Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(79)
-
►
May
(19)
- Wiley's Philosophy Spotlight
- Philosophy Blogs
- Department Meeting Rule #1
- Everyone's a Critic?
- Department Meeting Rule #2
- Department Meeting Rule #3
- Robin Gibb Posse
- Is it Wrong?
- Department Meeting Rule #4
- Donna Summer Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #5
- Department Meeting Rule #6
- A Plea to Academic Publishers
- Department Meeting Rule #7
- Maurice Sendak Posse
- Crap Websites
- MCA Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #8
- Department Meeting Rule #9
-
►
April
(14)
- Department Meeting Rule #10
- Films in Class?
- Somewhere in April time, they add another hour
- Everyone Gets a DVD
- Dick Clark Posse
- Reign in Blood Wine
- Someone in Austin Needs a Guitarist
- New APA Executive Director
- Note to an Underegraduate Student
- Profiles in Crappy Guitar Work
- APA Session Rule #1
- Mike Wallace Posse
- Book display
- Doom in Seattle
-
►
May
(19)
19 comments:
Love the number choice on this one!
wv: euseist; computer co-dependency
Why can't they just go to fucking hell!
wv: butme -- everyone butme gets interesting wv's/ that there ram looks like it's going to butme.
Incompetence, it seems, pays a pretty penny.
WV: fragic. Speaks for itself, methinks.
John W. Etchemendy (Provost, Stanford), Paul Benaceraf (Provost, Princeton)... these are incompetents?
You must have inhaled a lot of second-hand pot smoke at the last heavy metal concert you attended...
Anon 11:03:
These aren't counter-examples, as Law 33.333... is that the only place for tenured hacks is admin. That doesn't entail that all admin are tenured hacks. Parallel: the only place for hotwings is my belly, but that don't mean that there's only hotwings in there... there's beer, too.
11:03: You're the one who is dazed & confused (or maybe just clueless). The law does not entail the claim that all administrators are incompetent academics. So providing names of non-incompetent academics who are university administrators does not supply a counterexample. Duh. Skipped baby logic?
Anon 11:42 here. Stinky and I are like Newton and Leibniz....
Rocking the fallacy detector!
11:03 probably satisfies Law #139, too...
WV: expines. When one renounces a formerly asserted claim, for no particular reason.
From 11:03:
You boys and girls should put your Critical Thinking textbooks aside and ponder this: If administrative jobs attract people like those I mentioned, it highly unlikely that tenured incompetents could gain access to Deanery jobs as easily as the "law" suggests.
I never held an administrative job (and never will if I can help it), but I know that aside from the two philosophers mentioned above, there also was the brilliant mathematician and logician Dana Scott (Dean, Carnegie Mellon) and many, many other very competent folks who for various reasons took administrative jobs at some point in their careers.
So I stand by my earlier comment. Those who suggest (along with the moronic law of Spiros' post) that it is somehow common, or natural, or easy for incompetents to get into a Dean's or Provost's office are either stoned or naturally delusional.
11:03 says,
"Those who suggest (along with the moronic law of Spiros' post) that it is somehow common, or natural, or easy for incompetents to get into a Dean's or Provost's office are either stoned or naturally delusional."
The law doesn't suggest that, dubmass.
Critical Thinking Textbook, 1
Dummy Anon Poster, 0
@10:53
Perhaps you see this "law" from inside some armpit of the academic world (say, Southeastern Alabama College of Bible Studies), where every incompetent asshole gets tenured, and that automatically assures that anyone from the tenured ranks to get into administration will be incompetent.
Now reflect on this, you retard: In good schools, only competent people get tenured, which assures that those who move to administrative jobs are automatically competent.
11:03
11:03,
10:53 here. Good to see you're too stupid to understand the error in baby logic you're repeatedly making. Your claim that "In good schools, only competent people get tenured, which assures that those who move to administrative jobs are automatically competent" in no way contradicts the proposed law. The law does not say that only incompetents go into admin, nor does it say that admin is filled with incompetents. It says only that once they're tenured, there's no place else for incompetent academics to go but administration. This is consistent with the claim that no incompetent academics are in administration.
Maybe it's time to break out that Critical Thinking textbook after all? Or, better yet, enroll in freshman logic. No... wait... make that *remedial* freshman logic.
Where do they go after that?
Just a bystander, but 11:03's reply actually confirms the law. S/he says that at good schools, no one who is incompetent gets tenure, therefore there are no tenured incompetents; thus there are no incompetent academics in admin. As was pointed out, this in no way counterexamples the law because the law says nothing about what happens when no incompetents get tenure. But 11:03 also says that at crappy schools, incompetents do get tenure, and so eventually populate the admin.
And that's exactly what Spiros's law affirms.
Can I get a "QED!" now?
12:18,
QEfuckinD!
Bystander @ 12:18: Nicely done QED!
11:30: You're a tool!
C'mon, 11:03 has a point.
If the NBA has a good number of highly qualified basketball players, it doesn't entail that there will be no incompetent players, but it does suggest that the pool of folks who are *wanting* to be NBA players will be populated with folks who are competent. This, in turn, makes it less likely that incompetent folks will become members given the level of competition and the general expected standards.
So, if a healthy number of administrators are *not* incompetent, that *suggests* the incompetent folks will not find a home there.
Is it logically necessary? no. But, really, little is.
Nonetheless, I don't take these 'laws' to be actual assertions of fact but general reflections that capture our feelings when we are feeling thwarted and frustrated as we just try and do a good job.
I saw a lot of helpful data above!
Post a Comment