[The real] Ph.D

[roger]

Don't worry about it, ReligionStudent, some people just want to run other people down. It reflects on them, not you. I've had articles published without a single editorial correction, had a professor ask me to co-author a book, etc., yet have been accused of being less than intelligent, unable to form a proper thought, etc., on this forum, due to my writing. I know whose opinion I'm going to value more highly. Like you, I do type informally, my spelling skills are quite inadequate, and I type quickly, which often leads me to place apostrophes where they don't belong. I understand the difference between "it's" and "its", but my fingers don't. I often find I have typed homonyms, or near homonyms, for words. I don't just mean "won" for "one", but maybe "wrung" for "one". (I don't recall making that particular error). It's just something wonky going on between my fingers and brain. My proofreading skills are equally poor (I just struggled, and typed pore, then pour, before getting poor ). I would probably not catch it if I had left the "pore" in, and just read the post before hitting reply, but I'd certainly catch it if reading word-by-word. It's just how this brain works. It doesn't stop me from writing at a level acceptable for the PhD humanities level or the popular press. It does stop me from writing grammatical and perfectly spelled posts in a reasonable amount of time on a bulletin board. So be it.

But hey, anyone who wants to call me uneducated because my fingers spit out 'pour' and 'pore' for 'poor', or because the sentences above run on occasionally, knock yourself out. After you get done with that, I know a bunch of dyslexics you can make fun of next.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Don't worry about it, ReligionStudent, some people just want to run other people down. It reflects on them, not you. I've had articles published without a single editorial correction, had a professor ask me to co-author a book, etc., yet have been accused of being less than intelligent, unable to form a proper thought, etc., on this forum, due to my writing. I know whose opinion I'm going to value more highly. Like you, I do type informally, my spelling skills are quite inadequate, and I type quickly, which often leads me to place apostrophes where they don't belong. I understand the difference between "it's" and "its", but my fingers don't. I often find I have typed homonyms, or near homonyms, for words. I don't just mean "won" for "one", but maybe "wrung" for "one". (I don't recall making that particular error). It's just something wonky going on between my fingers and brain. My proofreading skills are equally poor (I just struggled, and typed pore, then pour, before getting poor ). I would probably not catch it if I had left the "pore" in, and just read the post before hitting reply, but I'd certainly catch it if reading word-by-word. It's just how this brain works. It doesn't stop me from writing at a level acceptable for the PhD humanities level or the popular press. It does stop me from writing grammatical and perfectly spelled posts in a reasonable amount of time on a bulletin board. So be it.

But hey, anyone who wants to call me uneducated because my fingers spit out 'pour' and 'pore' for 'poor', or because the sentences above run on occasionally, knock yourself out. After you get done with that, I know a bunch of dyslexics you can make fun of next.

It just bothers me quite a lot. This has been a learning disability or unique way of learning (I am not sure which, it was classified as a learning disability, but I always felt that I just learn spelling and words differently than the majority of people.) which I have struggled with for a long time, and have been able to overcome. I certainly thing moving from SPED classes in 5th grade to AP in high school and then going on to get and MA and begin work a PHD is overcoming it. And I am proud of my ability in moving beyond what professionals told me was a disability.

Sorry to vent, but I have just found this discussion rather upsetting. The first post about it was not so, Thinktoomuch, as I think it was an honest question. But Ben's was unnecessarily an attack, which I feel was quite pointless to the thread.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Thank you for understanding RS, Roger appeared to make me guilty by association. My youngest son is affected by dysgraphia but ranks in the top 1% of verbal ability, with barely average scores in other practical cognitive areas, and is doing well at uni. I certainly would not disparage people with learning disabilities. What I was really interested in, and I think has been answered indirectly for the academic environment, is their impact on people's opportunities. I still think that non-academic employment would be much more adversely affected, though.

ETA: As regards relevance to the thread: the above mentioned son's scored A+ in Philosophy... but the school encouraged him to get a "real job" and so he picked electronic engineering. I should have said this at the beginning...

 

[wunky]

RS-
I for one believe that as long as you get your message across then you have succeeded. Not everyone does everything in the same way- imagine how flat and boring life would be. I know some people who purposely ignore grammar and spelling in their posts-

I envy that you will be in school and near the ocean. My school was landlocked by large, politician filled marble buildings.

