X-Envelope-to: psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"psycgrad@uottawa.bitnet"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:44:44 -0700
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         WAGNERL@CGSVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU
Subject:      Colorado cocaine addicts

This is in response to the idea of having someone else run your
statistics for your dissertation:

        This whole discussion has been troubling to me.  However, the
result that Jennifer describes in her last posting was downright
depressing to me.  I started to have a sinking feeling when she said
"...now I'll tell the truth."  When she said "the story gets better" it
merely raised my expectations making what followed even more painful.
        Being a single mom justifies many things I suppose.  Of course
I can't judge, because I only have a glimpse of the entire story, and
I have no desire to pass judgement.  I do want to express my feeling
of sadness however.
        That said, I think a dissertation should be the responsibility
of the author.  I don't believe the author can, with a clear conscience,
take responsibility for statistics run by someone else.  There is too
much to take into account in terms of assumptions, coding, interpretation
of computer warnings and errors, appropriate tests, appropriate data
entry, appropriate data screening, ad nauseum.  I mean what do you do?
hand somebody a pile of data and say "tell me if this is significant"
and base your publication on that?  Where do you draw the line?
        Not to mention running into somebody that might intentionally
corrupt the results for "passive aggressive" reasons.  Sheesh!
I think if we start condoning this kind of stuff in psychology the
discipline might deserve not being considered a "real science".
        Aiding someone in this kind of deception perpetuates it.  Of
course the real problem here boils down to DECEPTION.  And everyone
involved playing along with the deception.
        Usually a translator gets credit someplace.  Usually advisors
get credit at least implicitly.  Of course the academic institution
gets credit, most people are even proud to state that they got their
degree from a particular school.  (I earned my degrees at Santa Clara Univ.
and Claremont Grad. School.)  Even editors often get credit.  Granted,
typists aren't generally credited (except on letters where their
initials should appear at the bottom.)
        I don't really understand how this "university without walls"
[my quotes, because I'm not familiar with the "institution"(?)]
can confer doctoral degrees, but it sounds to me like they shouldn't
be allowed to.  (What's this 30 hours with a 6 month practicum s__t?)
I'd like to know more about this, even though it really depresses
me (so does Somalia and Yugoslavia.)  Was this 12 page "disserttion"
divided into chapters?
        I suppose if this stuff is acceptable one could legitimately
buy a degree after passing the course work. Just pay one consultant to
design the study, pay another consultant to collect the data, pay
another consultant to run the statistics, pay another to write the paper,
and then bribe the committee members for good measure.  Now there would
be a degree of which one could be proud. (Note the dripping sarcasm.)
        If this person who got the doctorate (gag) is running Chem.
dependency counselling sessions in Colorado, heaven help us.  Just what
we need in this kind of context, right.
        I really can't think of anything good to say about all of
this.  I don't see any redeeming factors, just deceptions, greed,
ignorance, and irresponsiblity.  Maybe somebody can enlighten me.

Larry.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU