SkyDekker 1,465 #26 February 14, 2006 assistant professor and professor are not the same. My assistant has nowhere near my qualifications or experience. If she went out and claimed she held my position, that would be a lie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 February 14, 2006 Quoteassistant professor and professor are not the same. My assistant has nowhere near my qualifications or experience. If she went out and claimed she held my position, that would be a lie. And just what would be the qualifications for professorship, other than holding a tenured position at an institution? Edit: Ah, found something! From Wikipedia: "A professor (Latin: "one who publicly professes to be an expert") (or prof for short) is a senior teacher, lecturer and/or researcher usually employed by a college or university." Sounds like he's got that covered, now doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 February 14, 2006 Quoteother than holding a tenured position at an institution? Did he hold that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteother than holding a tenured position at an institution? Did he hold that? That seems to be the only definition that you'll be satisfied with...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #30 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes look like he isn't a professor, so if he has been claiming that, that would be lie number 1. Professional Experience -Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001 -Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago 1994-1995 -Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994 -Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1991-1995 -Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management, UCLA, 1989-1991 -Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University, 1987-1988 -Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987 -Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, 1984-1986 My God, you're right!! Selective reading, anyone? Looks like lots of VISITING and ASSISTANT to me. And right now he isn't even that. Did you get similarly confused by, say, the difference between Principal and Assistant Principal at your high school? FYI, "Visiting" usually means they are giving you a desk and an office for a year to fill in while someone else is on leave.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 February 14, 2006 QuoteFYI, "Visiting" usually means they are giving you a desk and an office for a year to fill in while someone else is on leave. What if you are hired on directly as a professor, they give you a desk and an office, and you work for a year and then quit? does that count? Just checking, I'd thinking doing the job would count. Now the extent of credentials and experience in the job are a different discussion. But then it comes down to the 'old person' argument "nobody is REALLY qualified unless they've done at least as much as "I" have". Thus demeaning anyone younger or less experienced than them regardless of actual performance. you see that in unions too... Edit: "assistant" sounds like a truly different job description with less responsibility. "Visiting" doesn't sound like a lesser position at all though, just an ego punch to the tenured typees. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 February 14, 2006 QuoteThat seems to be the only definition that you'll be satisfied with.. Is there another definition? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #33 February 14, 2006 Quotedoes look like he isn't a professor, so if he has been claiming that, that would be lie number 1. Oh Christ on Crutches. Gimme a fookin break already. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #34 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteFYI, "Visiting" usually means they are giving you a desk and an office for a year to fill in while someone else is on leave. What if you are hired on directly as a professor, they give you a desk and an office, and you work for a year and then quit? does that count? Just checking, I'd thinking doing the job would count. Now the extent of credentials and experience in the job are a different discussion. But then it comes down to the 'old person' argument "nobody is REALLY qualified unless they've done at least as much as "I" have". Thus demeaning anyone younger or less experienced than them regardless of actual performance. you see that in unions too... Edit: "assistant" sounds like a truly different job description with less responsibility. "Visiting" doesn't sound like a lesser position at all though, just an ego punch to the tenured typees. If you are hired directly as a professor you automatically have tenure and have passed the tenure evaluation during the appointment process. Otherwise you have to be promoted to professor and pass the zillion committees that evaluate your credentials. Basically, "visiting assistant" is the lowest of the low, less powerful than a scooter and scarcely able to trip over small outhouses even with a long run-up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #35 February 14, 2006 oh good lord. this is just nit-pickery nonsense. he has a fucking PhD (or did you and skydekker find something to criticize about that? not from a valid institution? not from one you like?) and was TEACHING at some rather prestigious institutions. and, criticisms of his research aside, if you look at crime stats for states that have concealed carry permits, you'll see IN EVER CASE a drop in violent crimes after the laws were passed. That will NOT be found in the People's Republic of Chicago, Our Nation's Capital, etc. etc. And that, my full Professors, is the principle of MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 February 14, 2006 Quote Looks like lots of VISITING and ASSISTANT to me. And right now he isn't even that. Did you get similarly confused by, say, the difference between Principal and Assistant Principal at your high school? FYI, "Visiting" usually means they are giving you a desk and an office for a year to fill in while someone else is on leave. More from Wiki: QuoteProfessors are qualified experts who typically have four primary