randomname01 Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Thought this blog entry was pretty funny: http://becausenooneasked.com/2009/01/29/can-you-have-too-many-letters-after-your-name/ The guy has 4 doctorates. Thoughts?
wtncffts Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Heh, my first reaction was, what a prick! I mean, for all I know he might be a nice guy, but that's just beyond silly. If he handed me a business card like that, I don't think I could help but laugh out loud. Although the blog doesn't show where it got that, so I have no idea whether that's real.
ZeChocMoose Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 "Can you have too many letters after your name." Yes. It's called over educated and underemployed. You have to wonder what the adcom was thinking when they admitted him to his 4th doctoral program?! Geesh.
Golden Monkey Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 I'm just wondering how he paid for all those degrees.
randomname01 Posted January 23, 2011 Author Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) Heh, my first reaction was, what a prick! I mean, for all I know he might be a nice guy, but that's just beyond silly. If he handed me a business card like that, I don't think I could help but laugh out loud. Although the blog doesn't show where it got that, so I have no idea whether that's real. Not sure about the business card, but he did attach all of those titles to a course syllabus: http://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/_documents/_course_syllabi/U_of_S_courses/PUBP898_PopulationHealth_Fall2010.pdf Edit: A couple of critiques of a report Dr. Lemstra wrote: http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/studies/ReviewDrDouglasChambers09.pdf http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/studies/July16-09-Dr-Osborne.pdf The author is evidently not familiar with the topic of radiation and health effects, judging from the mistakes made in the document. Few papers are selected as the basis for his review, the findings in most of them are misinterpreted, and the limitations and caveats clearly expressed in many of the reviewed paper are ignored. As a result the author gives a completely false impression of the impact of radiation on health. The objective of the report is to provide an evidence-based epidemiological review of the impact of exposure to radiation on subsequent outcomes. The superficiality of the review, together with the errors, misinterpretations of study findings, and failure to take into account the basic considerations of epidemiologists in reviewing evidence for causal relationships, make the document a travesty of an evidence-based review. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses have not been well served by the document. Very harsh! Edited January 23, 2011 by randomname01
wtncffts Posted January 23, 2011 Posted January 23, 2011 Not sure about the business card, but he did attach all of those titles to a course syllabus: http://www.schoolofp...th_Fall2010.pdf Oh God, that's horrific. Seriously, what? Why would you even list any of your degrees below PhDs? Especially the BSc - I mean that qualifies you for absolutely nothing. NadaJ 1
Bukharan Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 This is quite surprising. The guy has been in academia for so long: he must have learnt that putting all those letters after one's name is not considered professional at all and will be frowned upon by anyone reasonable really.
repatriate Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 If I saw that and then had to speak to him, I would probably call him "Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Prof. Lemstra." awvish and MoJingly 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now