What direction is your research heading? (Just curious)

BTW- one of my favorite people at University of Chicago is ABD in relgion/library sciences- did all the course and then decided that he did not want to do the final step. He is very highly regarded in his field, happy with what he does, and has inspired/ encouraged more people than I am probably aware of.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Thank you for understanding RS, Roger appeared to make me guilty by association. My youngest son is affected by dysgraphia but ranks in the top 1% of verbal ability, with barely average scores in other practical cognitive areas, and is doing well at uni. I certainly would not disparage people with learning disabilities. What I was really interested in, and I think has been answered indirectly for the academic environment, is their impact on people's opportunities. I still think that non-academic employment would be much more adversely affected, though.

ETA: As regards relevance to the thread: the above mentioned son's scored A+ in Philosophy... but the school encouraged him to get a "real job" and so he picked electronic engineering. I should have said this at the beginning...

As for non-academic fields, I can only offer personal observations. My father does not spell very well either. He's fine with spell check and can write well, but in emails he is just a loose as I am on this forum. However, he is a veterinarian who owns his own business. Outside of academia, personally, I have had relative success. Last summer I worked full time for the county as a lab assistant. This was not an academic environment, but one of public health. The entomologist I was working under offered to train me to do his job at another county full time. So, there are areas to succeed in, you just have to look.

 

[ReligionStudent]

RS-
I for one believe that as long as you get your message across then you have succeeded. Not everyone does everything in the same way- imagine how flat and boring life would be. I know some people who purposely ignore grammar and spelling in their posts-

I envy that you will be in school and near the ocean. My school was landlocked by large, politician filled marble buildings.

What direction is your research heading? (Just curious)

BTW- one of my favorite people at University of Chicago is ABD in relgion/library sciences- did all the course and then decided that he did not want to do the final step. He is very highly regarded in his field, happy with what he does, and has inspired/ encouraged more people than I am probably aware of.

I am personly very glad to get out of NYC (I was actually just walking on the beach about 30 minutes ago out here on LI).

My research is focused on late bronze age and early iron age life in the levant. Specifically the development of the religion of Judah and Israel in cultural context. So far I have done a lot of work with text, but I am moving to a more archaeologically focused program.

 

[Ben Tilly]

First, her instead of here is a typing error, I know the spelling difference. I have also said that some of my errors are due to typing and just quickly submitting. I'm sorry if this is getting bothersome, I will be more careful in the future.

As a person who also has naturally bad spelling (compounded by having had to learn two spelling systems), I can understand that. But it is sufficiently bothersome that you really should work on it. (That said, I'll note that you clearly did work on it for this post. Thank you.)

As for the GRE, I'm sorry the 650 was my score three years ago, the score when I took it last was 670 which puts me in the top 5%. Of course the verbal section has nothing to do with spelling at all. The only place where spelling is visible is on the writing section,
on which I recieved a 6 out of 6. As far as verbal goes, I am quite capable of reading, and my girlfriend continously tells me I am too annoying about correct grammar. Additionally, the percent is a self selected group. For instance, my 780 in math is only in the top 11%, but it is better than that in the general population. As for the tests in general, anyone that works for TPR will point out that SAT and GRE are really tests of how well you test, not how intellegent you are or even your math or verbal skills. I merely pointed out that score because it would explain, at least in part, my acceptance to MA and PHD programs.

I know all of this. Note my statement that I discount scores from heavily prepared people exactly because what is being tested is their preparation, not ability. Further I'll note that if reciting your scores didn't impress me the first time, then continuing to recite them won't impress me the second.

Why not? Well, several reasons. The first is that anyone can claim any scores, and nobody else can judge whether you're lying. The second is that it is unclear what high scores really mean. (Intelligent or prepared?) And the third is that the scores you're quoting aren't that impressive to me. Why not? Well one reason is that my scores (with no more preparation than reading a book) back in the early 90s were V:760/Q:780/A:800 and math 990. (I have no idea why the subject exam was on a 990 point scale. Also there was not at that time a "writing" portion.)

Note that I would never state my scores as proof that I'm intelligent and capable. Why not? Well. nobody has reason to believe my claimed scores. And even if you do believe them, how do you interpret them? It is far more reliable in my opinion to just be yourself. If your abilities truly are superior, then that will become obvious over time. Conversely if someone is not convinced that you're superior, telling them otherwise is not going to win points.

