Not a Joke: More of a Commentary on Allegedly Smart PhDs
April 1, 2020
Trigger warning: This is not about search, cybercrime, intelware, or any of the other hobby horses I flog each day as I have since 2008.
Before I highlight the real news item from the “we beg for dollars” outfit the Guardian, try to answer these questions:
- Did the PhD get his degree online?
- Did the PhD understand the equation F = q2B1v2 sin theta?
- Did the PhD think that people would shove ceramic magnets up their nose?
Okay, now navigate to “Astrophysicist Gets Magnets Stuck Up Nose While Inventing Coronavirus Device.” The allegedly accurate write up states:
Australian Dr Daniel Reardon ended up in hospital after inserting magnets in his nostrils while building a necklace that warns you when you touch your face.
The newspaper provides a number of details. Here’s one:
Before attending the hospital, Reardon attempted to use pliers to pull them out, but they became magnetized by the magnets inside his nose.
You too can get a PhD online, impress your friends, and invent new things. Darwin award nominee?
Stephen E Arnold, April 1, 2020
Comments
One Response to “Not a Joke: More of a Commentary on Allegedly Smart PhDs”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
An organised and multifaceted national and continental campaign needs to be mounted to root out corruption. Relevant ministries, academic institutions, law enforcement agencies and quality assurance bodies need to collectively intensify their efforts not only to punish criminals but also to proactively sensitise academics, students and society at large on matters and the consequences of academic fraud. The recent visit to the University of Botswana by members of Nigeria’s Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption to learn about combatting corruption is one such trans-national effort. For their part, academic institutions need to take matters of academic fraud, such as plagiarism, which is the most common academic offence, more seriously. Regardless of its resources, no academic institution should allow its students, especially postgraduates, to graduate without subjecting their work to plagiarism detection software. Indeed, while they suffer certain limitations, a number of such tools are available free of charge as well as for sale. If nothing else, they would serve as a deterrent. The need to create awareness and sensitisation must be taken seriously in light of increasingly cunning and audacious internal and external fraudsters that target academia. Fraudulent journals, accreditation agencies and conferences have become increasingly difficult to track, authenticate and pursue. This challenge is not limited to emerging academics but also confronts their seasoned colleagues. Institutions also need to review their academic policies and guidelines which largely focus on exigencies and convenience rather than quality control and excellence. For example, doing away with exit (public) defences for PhDs (following dissertation review) inspires lenience towards, if not directly encourages, fraud.