• 5 years - 55 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 9 Goods vs 11 No Goods
• Thread: 255 Goods vs 186 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   448b
   

   Published in 2015. Based on survey data from 2001, 36 interviews conducted in 2005, and four interviews conducted in 2010.

   Its primary insight is that urban students "cross boundaries" -- both physical AND symbolic, on their way to school.

   It is full of platitudes like "place matters."

   It is generally uninformative.

   Has anyone else read it? What do you think?

   I'm not interested in hearing from SJMR's resident racists or the alt-soc Gipper brigade. What do real sociologists studying education, race, and urban inequality think of this book?

   5 years ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 11 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   2ac0
   

   Agreed. How this won the C Wright Mills award is a total mystery. There's no argument in there and no real data.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   8612
   

   Most of the book awards are jokes.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 11 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   8b29
   

   Evicted is on just about every year end top 10 list and it is thinner than single ply toilet paper, substantively and intellectually speaking.

   Urban sociology to toilet.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 14 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   448b
   

   Evicted is on just about every year end top 10 list and it is thinner than single ply toilet paper, substantively and intellectually speaking.
   Urban sociology to toilet.

   So start a thread about it. This is about Shedd.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   448b
   

   Sorry for being so crotical.

   I'm just trying to make SJMR about sociology, and not about +1, beakbans, and an alt-soc bro's mental health.

   If you'd rather talk about something else related to sociology but not about people of color, whose work is apparently not subject to croticism, please go ahead.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 12 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   ea0d
   

   Sorry for being so crotical.
   I'm just trying to make SJMR about sociology, and not about +1, beakbans, and an alt-soc bro's mental health.
   If you'd rather talk about something else related to sociology but not about people of color, whose work is apparently not subject to croticism, please go ahead.

   You know what this site is about. You want to genuinely critique her work? Do so publicly not anonymously. Write a book review based on your relevant scholarly expertise. Host an author meets critic at a conference. Just whining on here about why she supposedly received undeserved awards, you are just fueling the racist and sexist BS on this site.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 21 GOOD 10 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   ea0d
   

   Is your point to advance her work, the field? Or just to mock her?

   5 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   448b
   

   I agree this place is a cesspool. Actually discussing a noteworthy sociology book is, in my opinion, the best way to clean this place up.

   If you don't agree with the negative assessment of this book, then tell us what you think is so impressive about it.

   5 years ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    8509
    

    Amen.

    You know what this site is about. You want to genuinely critique her work? Do so publicly not anonymously. Write a book review based on your relevant scholarly expertise. Host an author meets critic at a conference. Just whining on here about why she supposedly received undeserved awards, you are just fueling the racist and sexist BS on this site.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 7 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

11. Sociologist
    ea0d
    

    No

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

12. Sociologist
    448b
    

    OK. Then, in the absence of supportive statements, the only evaluation of this book that people here will see is mine: It is facile, insufficiently supported, derivative, and very dated.

    No

    5 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

13. Sociologist
    ea0d
    

    No

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

14. Sociologist
    ea0d
    

    Why should we trust your assessment of the book? Who are you? What is your expertise on the subject?

    5 years ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

15. Sociologist
    448b
    

    I'm a person who has read the book. Unlike you, apparently.

    Why should we trust your assessment of the book? Who are you? What is your expertise on the subject?

    5 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 6 NO GOOD !

16. Sociologist
    ea0d
    

    No

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

17. Sociologist
    ea0d
    

    So you are as qualified as an undergrad student to criticize the book.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

18. Sociologist
    0512
    

    When was the last time a book review was actually critical?

    5 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

19. Sociologist
    448b
    

    I'm not going to reveal my identity any quicker than you are, EA0D. I publish regularly on issues related to race and urban schools. But even if I didn't, the fact remains that I know how to read, I know what good research is, I have read this book, and it is not good.

    5 years ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

20. Sociologist
    c72c
    

    EM's review of Desmond Emirybayer Racial Order. So good.

    When was the last time a book review was actually critical?

    5 years ago # QUOTE 10 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.