Maybe she helped write Melania's plagiarized speech?
Conservative author and television personality Monica Crowley, whom Donald Trump has tapped for a top national security communications role, plagiarized large sections of her 2012 book, a CNN KFile review has found.
The review of Crowley’s June 2012 book, "What The (Bleep) Just Happened," found upwards of 50 examples of plagiarism from numerous sources, including the copying with minor changes of news articles, other columnists, think tanks, and Wikipedia. The New York Times bestseller, published by the HarperCollins imprint Broadside Books, contains no notes or bibliography.
Crowley did not return a request for comment. A spokesperson for HarperCollins told CNN on Sunday: "We have no comment at this time. We are looking into the matter."
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party
she was also accused of plagiarizing back in 1999.
In a 1999 piece for Slate, Timothy Noah wrote about how a Wall Street Journal column by Crowley strongly
resembled a 1988 article in Commentary. At the time the Journal ran an editor’s note: “Had we known
of the parallels, we would not have published the article.” Despite the striking similarities between
her piece and the 1988 article, Crowley vehemently denied to Noah that she had plagiarized:
"I did not plagiarize. Absolutely not."
from Slate a day or three ago
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia, she knows the right way to do it. I guess she just figured no one would give a shit if she stole other people's work without attribution. Or maybe she was worried it would make her look elite.
Turdacious wrote:Besides, you've done staff time, plagiarism and non attribution are the rule not the exception. NTTAWWT.
What are you basing this on?
cut and paste is an element in internal memos. there may be some attribution, but if the point is to capture current thinking on an issue for a relatively narrow circle of people, original thought and footnotes aren't required.
that's my take. turd may be referring to something else.
ps, did he or didn't he?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Turdacious wrote:Besides, you've done staff time, plagiarism and non attribution are the rule not the exception. NTTAWWT.
What are you basing this on?
cut and paste is an element in internal memos. there may be some attribution, but if the point is to capture current thinking on an issue for a relatively narrow circle of people, original thought and footnotes aren't required.
Oh, I thought he meant books/dissertations, where the ease of getting caught has gone up a fair bit.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
Turdacious wrote:Besides, you've done staff time, plagiarism and non attribution are the rule not the exception. NTTAWWT.
What are you basing this on?
cut and paste is an element in internal memos. there may be some attribution, but if the point is to capture current thinking on an issue for a relatively narrow circle of people, original thought and footnotes aren't required.
that's my take. turd may be referring to something else.
ps, did he or didn't he?
Pretty much. The chances of getting an academic position with an IR PhD without practical experience is pretty low, and the IR PhD doesn't help in getting diplomatic jobs (it might actually hurt). With non-technical PhDs like this, Columbia's little more than a degree mill. https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... 3e6c0ae951
Since dissertations are generally public records, it wouldn't be hard for somebody politically motivated to run through dissertations from that era with modern anti-plagarism programs. I doubt Columbia or any of the other Ivies with degrees like this will like the results.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
nafod wrote:Sounds more like a graduate of "Slippery Rock" than Columbia. Heh
(Apologies to any Slippery Rock grads)
Elite schools aren't completely immune to competition. They don't have to worry about filling their desks with warm bodies, but their "brand" depends on getting the students with the best measurable credentials. One way the Ivies and other elite schools secure their students' highly marketable brand of excellence is through shameless grade inflation. The typical grade is some form of an A.
A few years ago, Princeton attempted to buck this trend and develop a reputation for rigor by enacting grading reform that reduced the number of As to around 35%. It seemed to be a brilliant move: Princeton could boast that it was a little bit more demanding, and its students would have the benefit of having the reputation of surviving the "tough" Ivy. But the reform backfired: The admissions folks at the other Ivies started to warn the best and the brightest that they might be tarred with the stigma of Bs if they went to Princeton, and Princeton started to struggle in the competitive marketplace. So Princeton rather quickly caved, and has since gone the other direction. The administration recently announced that it may well do away with or radically deemphasize grades, at least for freshmen, as a way to reduce student stress.
Grade inflation is a sensitive subject among Ivy-League students. They argue that they are exceptionally good students and so deserve exceptionally high grades. Few of the highly competent people at such schools want to be rigorously compared with one another; the result might be an unfair reputation for mediocrity. In the end, despite or because of the well-known grade inflation, graduates can still enter the global competitive marketplace quite successfully with the impression of excellence maintained.
For elite schools, grades don't measure the basic competence required for the marketplace, although they might distinguish between ordinary and soaring excellence. But their grade-inflation scam affects almost all other colleges and universities, and similar grade inflation in less-selective colleges has a far more insidious effect. Nobody really believes that being admitted to these colleges is a sure sign of competence, so earning inflated grades there really isn't either. But if professors deviate too much from the Harvard grading pattern, then their competent, accomplished students will be doubly disadvantaged. It might actually be harder to get an A at, say, Hampden-Sydney than it is at Harvard, but nobody is likely to believe that. So it becomes increasingly difficult to show that graduates from less-selective colleges are competent. The fact that they often are not makes it even harder.
They argue that they are exceptionally good students and so deserve exceptionally high grades.
Blehh...
As I told my guys when debriefing fitness reports, somebody on the Blue Angels has to be ranked #6 of 6.
The reality of high-end schools is a little different. I've had looong talks with a friend who's a product of these schools, and my wife's (top 5) b-school program grades harder but didn't make transcripts available to recruiters. There are some good reasons for what they do, and the real filters of your stars and fuckups are very readily apparent to employers and grad program admissions people, who are super aggressive. The systems they use are a lot more effective than GPA.
Edit: none of this has anything to do with Crowley. Nobody goes to bat for a serial plagiarist, ever.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