As for concerns with my verbal skills, my recent email from my editor state "These entries are quite excellent". The only concern for editing noted was not my verbal skills, but concern that the target audience would need more clarification on who Albright was.

So a person I don't know claims that an editor that I don't know gave you compliments. This is supposed to convince me? Like it or not I'm going to judge you based on my experience, not someone else's.

If this has turned into a thread of asking me about by verbal vs. spelling skills, I should note that while I was classified as having a learning disability in high school for my spelling, I was still able to be in Enlish AP at the same time. They are two sperate areas to me. My spelling does not necessarily represent my intelligence (I have known quite a few very intelligent people, including medical doctors, who do not have excellent spelling) but is a completely different problem.

In most jobs your appearance is irrelevant to performing your duties. Yet most of us still dress up for interviews. Why? Because surface impressions affect people's opinions.

When it comes to writing, your spelling leaves a strong surface impression.

(Random note: I know of at least one exception to the "dressing up" rule for interviews. In technology there is a widespread disdain for people who wear suits, so people tend to show up for interviews in casual dress.)

It is very nice that you find it difficult to reconcile my spelling with my verbal ability, but there is the other evidence, including the acceptence of my publication, my acceptance to schools, or my verbal scores on tests. These certainly do not indicate a poorly educated individual, as your first line seems to imply I may be. If you really wish for for some proof of my education, look up my degree at Rutgers or my attendence at Columbia. I fail to see the reason to attack my level of education or my verbal ability, when neither has anything to do with my origional post on this thread.

I have no more than your word that you have said publication, those acceptances, or your verbal scores on tests. And I am unable to look up your degrees because I don't even know your name. (And if you gave me one, I'd have no way to be sure that you didn't give me someone else's name.)

I actually find this an upsetting turn of the thread, as my only point was that grad school/PHD is a good thing for many people, and that fears of price and lost years to one's career can be seen as unfounded. I fail to see how poor spelling prevents me from posting a view representative of someone involved in two graduate programs, as I am involved in two graduate programs. I never meant to sit here and say, look at me I am so intelligent, but to offer the opinion of someone who is going through those lost years of career time. In fact, I fail to see where I made arguments based on intelligence and not experience of either my girlfriend (who btw has excellent spelling) or I.

Understood.

What caused me to react was http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2525099#post2525099. I have a bad reaction to posts where people claim to be great because of unverifiable information (in your case your test scores), while the content of the post leaves the opposite impression.

Regards,
Ben

 

[ReligionStudent]

As a person who also has naturally bad spelling (compounded by having had to learn two spelling systems), I can understand that. But it is sufficiently bothersome that you really should work on it. (That said, I'll note that you clearly did work on it for this post. Thank you.)

So if you know that the contrary is easily possible, how can you possibly state the assumption that spelling = intelligence.

I know all of this. Note my statement that I discount scores from heavily prepared people exactly because what is being tested is their preparation, not ability. Further I'll note that if reciting your scores didn't impress me the first time, then continuing to recite them won't impress me the second.

Why not? Well, several reasons. The first is that anyone can claim any scores, and nobody else can judge whether you're lying. The second is that it is unclear what high scores really mean. (Intelligent or prepared?) And the third is that the scores you're quoting aren't that impressive to me. Why not? Well one reason is that my scores (with no more preparation than reading a book) back in the early 90s were V:760/Q:780/A:800 and math 990. (I have no idea why the subject exam was on a 990 point scale. Also there was not at that time a "writing" portion.)

My scores were not meant to impress, they were meant to illustrate how I got into a school, which was the point of the post. You read a lot more into it than you should have. I was not claiming intelligence, just a CV that is valid for my schools. As for highly prepped, my scores were 650, 780, 5.5 before I began teaching. That was average college senior level of prep. Also note, scores have been succesfuly scaled down since the early 90s. While I state this only to prove that you for some reason go off on scores like you are an expert, but seem to be pulling it from nowhere.

And I think we generally assume on these boards that if someone says something about their scores to show how they got into school, there is no reason to think they are lying.

Note that I would never state my scores as proof that I'm intelligent and capable. Why not? Well. nobody has reason to believe my claimed scores. And even if you do believe them, how do you interpret them? It is far more reliable in my opinion to just be yourself. If your abilities truly are superior, then that will become obvious over time. Conversely if someone is not convinced that you're superior, telling them otherwise is not going to win points.

My point was never that I was superior, just that your post was in poor taste, and unnecessary. You come out telling me I am not intelligent etc, for no reason at all.

