Transplant_ed!

I stumbled across this piece of New Speak, well, at least absurdly convoluted abuse of English that is the closest to the obtuseness of sociological theory that I have seen outside of a sociological text. Let me explain, I am on sabbatical and reading some of the worst of the sociological abusers of any language (Archer, Bourdieu, Bernstein), so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised by this. That said this comes from the SACP online news Umsebenzi Online (9:22, 17 November 2010. 'Red Alert: Whose Terrain?' by Jeremy Cronin).

I assume the readership of such a piece would not necessarily include a large number steeped in Marxist and neo-Marxist rhetoric. But, please, can anyone out there translate the following section lifted unapologetically from the article (not plagiarised as full references are given). And then explain why it is necessary to adopt such obscure language to communicate a concern (unless obfustication is a prime purpose - but wait, this is politics, and false consciousness reigns supreme.)

 

• "We should, of course, not be in denial about the serious gaps opened up for this line of attack by real weaknesses within the state and the ANC and our alliance formations. In particular, there is a compradorial and parasitic rent-seeking stratum within our movement, often linked to a demagogic populism that has little respect for legality or the constitution. As we have argued elsewhere, anti-majoritarian liberal forces are happy to provide a media megaphone for this demagogic populism - the better to be able to condemn us all. The existence of this phenomenon (what we have called "the new tendency") creates space for all manner of anti-ANC forces. This is why it is absolutely imperative that the government, the ANC and its alliance partners together lead the process of dealing firmly, and without fear or favour, with the scourge of corruption and demagogy" (Italics added to highlight this clearly accessible text.)

Assessment is such a huge issue in education - perhaps always has been, but seems to be so especially now. I'm always intrigued at hearing how departments manage assessment. There are some academics who have a policy of never marking out of 100%, arguing that no-one can get everything (this is, of course, most common in the Humanities and some social sciences). Others argue that assessment tasks are contextual, limited and bounded, and so it is possible - if difficult - to achieve a 100% mark. My son, now a very successful exploration geologist, swore blind right through his BSc that 51% was indicative of too much effort. Until he needed 60% to get into honours, and his resulting marks gave him options in chemistry and geology. Now a senior geologist, earning more than his academic parents combined - he still wryly recalls that philosophy which upset his lecturers so VERY much, and yet which paid off so handsomely in great memories of university life roundly, and well lived. His sister fought for every distinction, achieving them in all three degrees and a PgDip, and now looks back on academe with far less happy memories.  

Every so often though tests crop up where really lowest marks are what count. The last time this was such a biggie for me was when I was assessed for suitability for a heart transplant. I had to fail every test to qualify. Luckily (for me at any rate) I was well prepared for this (but a less than glowing academic career, in part due to dyslexia, in part due to disinterest) - and I successfully failed everything from echo scans, breathing into tubes, ECGs - the lot. Now ten years later, I have just been back for another set of tests. And my goal was pretty much as good as ever: a 0 score was about right.

 X-rays don't count really - they're a kind of binary - there's something there / there's not. Blood tests too: less binary, but really - not a great challenge. The cardiac biopsy however, now that really is fun. This is done by passing tubes up the femoral vein and artery - mine are pretty scarred from 11 years of this, and the artery walls kind-scrunch up when the catheter goes in (or rather, won't go in). Then there's the delights of ectopics every time a valve is touched, and 'warm-all-over' flush of angiogram contrast - and then the highlight of having pieces nipped out of various parts of your heart. (Brings back memories of Queen: "Take a piece of my heart...." - always try and get the cardiologists to play that while they're hacking away. Only one every has.)  Now here the goal is to get a 0 score on the path report for the biopsy - no sign of rejection. 

Yesterday I did that. And man, it feels good. Clear arteries, heart circulation clear, chamber pressures all good - and a big, round, curvaceous,  plump 0 for rejection.  I'll never look at that number in the same way again. You can have your 1's, 2's 3's and (sadly 4's) - me, I'm now really relaxing in the world of zero's. And thankful to be there.

So, to the previous owner of my heart - thanks for a really good gift of life. And yes, unashamed schmaltz.  

In an article in the Mail & Guardian online (today, Thursday , 25 February 2010) a journalist reports on an address by Prof Jonathan Jansen to the Institute of Race Relations (see Jansen warns SA is ‘on the precipice' by Tarryn Harbour). It's what we have come to expect from the good professor: in your face, against the grain - but one quote caught the journalist's ear, and my eye as I read her reporting:

"In conclusion Jansen turned to the crisis in university education. "At least 75% of university education is fraudulent. It's simply bad." He cited incidents of lecturers using the same exam papers three years in a row, students graduating with law degrees who are unable to read or write, and female students exchanging sex for pass marks."

Yup. And, what, 75% of statistics are made up on the spot? Of course there may be solid research behind the assertion that '[a]t least 75% of university education is fraudulent'. Be interesting to read. 

 

OpeningScholarship came across the following gem of an online resource: the entertaining Mastersthesiswriting.com

I am left baffled by the brilliance: an original, plagiarism-free, profound (I kid you not) PhD dissertation, in your mailbox, within three days. And all for $28 per page. Of course, you do have to pay up front. But then if you do you deserve what you get, right?

Here are a few gems of insight from this high quality service (and lest I be accused of plagiarism - something they warrant can never happen with the original PhD you buy from them - this all comes from Mastersthesiswriting.com's website):

• "We offer your academic assistance and custom dissertation writing. We have great and long term experience in writing effective and simply perfect dissertations. We know exactly what is required from you, and know how to provide it."
• (Here they reveal one special section of a Masters which they provide) "Finding section, defining your own contribution to the area of study. I have to stress on the originality and novelty, which you contributed to this study."  Not bad. They write it, you contribute to the originality and novelty. And all with a straight face.

And lastly (because I really don't have the time to go on cherry picking from the field of opportunity):

• "We also have the greatest professionals, who are able to deliver a profound dissertation even in the shortest terms. However, in order for you to make some minor revisions please try to order custom PhD dissertations ahead; in order provide the best quality Ph.D. dissertations to the fullest potential. We want you to represent authentic contribution to the field of study you choose."

See, as easy as pouring your (or parent's / bursar's) hard-earned cash straight down the toilet.

 

For all those of us who find the peer review system so wonderously hilarious, check this YouTube video on scientific Peer Review

 

Thanks to the colleague who sent it on.