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…
The other day, it occurred to me that I have a goodly number of friends who have been in Ph.D. programs (and may still be "in" the program in some more or less official way), and who have more or less finished their graduate research, but who haven't managed to get their dissertations written. (I'…
MommyProf wonders whether some of the goings on in her department are ethical. She presents two cases. I'm going to look at them in reverse order.
Case 2: Faculty member is tenure-track and he and I have collaborated on a paper. He was supposed to work on the literature, and sends me a…
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'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.