What has AP contributed to the field? He is a cancer and an opportunist who is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Are CCJ PhDs intellectually average?
-
Alex Piquero�s publishing cartel has probably done more damage to the CCJ PhD reputation than anything else. A marginal scholar circus.
He did what he had to do to become the first person of Hispanic origin to be appointed Director of the BJS by President Biden, can't blame him for that.
-
Alex Piquero?s publishing cartel has probably done more damage to the CCJ PhD reputation than anything else. A marginal scholar circus.
He did what he had to do to become the first person of Hispanic origin to be appointed Director of the BJS by President Biden, can't blame him for that.Sure. Just like a female praying mantis eats its mate after they seed her. He took everything out of CCJ that could allow it to stand up as anything other than just a p a t h e t i c 5 year MBA style training program and earned a f a t check. He should be applauded.
-
Alex Piquero?s publishing cartel has probably done more damage to the CCJ PhD reputation than anything else. A marginal scholar circus.
He did what he had to do to become the first person of Hispanic origin to be appointed Director of the BJS by President Biden, can't blame him for that.
Sure. Just like a female praying mantis eats its mate after they seed her. He took everything out of CCJ that could allow it to stand up as anything other than just a p a t h e t i c 5 year MBA style training program and earned a f a t check. He should be applauded.Jacob chill
-
Clearly written by a butt-hurt sociologist jealous of the higher salaries and greater influence of Crim. Rob Sampson, Richard Wright, are two pretty big thinkers with PhDs in Crim.
Intellectually average is being nice. There isn’t a single other discipline in academia that can’t even make the claim that it does the best work in its own field. CCJ is a dumpster of marginal research purely for applied purposes. It contributed virtually nothing to knowledge other than a deluge of repetitive studies that have already been done.
-
Clearly written by a butt-hurt sociologist jealous of the higher salaries and greater influence of Crim. Rob Sampson, Richard Wright, are two pretty big thinkers with PhDs in Crim.
Intellectually average is being nice. There isn�t a single other discipline in academia that can�t even make the claim that it does the best work in its own field. CCJ is a dumpster of marginal research purely for applied purposes. It contributed virtually nothing to knowledge other than a deluge of repetitive studies that have already been done.Sociologists do better criminology than CCJ PhDs and have access to better paying, more prestigious jobs. I don’t know how this is lost on you.
-
Sociologists haven't produced anything of value in forty years or more.
Go back to publishing ethnographic mesearch in the Journal of Fat Studies.CCJ tards so salty. Go look who wins the book and article awards at your second-rate conferences when you are done pulling one out to your gum statue of Rob Sampson.
-
Uhhhh...no. Go look at the salaries of the criminologists vs sociologists (at least at the State unis where they publish them) and you'll see how wrong you are. There are criminologists making over $250K at UMD, GSU, and other spots.
Clearly written by a butt-hurt sociologist jealous of the higher salaries and greater influence of Crim. Rob Sampson, Richard Wright, are two pretty big thinkers with PhDs in Crim.
Intellectually average is being nice. There isn?t a single other discipline in academia that can?t even make the claim that it does the best work in its own field. CCJ is a dumpster of marginal research purely for applied purposes. It contributed virtually nothing to knowledge other than a deluge of repetitive studies that have already been done.
Sociologists do better criminology than CCJ PhDs and have access to better paying, more prestigious jobs. I don�t know how this is lost on you. -
I don't think CCJ PhDs are intellectually average. I think that the average people are the ones who rise to the top in the field. Think back to your graduate school days. Were the students who left with 10 publications and lots of research mentorship the smartest and most creative students, or were they chosen because they were good at br/own/nos/ing star professors? The reason why CCJ has so many average people at the top is because professors ignore the intellectually gifted students and they end up at teaching schools, while average people are mentored into R1 gigs. The average people are not a threat, so they get promoted.
-
Say it louder for the people in the back!!!
I don't think CCJ PhDs are intellectually average. I think that the average people are the ones who rise to the top in the field. Think back to your graduate school days. Were the students who left with 10 publications and lots of research mentorship the smartest and most creative students, or were they chosen because they were good at br/own/nos/ing star professors? The reason why CCJ has so many average people at the top is because professors ignore the intellectually gifted students and they end up at teaching schools, while average people are mentored into R1 gigs. The average people are not a threat, so they get promoted.
-
I don't think CCJ PhDs are intellectually average. I think that the average people are the ones who rise to the top in the field. Think back to your graduate school days. Were the students who left with 10 publications and lots of research mentorship the smartest and most creative students, or were they chosen because they were good at br/own/nos/ing star professors? The reason why CCJ has so many average people at the top is because professors ignore the intellectually gifted students and they end up at teaching schools, while average people are mentored into R1 gigs. The average people are not a threat, so they get promoted.
The key issue here is that the students who left with 1 or 2 publications in top journals that were independently authored were the most intellectually gifted and landed higher than those students with 10 collaboratively published pieces. CCJ PhDs never learn how to have an independent thought because theory isn’t valued. Instead it’s a numbers game of “wow this finding held in this town, let’s test it again with statewide data, and then with regional data, and then with national data!” As if somehow sampling theory is sensitive to this stoopid arbitrary populations.
-
The key issue here is that the students who left with 1 or 2 publications in top journals that were independently authored were the most intellectually gifted and landed higher than those students with 10 collaboratively published pieces. CCJ PhDs never learn how to have an independent thought because theory isn�t valued. Instead it�s a numbers game of �wow this finding held in this town, let�s test it again with statewide data, and then with regional data, and then with national data!� As if somehow sampling theory is sensitive to this stoopid arbitrary populations.
Where are these students with 1 or 2 solo publications in top journals right out of graduate school? It's incredibly rare, and most of those "independently authored" papers tend to have a lot of help from faculty mentors. The truth is that the faces and names you see at the top of the field are all there because they were mentored to be there. There is no way of getting around that fact. It is practically impossible to work your way to the top of the field without star professors connecting you with people and opportunities. Professors at teaching institutions are often looked at as less than those at R1s when in many cases faculty at teaching institutions intellectually run circles around R1 faculty, but they just didn't get the same pushes and opportunities.
-
The key issue here is that the students who left with 1 or 2 publications in top journals that were independently authored were the most intellectually gifted and landed higher than those students with 10 collaboratively published pieces. CCJ PhDs never learn how to have an independent thought because theory isn?t valued. Instead it?s a numbers game of ?wow this finding held in this town, let?s test it again with statewide data, and then with regional data, and then with national data!? As if somehow sampling theory is sensitive to this stoopid arbitrary populations.
Where are these students with 1 or 2 solo publications in top journals right out of graduate school? It's incredibly rare, and most of those "independently authored" papers tend to have a lot of help from faculty mentors. The truth is that the faces and names you see at the top of the field are all there because they were mentored to be there. There is no way of getting around that fact. It is practically impossible to work your way to the top of the field without star professors connecting you with people and opportunities. Professors at teaching institutions are often looked at as less than those at R1s when in many cases faculty at teaching institutions intellectually run circles around R1 faculty, but they just didn't get the same pushes and opportunities.Literally look at the placement list of any top-20 soc program and you’ll find plenty of them, especially in the top-5. I still don’t understand what your premise is. Where are the CCJ PhD grad students with an independent paper…at all?