So a person I don't know claims that an editor that I don't know gave you compliments. This is supposed to convince me? Like it or not I'm going to judge you based on my experience, not someone else's.



In most jobs your appearance is irrelevant to performing your duties. Yet most of us still dress up for interviews. Why? Because surface impressions affect people's opinions.

When it comes to writing, your spelling leaves a strong surface impression.

(Random note: I know of at least one exception to the "dressing up" rule for interviews. In technology there is a widespread disdain for people who wear suits, so people tend to show up for interviews in casual dress.)



I have no more than your word that you have said publication, those acceptances, or your verbal scores on tests. And I am unable to look up your degrees because I don't even know your name. (And if you gave me one, I'd have no way to be sure that you didn't give me someone else's name.)

In your effort to argue with me, and tell me I am an idiot you beyond skeptic to paranoid. Your post is off topic and just generally mean spirited.

I also fail to see how a post on a board I made for fun is somehow incongrous with a good test score, as no part of it has to do with spelling per se. (writing section takes it into account somwhat, but it isn't a spelling bee).

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

 

[Ben Tilly]

So if you know that the contrary is easily possible, how can you possibly state the assumption that spelling = intelligence.

I did not say that they are equal. I said that they are strongly correlated. Specifically I said that I've never previously encountered any person of your education level with spelling that bad. Secondly I said that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with your claims to excellent. I didn't say that it was impossible, just unlikely.

My scores were not meant to impress, they were meant to illustrate how I got into a school, which was the point of the post. You read a lot more into it than you should have. I was not claiming intelligence, just a CV that is valid for my schools. As for highly prepped, my scores were 650, 780, 5.5 before I began teaching. That was average college senior level of prep. Also note, scores have been succesfuly scaled down since the early 90s. While I state this only to prove that you for some reason go off on scores like you are an expert, but seem to be pulling it from nowhere.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I think I'm an expert. What I've said about standardized tests is common knowledge, combined with a Google search to find out what 650 meant on the verbal section. I'm also not sure what you mean by "successfully scaled down". I do know that in the year that I got those scores, I was in the top 1% of all test takers on each of the verbal, quantitative and analytical sections. (More than 1% of people who took the math subject got the top possible scaled score. I suspect that this reflects the fact that math majors do significantly better than most on the regular GRE.)

About how you used the score, my interpretation of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2525099#post2525099 was that your GRE was proof of your writing ability. Technically you were saying that it was part of how you proved your writing ability to the schools. But the impression that I had is that you expected others to find it convincing as well.

And I think we generally assume on these boards that if someone says something about their scores to show how they got into school, there is no reason to think they are lying.

My point was never that I was superior, just that your post was in poor taste, and unnecessary. You come out telling me I am not intelligent etc, for no reason at all.

And I am also not saying that you were lying. I am trying to tell you what impression your post left on me.

In your effort to argue with me, and tell me I am an idiot you beyond skeptic to paranoid. Your post is off topic and just generally mean spirited.

I also fail to see how a post on a board I made for fun is somehow incongrous with a good test score, as no part of it has to do with spelling per se. (writing section takes it into account somwhat, but it isn't a spelling bee).

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

Where did I say you were an idiot?

As for the study, I don't know of any. However I do have lots of anecdotal evidence of a link. Or more precisely, I know a lot of intelligent and highly educated people. Their spelling varies. But I've never previously encountered any whose spelling reminded me of a fifth grader. I also know a lot of not so intelligent and not so highly educated people. Their spelling tends to be a lot worse. So based on experience, I'm confident that there is a correlation.

Anyways we're now going round in circles. Respond as you will, I'm exiting this conversation now.

Regards,
Ben

 

[drkitten]

I would love to see some study that states spelling corelates with intelligence, since you make this statement, and only seem to say you are swayed by such proof.

Be careful what you wish for, RS, as you may receive it.

From the Journal of General Psychology:

Spelling ability, as measured by the number of correct scores on the spelling test, was significantly correlated with the total score on the Shipley test, r(80) = .47, p < .001. It was also significantly correlated with the vocabulary score on the Shipley test, r(80) = .50, p < .001, and with the abstraction score, r(80) = .30, p < .01.

(The Shipley is a light-weight IQ test.) Of course, this suffers from the fundamental problem that the entire foundational assumptions of IQ research are flawed and that the central valdation studies as done by Burt et al. are actively fraudulent.... but if you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence, then the correlation between spelling ability and intelligence is among the strongest non-trivial correlations I've seen in the field of psychology.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Be careful what you wish for, RS, as you may receive it.

From the Journal of General Psychology:


(The Shipley is a light-weight IQ test.) Of course, this suffers from the fundamental problem that the entire foundational assumptions of IQ research are flawed and that the central valdation studies as done by Burt et al. are actively fraudulent.... but if you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence, then the correlation between spelling ability and intelligence is among the strongest non-trivial correlations I've seen in the field of psychology.

Of course that's the issue, IQ studies vs. actual intelligence. I also think that this would overlook people with disabilities like dyslexia who are poor spellers but quite intelligent. (BTW, I am unfamiliar with these studies etc, as I don't read psychology publications, but I love the fact that you just outright call somthing a fraud.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I did not say that they are equal. I said that they are strongly correlated. Specifically I said that I've never previously encountered any person of your education level with spelling that bad. Secondly I said that I find it hard to reconcile your spelling with your claims to excellent. I didn't say that it was impossible, just unlikely.

I never claimed excellence, though if you take my position as being in the top 10%-5% of a group composed almost completely of college seniors and graduates applying to graduate programs, that is not a terrible possition to be in.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I think I'm an expert. What I've said about standardized tests is common knowledge, combined with a Google search to find out what 650 meant on the verbal section. I'm also not sure what you mean by "successfully scaled down". I do know that in the year that I got those scores, I was in the top 1% of all test takers on each of the verbal, quantitative and analytical sections. (More than 1% of people who took the math subject got the top possible scaled score. I suspect that this reflects the fact that math majors do significantly better than most on the regular GRE.)

As people continue to do better on standardized tests overall on a year to year basis ETS scales the tests back, So, what would have been say a 1600 on the SAT 10 years ago is like a 1300-1400 now (rough estimate since I am away from my work papers). Most of the time quantative on the GRE is has lower % on the higher scores because it is an easier section to prep for and people do better on it overall.

About how you used the score, my interpretation of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2525099#post2525099 was that your GRE was proof of your writing ability. Technically you were saying that it was part of how you proved your writing ability to the schools. But the impression that I had is that you expected others to find it convincing as well.

No my only position was that it was convincing to schools. Though I will note that your discussion was of my verbal which has nothing to do with spelling or grammar. That's all writing section.

And I am also not saying that you were lying. I am trying to tell you what impression your post left on me.

Where did I say you were an idiot?

As for the study, I don't know of any. However I do have lots of anecdotal evidence of a link. Or more precisely, I know a lot of intelligent and highly educated people. Their spelling varies. But I've never previously encountered any whose spelling reminded me of a fifth grader. I also know a lot of not so intelligent and not so highly educated people. Their spelling tends to be a lot worse. So based on experience, I'm confident that there is a correlation.

Anyways we're now going round in circles. Respond as you will, I'm exiting this conversation now.

Regards,
Ben

As I have stated my spelling is better than this, but it takes a concentrated effort to do so. Words in my mind are not linked to spelling like most people's are. Of course, experience can also only speak of itself, not other examples.

 

[drkitten]

(BTW, I am unfamiliar with these studies etc, as I don't read psychology publications, but I love the fact that you just outright call somthing a fraud.

Not just me. Cyril Burt is notorious for manufacturing data; it's one of the most famous scandals in the history of behavioral science.


From Wikipedia:

Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt (March 3, 1883 – October 10, 1971) was a prominent British educational psychologist. He was a member of the London School of Differential Psychology. Some of his work was controversial for its conclusions that genetics substantially influences mental and behavioral traits. After his death, he was famously accused of scientific fraud.

From the late 1970s it has been generally accepted that "he had fabricated some of the data, though some of his earlier work remained unaffected by this revelation."[1] This was due in large part to research by Oliver Gillie (1976) and Leon Kamin (1974).[2][3] The possibility of fabrication was first brought to the attention of the scientific community when Kamin noticed that Burt's correlation coefficients of Monozygotic and Dizygotic twins' IQ scores were the same to three decimal places, across articles – even when new data were twice added to the sample of twins. Leslie Hearnshaw, a close friend of Burt and his official biographer, concluded after examining the criticisms that most of Burt's data from after World War II were unreliable or fraudulent.