IGX

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."

nafod wrote:Maybe she helped write Melania's plagiarized speech?

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."

nafod wrote:What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia.

nafod wrote:What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia, she knows the right way to do it.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia, she knows the right way to do it.

Apparently she doesn't. I think her degree can be revoked, which would be not a great look.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... bia-214612

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia, she knows the right way to do it.

Apparently she doesn't. I think her degree can be revoked, which would be not a great look.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... bia-214612

There's as much risk for Columbia is there is for Crowley. Crowley can at least go on tour with Amy Schumer.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

nafod wrote:What is odd is, she's got a PhD from Columbia, she knows the right way to do it.

Apparently she doesn't. I think her degree can be revoked, which would be not a great look.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... bia-214612

There's as much risk for Columbia is there is for Crowley. Crowley can at least go on tour with Amy Schumer.

DOH!

WTF, thesis advisor?

Turdacious wrote:Besides, you've done staff time, plagiarism and non attribution are the rule not the exception. NTTAWWT.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

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?

dead man walking wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

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.

dead man walking wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

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?

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.

nafod wrote:

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.