occuptional responsibilities: (1) conduct lectures and seminars in their field of study, such as the basic fields of science or literature or the applied fields of engineering, music, medicine, law, or business Looks like he did that Quote2) perform advanced research in their fields Yup, he's got that covered Quote3) provide pro bono community service, including consulting functions (such as advising government and not-for-profit entities) Looks like he's done that, too Quoteand (4) train young academics (graduate students) to become their contemporaries and eventual replacements Don't see that in his professional experience statement, but that doesn't mean he hasn't... Looks like he's pretty well covered the requirements - perhaps not the requirements for your respective universities, however, that does not mean he isn't a professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #37 February 14, 2006 QuoteDon't see that in his professional experience statement, but that doesn't mean he hasn't... Looks like he's pretty well covered the requirements - perhaps not the requirements for your respective universities, however, that does not mean he isn't a professor. I know quite a few people around me who have all the qualifications to become a cop, even do very similar work. I wonder what would happen if they identified themselves as a police officer and tried to arrest some one. Certain positions hold a particular prestige and or/ require a very specific applications and approval process. Claiming to be one, when you are not, is a lie. Yes, he is well educated. Yes, he has worked at prestigious institutions. No, he doens't appear to be a professor. Micro, nice play on words and a thinly veiled personal attack. I said in anotehr thread that you are one of the few on this board I actually respect. It would appear I spoke too soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #38 February 14, 2006 QuoteClaiming to be one, when you are not, is a lie. I know others have claimed him to be a Professor(which he may or may not be depending on what definition use), but since you are calling him a liar can you show me where he has claimed to be a Professor. In other words can you show me where he lied? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #39 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't see that in his professional experience statement, but that doesn't mean he hasn't... Looks like he's pretty well covered the requirements - perhaps not the requirements for your respective universities, however, that does not mean he isn't a professor. I know quite a few people around me who have all the qualifications to become a cop, even do very similar work. I wonder what would happen if they identified themselves as a police officer and tried to arrest some one. Certain positions hold a particular prestige and or/ require a very specific applications and approval process. Claiming to be one, when you are not, is a lie. Yes, he is well educated. Yes, he has worked at prestigious institutions. No, he doens't appear to be a professor. Micro, nice play on words and a thinly veiled personal attack. I said in anotehr thread that you are one of the few on this board I actually respect. It would appear I spoke too soon. ? confused ? what are you talking about? calling you a full professor? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 February 14, 2006 I didn't call him a liar. In my first post on the subject I clearly stated that if he claimed to be a professor, that would be a lie. I also said that claiming to be a professor when you are not is a lie. I didn't say he claimed to be a professor. I do know others do. Which makes for an interesting question. If other publicly call him a professor and he doesn't counter that, does that still make him a liar? I think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 February 14, 2006 Quoteyou and skydikker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #42 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteyou and skydikker omg. dude, i'm so sorry. it wasn't intentional. i'm going back and editing. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #43 February 14, 2006 thanks...rest was setlled in the pm No worries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 February 14, 2006 Quoteassistant professor and professor are not the same. My assistant has nowhere near my qualifications or experience. If she went out and claimed she held my position, that would be a lie. ah, it's been a few years since I directly observed the dick waving of academia. Pettiness at a level that makes the corporate world seem clean and proper. Lott is not currently acting as a professor. He was during much or all of the research phase for his key book. Quibbling over details as to whether or not he was a 'junior' professor or not is lame at best. We all know (or should) that getting tenured at a university has only a little to do with competency or teaching ability. A lot to do with research volume (iow, publications) and politics. We could avoid the problem by calling him "Dr. Lott," but then I'm sure some would feel the urge to remind us he is not a doctor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 February 14, 2006 QuoteWe could avoid the problem by calling him "Dr. Lott," but then I'm sure some would feel the urge to remind us he is not a doctor. they can call him Elmer Fudd for all I care if we'd just off the self serving ego crap about his title and get back to the content of the research itself and the conclusions from it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 February 14, 2006 Quote No handguns, and then no one could get killed by a handgun. Zip guns have been around for a good while and aren't hard to make. Quote Yes everyone has the right to defend themselves, but the more guns that are out there, then the more chances of 'innocent' people getting killed over measly disputes. All stated in this article, which supports my point, so I brouight it up. If you are looking for scientific, black and white, point for point, cause and effect, you will never find it, thus we disagree. