SpitfireIX
Philosopher
I never knew there was such a thing. A quick Google shows that several other law schools offer the same. I'm not sure what you'd use it for, though.
Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI
- Thread starter JesseCuster
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ms estonia
- Status
I never knew there was such a thing. A quick Google shows that several other law schools offer the same. I'm not sure what you'd use it for, though.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Irrelevant. I named graduate degrees for which there is no corresponding undergraduate degree. That you can enter an accounting program with a degree in various other fields is not the issue. What is the issue is what you are allowed to call yourself after you enter the postgraduate field of study.
Yes, everyone correctly believed you were claiming to have studied psychology during your postgraduate education because that's what those words unambiguously mean. You are a psychology graduate, not a psychology postgraduate. Your bachelor's degree is in psychology. You did not continue a study of psychology into your postgraduate period; you studied something else. Therefore your smug attempt to put Mark Corrigan in his place was predicated on a deceptive claim. That we have, at last, discovered yet another deceptive claim of expertise from you, you don't get to pretend it's all just some feverish ploy from your critics.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
In the UK it is quite common to enter into any profession with any degree that comes up to the normal standard. I know a lawyer with a Zoology degree. But that wasn't entry level into law. He had to do a conversion course first. In the professional accountancy bodies, you can't get exemptions unless your graduate degree has a direct relevance to proceed directly to the subject matter. Likewise, if someone has a law degree (or LLB) that is at entry level to a masters then they can call themselves law postgraduates, even if that masters is not called 'law' per se.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Irrelevant. That person you name could not claim to be a zoology postgrad.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The two chartered accountancy designations are internationally recognised as masters degrees for educational purposes.
But not as psychology (or Psychology) qualifications.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Now you are beginning to get it. He couldn't call himself a zoology postgrad because it had no relevance to his law degree. It was just another degree at bachelors level.
It's such hard work being six steps ahead of everybody.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Just like you are not a psychology postgrad. Because your postgrad degree is accounting, which has nothing to do with psychology and isn't even a degree but a degree equivalent.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Vixen, I don't want to turn this into a full on derail but I'm curious. Do you think you're the smartest person involved in this thread?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
For much the same reason you would want an MBA. If you studied some other field (say, geology) and practiced it as an individual contributor, you might want to seek an MBA if you plan to open your own geology consulting firm, hire employees, and transact business appropriately. I'm a part owner in a number of businesses, but my co-owners in those cases have business administration degrees and handle all that. Most MBA programs are tailored so that classes and study are outside of business hours, allowing you to pursue your primary field of expertise while you learn to run a business.
Similarly the MLS degree is intended for practicing professionals who need a greater understanding of the law, and possibly need to obtain it while practicing their primary comptency. A trained geologist might pursue one if he intended to serve as an expert witness in court. Or if he is joining a law firm that specializes in mineral-rights law as its in-house geology expert. And the law school would provide an educational posture compatible with his day job smashing rocks with hammers.
There is no bachelor's degree in law in America. The master's degree in law does not qualify you to become licensed to practice law, and has no specialized prerequisite degree. The juris doctor degree qualifies you to apply for admission to the bar, to sit for the exam, and eventually to practice law; it has no specialized degree requirement beyond a bachelor's degree in any subject. There is a specialized licensure-track degree (LLM) that requires a JD, and—if in patent law—a bachelor's degree in the field pertaining to your patents. And there is an additional academic degree in law that is equivalent to a PhD in other fields: the scientiae juridical doctor, or SJD. This requires a JD and is generally intended for those who wish to become law professors or academic legal scholars. Our school does not offer it. It is a matter of ribald debate whether professional doctoral-level degrees (e.g., a JD) should be considered equivalent to academic doctorates, hence the debate over whether JDs can be addressed as "doctor" and whether an SJD candidate is a doctoral student or a post-doctoral student.
Similarly our architecture school offers a Master of Architecture as its entry-level degree. It does not grant a Bachelor of Architecture. The MA program lasts five years and requires only a high-school diploma to enter. That is, it's the equivalent amount of study you would get from accelerated bachelor's and master's programs and requires the same entry criteria as other programs do for entry into a bachelor's level program. It would be incorrect to say that a fifth-year architecture student is in a post-graduate program.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
My postgrad degree is not in 'Accounting' as I never had a first degree in accounting and in any case Accountancy is not Accounting.
My first degree is in psychology ok?
Riddle me this, so how come I have a masters if I was never a postgraduate of my first degree. Note the meaning of 'post'.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you're not the teacher here, nor will you be able to browbeat everyone into accepting that you were a "psychology postgraduate."
You lied about your academic qualifications in psychology, just as you did about them in physics. You have a habit of lying when you think you can get away with it talking down to people. You not only don't have the academic preparation you claim, you can't demonstrate any of the actual skill (academic or practical) that would be expected to follow that preparation. You suck at physics despite claiming you studied it for "twelve years." And your attempts to deal with the psychology of witness testimony is no better than what anyone could Google in five minutes.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
Because the degree equivalent you have is equivalent to a masters. You could have a graduate degree in anything, that wouldn't make you a postgrad in the same thing just because you have an accounting equivalency.
