I think if the average person took a look into what many of these doctorates actually require it would blow the door wide open on a huge scam.
The principle requirement for earning a doctorate is basic intelligence (literacy), time and money.
Not all courses are the same and some subjects require more natural talent than others but there's always a subject to downgrade to if you lack interest or intelligence.
I would tend to assume that people with qualifications in more demanding disciplines would have more general or transferable intelligence but in practice I tend to find this not always the case and quite complex.
Someone with a doctorate in physics unless they paid for it or something you can probably assume they're really good in physics but that's about as far as it goes. Even with a 140 IQ versus someone with a thousand hours in a given subject you're going to be set back especially when it's an advanced subject.
Female's with doctorates are notoriously bad including things such as education. It's not only the lower intelligence requirement but also that those disciplines are quite vague and they tend to churn out lots of people with doctorates that are actually bad in the subject in practice.
I've glimpsed at a few dissertations in these courses in passing from time to time and I think you might be shocked as how easy it really is to get a doctorate. It really largely requires English literature skills. It literally is not rocket science.
You might run some experiment claiming to be science but it can just be getting some people in a room, making them talk about something and then writing about the conversation (discourse analysis).
The title might have a little bit of heft to it for serious disciplines but for soft skills or labour force degrees that anyone can do if they can be bothered the title really is weightless.
People also have this stupid assumption that having this title proves automatically they're more intelligent or skilled. It's a sign of low intelligence for people to think that a title or certificate increases their intelligence.
Second sentence of the Introduction misuses 'undeserved' in place of 'underserved'. She does correct the spelling on page 6 where she repeats her claim.
Her math is questionable. When splitting the average class (about twenty people) by race she finds 75% white, 25% black, 1 Latino, and 'remaining seats' for Asians and non-resident aliens. So we get a total of at least 110% of seats, plus a possible double counting of the Latino.
Her main research question is 'What steps can Delaware Tech take to improve student retention?'. However she details low IQ, high school drop outs, people who can't understand the gist of a statement as attending. Perhaps these people should not be there, and retention rates would go up naturally. They seem doomed to failure anyway.
While it is not a personal criticism of her dissertation she notes 'We know that over a period of about six years, that about 20% of our students will have completed a program”. It looks like this sort of community college in Delaware, which she says is fairly normal, would be a near complete waste of time for 80% of people who ever went there.
Great. Someone who let her step-son abuse a minor.
And as an "educator", she is a mandated reporter.
Ummm....that's LT. Col. Dr. Jill Biden Thank You.
In their simple brains, they think her Doctorate degree means she is a medical doctor.
We better watch it So she doesn't send the Surgeon Army after us 🤣
Shows you how much Caryn Johnson (aka Whoopi Goldberg) knows what the hell she's talking about.
Hint: She has no fucking clue. But we should all call her Caryn Johnson every DAY.
I think if the average person took a look into what many of these doctorates actually require it would blow the door wide open on a huge scam.
The principle requirement for earning a doctorate is basic intelligence (literacy), time and money.
Not all courses are the same and some subjects require more natural talent than others but there's always a subject to downgrade to if you lack interest or intelligence.
You can clearly see this here.
A better look here.
I would tend to assume that people with qualifications in more demanding disciplines would have more general or transferable intelligence but in practice I tend to find this not always the case and quite complex.
Someone with a doctorate in physics unless they paid for it or something you can probably assume they're really good in physics but that's about as far as it goes. Even with a 140 IQ versus someone with a thousand hours in a given subject you're going to be set back especially when it's an advanced subject.
Female's with doctorates are notoriously bad including things such as education. It's not only the lower intelligence requirement but also that those disciplines are quite vague and they tend to churn out lots of people with doctorates that are actually bad in the subject in practice.
I've glimpsed at a few dissertations in these courses in passing from time to time and I think you might be shocked as how easy it really is to get a doctorate. It really largely requires English literature skills. It literally is not rocket science.
You might run some experiment claiming to be science but it can just be getting some people in a room, making them talk about something and then writing about the conversation (discourse analysis).
The title might have a little bit of heft to it for serious disciplines but for soft skills or labour force degrees that anyone can do if they can be bothered the title really is weightless.
People also have this stupid assumption that having this title proves automatically they're more intelligent or skilled. It's a sign of low intelligence for people to think that a title or certificate increases their intelligence.
You can read the first 20 or so pages of her Doctor of Education dissertation here:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/304859163
Second sentence of the Introduction misuses 'undeserved' in place of 'underserved'. She does correct the spelling on page 6 where she repeats her claim.
Her math is questionable. When splitting the average class (about twenty people) by race she finds 75% white, 25% black, 1 Latino, and 'remaining seats' for Asians and non-resident aliens. So we get a total of at least 110% of seats, plus a possible double counting of the Latino.
Her main research question is 'What steps can Delaware Tech take to improve student retention?'. However she details low IQ, high school drop outs, people who can't understand the gist of a statement as attending. Perhaps these people should not be there, and retention rates would go up naturally. They seem doomed to failure anyway.
While it is not a personal criticism of her dissertation she notes 'We know that over a period of about six years, that about 20% of our students will have completed a program”. It looks like this sort of community college in Delaware, which she says is fairly normal, would be a near complete waste of time for 80% of people who ever went there.
If all the surgeon general does is paperwork, and some meet and greets, then I think Jill Biden is still unqualified.