Elizabeth Chin has written an excellent scholarly takedown, in the form of a "letter from your thesis reader," of Jason Richwine's 2009 Harvard PhD dissertation, " IQ and Immigration."
I've not read Richwine's thesis, though I probably will at some point. And you probably haven't either. But, you'll still find Chin's post informative and compelling.
It is here: What Jason Richwine Should Have Heard from his PhD Committee
While you are on the subject have a look at this: Harvard Students Demand Investigation Into Jason Richwine's Thesis On Hispanic IQ
Hat tip: Jennifer Raff.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
"I spent every night until four in the morning on my dissertation, until I came to the point when I could not write another word, not even the next letter. I went to bed. Eight o'clock the next morning I was up writing again." -Abraham Pais, physicist
You've been in graduate school for many years…
Yes indeed. Sorry. Weeelll. No I'm not, really.
Anyway, so I was idly browsing my "shared by" in google reader and came across My Rebuttal to Romm which is by Keith Kloor who I know nothing about other than that I read Joe Romm ranting at him at some point. Kloor defends himself - read it if you're…
I've been getting a lot of requests from people to talk about the recent Excel bug. For those of
you who haven't heard about this, in Excel 2007, floating point calculations that should result in
a number very, very close to either 65,535 or 65,536 are displaying their result as 100,000.
It's only…
There was a nice piece at Inside Higher Ed yesterday on the myth of more time:
A lack of confidence in one's abilities as a writer, researcher, speaker, etc. is at the root of the myth of more time. When a deadline looms, we become acutely aware of the imminent reception of our work by others. As…
I'm slightly disappointed by the petition. They shouldn't just be opposing it on the basis that his paper is mean. They should be opposing it on the basis that it's bull hockey. Never mind the odious claim he's making; the paper itself is garbage from a scientific standpoint, and should never have been accepted.
I wasn't aware Charles Murray was a big defender of this guy, but upon reflection it isn't surprising.
I am surprised this cod-swallow got past the committee's review - any explanation about what they were thinking? Since they seem to be trying to have it both ways (his empirical work is strong but we don't like what he says) it would seem they have much to account for.