required bs to other students forced to take these courses.
-PJ
A lot of what passes for "science" today is just posturing intended for 1 of 2 purposes:
1) Pushing a political agenda
2) Getting more grant money
Pure, honest, ethical science still exists out there. But I'm skeptical about a lot of what passes for "science".
"When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department."
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.