Rajiv, you've read these papers, I presume. "Thin" is an appropriate evaluation in my view. Your counter-factual of no plagiarism isn't relevant. We wouldn't be here without the plagiarism. And I'm told she won't provide her data to people who want to replicate some of her findings... Etc.
No of course I haven't read the papers Glenn. I can't vouch for their quality. Same goes for the papers of her predecessors. All I can do is to see if the same standard is being applied. It does not appear to me that it is.
One doesn't have to disparage her scholarship to object to her presidency, there are plenty of other reasons to do so. Hypocrisy around free speech for instance, and the treatment of Fryer and Sullivan. And the plagiarism of course.
I'm not saying that the work is path-breaking or profound, just that it is comparable to many other presidents at time of appointment, including transformational and highly paid presidents such as John Silber at BU. People are arguing that the scholarship did not merit appointment, and doing so without proper empirical backing. Note that appointment was made before the plagiarism issues surfaced so this cannot have been a factor. Hence my hypothetical.
Rajiv, you've read these papers, I presume. "Thin" is an appropriate evaluation in my view. Your counter-factual of no plagiarism isn't relevant. We wouldn't be here without the plagiarism. And I'm told she won't provide her data to people who want to replicate some of her findings... Etc.
No of course I haven't read the papers Glenn. I can't vouch for their quality. Same goes for the papers of her predecessors. All I can do is to see if the same standard is being applied. It does not appear to me that it is.
One doesn't have to disparage her scholarship to object to her presidency, there are plenty of other reasons to do so. Hypocrisy around free speech for instance, and the treatment of Fryer and Sullivan. And the plagiarism of course.
I'm not saying that the work is path-breaking or profound, just that it is comparable to many other presidents at time of appointment, including transformational and highly paid presidents such as John Silber at BU. People are arguing that the scholarship did not merit appointment, and doing so without proper empirical backing. Note that appointment was made before the plagiarism issues surfaced so this cannot have been a factor. Hence my hypothetical.