This is such right-wing anti-college nonsense. The author clearly has a strong bias against higher education and scientific research, and it's painfully apparent from his argument.
To save you from reading this junk, his core argument is "some college class should never have had students write about a scientific study, because that study wasn't perfect." Meanwhile, anyone who knows anything about science knows there are almost NO PERFECT STUDIES.
A perfect, huge cohort, well-run study is very expensive. But we don't just say "well, giant studies are expensive, let's just give up on all non-giant studies": we do smaller ones (like the one he attacks, which focused on a single school). And we certainly don't say "well the study was small, we can't learn anything from it or talk about it"!
The author's fundamental "make perfect the enemy of the good" misunderstanding is huge! It reflects a complete misunderstanding of how science works ... and if you do have a proper understanding, the idiocy of this anti-higher education hit piece becomes obvious.
P.S. One other note: the class/study was in the news because a right-wing student wrote a crazy right-wing answer to the assignment, and (correctly) failed it. While the author denies it, it's clear the real impetus for this whole thing is to defend that student.
I read the article, and you have severely mischaracterized it, to the point of lying. The author is not complaining that the study was imperfect, but that the assignment given to the students involving that study did not teach them anything about its methodological weaknesses, nor did it require any kind of rigorous thinking at all.
This is such right-wing anti-college nonsense. The author clearly has a strong bias against higher education and scientific research, and it's painfully apparent from his argument.
To save you from reading this junk, his core argument is "some college class should never have had students write about a scientific study, because that study wasn't perfect." Meanwhile, anyone who knows anything about science knows there are almost NO PERFECT STUDIES.
A perfect, huge cohort, well-run study is very expensive. But we don't just say "well, giant studies are expensive, let's just give up on all non-giant studies": we do smaller ones (like the one he attacks, which focused on a single school). And we certainly don't say "well the study was small, we can't learn anything from it or talk about it"!
The author's fundamental "make perfect the enemy of the good" misunderstanding is huge! It reflects a complete misunderstanding of how science works ... and if you do have a proper understanding, the idiocy of this anti-higher education hit piece becomes obvious.
P.S. One other note: the class/study was in the news because a right-wing student wrote a crazy right-wing answer to the assignment, and (correctly) failed it. While the author denies it, it's clear the real impetus for this whole thing is to defend that student.
I read the article, and you have severely mischaracterized it, to the point of lying. The author is not complaining that the study was imperfect, but that the assignment given to the students involving that study did not teach them anything about its methodological weaknesses, nor did it require any kind of rigorous thinking at all.