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America. The dangers aren't going to increase any further. Quote If we all have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, then we as a country should also believe that every country should be able arm themselves with nuclear weapons, therefore, we would all be safer. Its the same arguement, but on a different scale. I doubt ANYONE in this country would be in favor of that. World history has shown that nuclear nations aren't invaded. After several wars in the 40s-70s, Israel hasn't been touched. But the US therefore can't push around other nuclear nations, so it's hardly in our interest to make them as secure as us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 February 14, 2006 Quote they can call him Elmer Fudd for all I care if we'd just off the self serving ego crap about his title and get back to the content of the research itself and the conclusions from it for some reason opposers are content to say that his research is flawed, but without explaining why. This either could be because the level of statistics is beyond the layman's level, or that they are lying. It's not the easiest stuff to read once you go past the summary portions of his book. We do know that the statistics of anti gun folks like Kellerman is laugh out loud wrong, but it doesn't mean that's Lott's research is conclusive. I wouldn't mind a review by someone qualified that doesn't have a political stand in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #48 February 14, 2006 Quoteah, it's been a few years since I directly observed the dick waving of academia. Pettiness at a level that makes the corporate world seem clean and proper. Like all those stupid ranks in the military and all the saluting shit that comes with it. Silly designations like Marine, or SF or pilot. Fighting over the colour of a beret, now that is dick waving..... QuoteWe could avoid the problem by calling him "Dr. Lott," but then I'm sure some would feel the urge to remind us he is not a doctor. he has a Ph.D. doesn't he? So that would make Dr. Lott correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #49 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuote Looks like lots of VISITING and ASSISTANT to me. And right now he isn't even that. Did you get similarly confused by, say, the difference between Principal and Assistant Principal at your high school? FYI, "Visiting" usually means they are giving you a desk and an office for a year to fill in while someone else is on leave. More from Wiki: QuoteProfessors are qualified experts who typically have four primary occuptional responsibilities: (1) conduct lectures and seminars in their field of study, such as the basic fields of science or literature or the applied fields of engineering, music, medicine, law, or business Looks like he did that Quote2) perform advanced research in their fields Yup, he's got that covered Quote3) provide pro bono community service, including consulting functions (such as advising government and not-for-profit entities) Looks like he's done that, too Quoteand (4) train young academics (graduate students) to become their contemporaries and eventual replacements Don't see that in his professional experience statement, but that doesn't mean he hasn't... Looks like he's pretty well covered the requirements - perhaps not the requirements for your respective universities, however, that does not mean he isn't a professor. He isn't a professor because he isn't one. It's as simple as that. I can twirl a wrench with the best of them and have a very good understanding of aircraft and their systems, but if I claimed to be an airplane mechanic it would be untrue. Very much the same.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #50 February 14, 2006 QuoteQuote they can call him Elmer Fudd for all I care if we'd just off the self serving ego crap about his title and get back to the content of the research itself and the conclusions from it for some reason opposers are content to say that his research is flawed, but without explaining why. . Here are some articles detailing the flaws in Lott's research: The Claims that Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime are Unsubstantiated, Daniel W. Webster, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, March 1997. (Available at http://support.jhsph.edu/departments/gunpolicy/research.cfm; INTERNET.) This paper criticizes the Lott and Mustard study for its methodological and factual flaws. The author notes that Lott and Mustard mistakenly categorize some state laws as shall-issue laws even though a reading of the laws reveals that there is still discretion allowed in granting a concealed carry license. Lott and Mustard's statistical models use arrest ratios (arrests per crime committed in a given year) to predict changes in crime rates—a method deemed inappropriate nearly two decades ago by a National Academy of Sciences panel of experts. As a result of such flawed methodology, Lott and Mustard's findings depart from well-established facts about crime. For example, Lott and Mustard deduce that criminals, in response to shall-issue laws, commit property crime to substitute for crimes which do not involve money or property. The author notes that "no credible criminologic theory can explain why a criminal would steal a car because he felt deterred from assaulting someone." Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent, Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, The Responsive Community, Spring 1997, pp. 46-60. This essay examines two types of flaws in Lott and Mustard's study: their comparisons between states and their assumptions characterizing shall-issue states. First, Zimring and Hawkins write, comparing state crime trends without sufficient controls is misleading because factors such as poverty, drugs, and gang activity vary significantly between right-to-carry states and other states. Second, the authors point out, after confirming that a shall-issue statute was passed, Lott and Mustard make no attempt to measure carrying of handguns by citizens, use of handguns by citizens in self-defense, or offender behavior in relation to street crime. The authors conclude that "what we know from this study about the effects of ‘shall carry' laws is, therefore, nothing at all." Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?, Albert W. Alschuler, Valparaiso University Law Review, Spring 1997, pp. 365-373. This paper summarizes other researchers' critiques of Lott and Mustard's study and raises new questions about their overall conclusions. For example, the author notes that, because gun possession in the home is lawful without concealed carry laws, the deterrent effect of concealed carry should be far greater for stranger homicides than for intra-family homicides. Yet Lott and Mustard report that the proportion of stranger killings increases following the enactment of concealed carry laws, while the proportion of intra-family killings declines. The author concludes, "At this point, there is essentially no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings." Flawed Gun Policy Research Could Endanger Public Safety, Daniel W. Webster, Jon S. Vernick, Jens Ludwig, and Kathleen J. Lester, American Journal of Public Health, June 1997, pp. 918-921. This article examines methodological problems in Lott and Mustard's study and finds that several serious shortcomings render Lott and Mustard's conclusions insupportable. For example, relative to other demographic groups, young black males have very high rates of criminal offending and victimization and older black females have much lower rates of offending and victimization. Lott and Mustard's statistical methods are so badly flawed that their results indicate the proportion of young black males in a county's population was only weakly associated with higher rates of crime, while the proportion of black females older than 65 in a county's population had large positive effects on murder and auto theft, while reducing all other violent crimes. The authors conclude that "the flaws in Lott and Mustard's study of shall-issue laws are so substantial, and the findings so at odds with criminological theory and research, that any conclusions about the effects of shall-issue laws based on this study are dubious at best." Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?, Dan A. Black and Daniel S. Nagin, The Journal of Legal Studies, January 1998, pp. 209-219. This paper demonstrates that Lott and Mustard's results are highly sensitive to small changes in their model and sample. As a result, the data provide no basis for confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime. For example, once Florida is removed from the sample, there is no longer any detectable impact of right-to-carry laws on the rates of murder and rape—the two crimes that Lott and Mustard use to account for 80 percent of the alleged social benefit of right-to-carry laws. The authors conclude that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy." Concealed Gun Carrying Laws and Violent Crime—Evidence from State Panel Data, Jens Ludwig, International Review of Law and Economics, September 1998, pp. 239-254. This paper critiques the Lott and Mustard study by focusing on the minimum age requirements for concealed carry licenses. Because only adults can obtain concealed carry licenses, the author hypothesizes that any deterrent benefits of concealed carry laws should be concentrated among adults and should also be reflected in the difference between adult and juvenile victimization rates. However, the author's results find just the opposite—undermining Lott's argument that concealed carry laws have reduced the rate of homicide. In fact, Ludwig writes, his re-analysis of the Lott and Mustard data suggests that "shall-issue [concealed carry] laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates." Book Review of More Guns, Less Crime, David Hemenway, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), December 31, 1998, pp. 2029-2030. Follow-up correspondence: NEJM, May 20, 1999, pp. 1599-1600. This article reviews the Lott book, More Guns, Less Crime, focusing on the core of the book, a large statistical study of state "right-to-carry" laws. The author points out that crime moves in waves, but Lott‘s analysis does not include variables—such as gangs, drugs, or community policing—that can explain these cycles. This omission leads to illogical results. For example, according to Lott's results, having fewer older black women in a sample will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws. Additionally, some of the data used in the analysis is simply wrong. The reviewer concludes that while Lott deserves high marks for attempting to study a difficult issue, "he deserves failing marks for pressing policy makers to use his results despite the substantial questions that have been raised about his research." Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws, Daniel Webster and Jens Ludwig, paper presented at the "Strengthening the Public Health Debate on Handguns, Crime, and Safety" meeting, Chicago, IL, October 1999. (Available at http://support.jhsph.edu/ departments/gunpolicy/research.cfm; INTERNET.) This paper focuses on problems with the Lott and Mustard study and the authors' interpretations of the findings. Aside from the errors made in the study and analysis, the fundamental problem with Lott's research is that "correlation is not causation." Variables may be related to one another, yet not cause one another. The authors provide the example that, while there is a significant association between a child's shoe size and the child's writing ability, this correlation does not prove that large shoes improve writing ability. Thus the difference in crime rates between Florida and California may mistakenly be attributed to the presence of a permissive concealed carry law in the former, when all or part of the difference may be due to other unmeasured differences, including poverty, drugs, gang activity and police resources, for which Lott does not adequately control. The authors conclude that "the many limitations of Lott's...research indicate that there is no reason to move from [the] view of guns and violence backed by research in previous decades."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