You're not a psychology postgraduate. You are not engaged in nor did you receive a masters or doctorate in psychology, or any psychology adjacent subject.
The discussion about graduate and postgraduate study and the associated nomenclature has gone on for far too long. Challenging claims of expertise are allowed but do not allow them to derail the thread.
Will you all please return to discussing the topic of the thread.
Will you all please return to discussing the topic of the thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Agatha
Axxman300
Philosopher
"Experts" hired (paid) by a known conspiracy loon, and disgraced journalist are not a valid source.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Turning then from claims of expertise to the application of it, I see a number of ways to continue.
How psychology applies to witness testimony has been thoroughly discussed before, and is merely being echoed in this chapter. The treatment of witness testimony in the MS Estonia investigations is consistent with best practice in forensic engineering. Vixen's insistence that it has been treated improperly is argued not from a posture of scientific rigor, but rather from the lay position incorporating the lay dismissals of the science as it has been misunderstood in other cases ripe for conspiracy theories.
How psychology applies to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories and the motivation of conspiracy theorists is marginally relevant. The treatment of expert judgment varies widely among conspiracy theories and tracks with cognitive theories for conspiracism. Contrary to the straw man Vixen tried to substitute for me, I maintain that how conspiracy theorists proffer expert judgment and respond to criticism from experts has to be taken on an individual basis. While there is some overlap among the models, it is not accurately a broad-strokes picture. Further, from the purely epistemological standpoint, if the goal is reliable knowledge then the expertise inquiry is irrelevant. If something can be shown by evidence true or false, it then doesn't really matter why someone else would claim it to be otherwise.
How psychology applies to witness testimony has been thoroughly discussed before, and is merely being echoed in this chapter. The treatment of witness testimony in the MS Estonia investigations is consistent with best practice in forensic engineering. Vixen's insistence that it has been treated improperly is argued not from a posture of scientific rigor, but rather from the lay position incorporating the lay dismissals of the science as it has been misunderstood in other cases ripe for conspiracy theories.
How psychology applies to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories and the motivation of conspiracy theorists is marginally relevant. The treatment of expert judgment varies widely among conspiracy theories and tracks with cognitive theories for conspiracism. Contrary to the straw man Vixen tried to substitute for me, I maintain that how conspiracy theorists proffer expert judgment and respond to criticism from experts has to be taken on an individual basis. While there is some overlap among the models, it is not accurately a broad-strokes picture. Further, from the purely epistemological standpoint, if the goal is reliable knowledge then the expertise inquiry is irrelevant. If something can be shown by evidence true or false, it then doesn't really matter why someone else would claim it to be otherwise.
Axxman300
Philosopher
I am not qualified in any way to discount the initial report on the sinking of the MS Estonia. Almost 30 years have passed since the disaster. Since then we've had the rise of WikiLeaks, and many other incidents of state secrets being dumped into the public arena. Where are to the documents underlining a cover-up in this case? Where is the statement that explosives were used on the ship, and this fact suppressed?
Why is there no smoking gun proving a conspiracy and cover-up in the sinking of the Estonia?
How many scandals have dominated the European press since 1994? How many scandalous revelations have come to light in the past 30 years that have ruined careers, damaged alliances, and forced changes?
How has the MS Estonia escaped scrutiny?
This new investigation will largely echo the first one. But will even more details to be ignored by conspiracy loons.
Why is there no smoking gun proving a conspiracy and cover-up in the sinking of the Estonia?
How many scandals have dominated the European press since 1994? How many scandalous revelations have come to light in the past 30 years that have ruined careers, damaged alliances, and forced changes?
How has the MS Estonia escaped scrutiny?
This new investigation will largely echo the first one. But will even more details to be ignored by conspiracy loons.
Here_to_learn
Illuminator
I just wonder if the ship collapsed in it's own footprint? I mean - she only says that it sounded like an explosion, but is clear on the collapse.
Axxman300
Philosopher
We see this often in the JFK Assassination, OKC Bombing, TWA 800, and 911 conspiracies. The "official" report is always thrown out, but quoted when it suits the CTist's argument, which establishes a double-standard by which the CTist controls what is valid evidence and what is not. And the conspiracy is always set against a larger backdrop based on a distorted world view, like the Jews/Illuminati/Clintons/Free Masons/CIA/KGB/China/World Bank/[insert your boogey man here] are behind all things nefarious. This means skeptics/reasonable people have to deal with CTists who do not, cannot grip basic reality.
No matter the crime, or the type of incident, any one can find a witness to back their claims, not matter how lunatic they are. A CTist's job is to blow enough smoke to obscure the facts in order to control and guide the story to fit their world view.
- Status