Jason Arday #3

[TrashleenMoron]

Just like how Jack Monroe's portrayal of El Chocco makes him seem even more ridiculous than he already is, what are we meant to think of Jason's siblings? And why are they okay with the way they were painted?

It makes him look like he's the only one who cares - and maybe his brothers thought the fictional racists had a problem with black men working in mental health?! Why was it all about Jason?

Admittedly they might not have lived with their parents, but I wouldn't a) do nothing if they were being sent things like that in the post and b) if my brother or sister acted like I did nothing, I wouldn't be impressed!

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

Just looking at the statement the family put out

maybe they saw the investigation Cambridge was going to do as 'cruelty' though that was hardly the purpose of it. That said, they should have done due diligence before they offered him the job, not after.

"tried to get through to him" I guess they tried to help him weather the storm, but to no avail. It could mean other things too though, like 'knock off the pig's head at our door stuff '??

This suggests they were in denial about the fraud and yes that does speak to the character of the person committing the fraud. Obviously I don't expect them to denigrate their family member and loved one but sometimes it's better to say less in these statements.

 

[TartanTallulah]

I wonder to what extent family members are trying to deflect their own guilt on to other, faceless, agencies, having ridden the wave of his public adulation while it lasted.

 

[boombalat]

Even if he didn’t give a tit about himself, bizarre that he didn’t report to the police the extremely serious danger to Sainted Giff and his Dad of corrosive substances and mutiilated animals arriving at their home, and his concern that these lunatic stalkers clearly knew where his parents lived- especially given there’d been grape and death threats (plural) to his family.

Presumably his mother would have foreseen these events in one of her prophesies.

 

[ChastityDingle]

I wonder about the family which has 2 if not 3 MH nurses in it. They would have known he was spouting balls and was involving them in the bull too, saying there was a pig's head sent to his parents home. Did any one stage an intervention or was the golden boy not to be questioned? I'm thinking the latter. This article was 2 weeks before his death and should have raised alarm bells within the family. Maybe he should have been sectioned after this article came out?

View attachment 4108312

I know it's not even the biggest lie he told but how did he think that wouldn't be found out, quite easily. I love the laconic response from the butcher.

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

‘Close family members’ of his corroborated the bullet and the “poison” (I’m guessing the ‘corrosive substance’?) Or said that he’d shown them a bullet and “poison” at least, even though Arday didn’t have any evidence he’d discussed any of it with anyone at the time.

View attachment 4108346View attachment 4108347Even if he didn’t give a tit about himself, bizarre that he didn’t report to the police the extremely serious danger to Sainted Giff and his Dad of corrosive substances and mutiilated animals arriving at their home, and his concern that these lunatic stalkers clearly knew where his parents lived- especially given there’d been grape and death threats (plural) to his family.

Also weird that bullets (plural) were posted to him ‘via’ the university campus and he seemingly carried one of these bullets back to London with him to show it to his “close family members”.

The problem with narc liars is they go too far and the lies stop making any sense. Hate mail delivered to his college might be believable but they wanted to grape and kill his family apparently, etc etc. Such a drama queen.

I think he was one of those people who would have loved a TV, music or stage career, to get narc supply and admiration that way. However, that's a very competitive field and, maybe due to family pressure, he sought a less glamourous but still prestigious career in academia - but it could never fulfill the need for fame and excitement he had. Being the class clown makes a lot of sense now.

TBH he probably would have been a good PE teacher, that was certainly a better fit for him than the path he chose and he would still be alive today.

 

[boombalat]

I do think all of this happened because the area of academia was very nebulous. If the whole point of the course is "giving space to marginalised voices" or whatever, then it is organised around someone like JA just talking about himself. I don't think this could have happened within a real subject. It's not like he was appointed to teach Latin.

Still that doesn't excuse the shoddy way he treated his students, or the fact that Cambridge didn't even bleeping check whether his MA was real. I'm just saying that the subject itself is a problem people aren't acknowledging.

Yes, there is no way that someone could have blagged their way to any academic position in a STEM subject, history, languages, etc. They wouldn't get a PhD.

I used to know a man who was a lecturer in sociology. His specialism was a serious subject and he had written some very interesting papers and books that were very well regarded. But it all seemed a bit off when he spoke about his undergrads. He was constantly blabbering on about their marginalised backgrounds and how he listened to their 'voices'. He appreciated that they brought their own experiences to their work.

I thought that university was about developing the skills of weighing up evidence, formulating an opinion based on this evidence and then communicating this idea clearly. All this 'ways of knowing' and 'lived experience' drivel is debasing academia and filling its ranks with activists with no more evidence than 'trust me bro'.

 

[MavisBeacon]

Yes, there is no way that someone could have blagged their way to any academic position in a STEM subject, history, languages, etc. They wouldn't get a PhD.

I used to know a man who was a lecturer in sociology. His specialism was a serious subject and he had written some very interesting papers and books that were very well regarded. But it all seemed a bit off when he spoke about his undergrads. He was constantly blabbering on about their marginalised backgrounds and how he listened to their 'voices'. He appreciated that they brought their own experiences to their work.

I thought that university was about developing the skills of weighing up evidence, formulating an opinion based on this evidence and then communicating this idea clearly. All this 'ways of knowing' and 'lived experience' drivel is debasing academia and filling its ranks with activists with no more evidence than 'trust me bro'.

A significant amount of social "science" very much does not deserve the label. It's rit like this that leads to soft racism such as not expecting people of certain minorities to be punctual or be able to do maths because there are "other forms of knowing".

 

[SunsetSmile]

Wish I could find the quote that said in subjects like physics the language can be relatively plain because the subject is inherently difficult and rigorous. It is in the fields of study that are just common sense that it becomes necessary to dress up in inpenetrable language.

Many respected academics who may now identify as sociologists are pre qualified in more traditional fields of study. (Stock, an Emeritus Prof at my old Uni who has worked with UN/World Bank & others).

Roland Fryer, the US Black Harvard Professor, interests me. He qualified in Economics which would have included quantitative techniques. There is minimal room for blagging here. He also had some association with the guys who wrote Freakonomics (one of my favourite non fiction books). He talks about how he was helped at the start but listening to his work it is totally clear to me this is where DEI is done right. He is genuinely capable.

 

[HotesTilaire]

Wish I could find the quote that said in subjects like physics the language can be relatively plain because the subject is inherently difficult and rigorous. It is in the fields of study that are just common sense that it becomes necessary to dress up in inpenetrable language.

Many respected academics who may now identify as sociologists are pre qualified in more traditional fields of study. (Stock, an Emeritus Prof at my old Uni who has worked with UN/World Bank & others).

Roland Fryer, the US Black Harvard Professor, interests me. He qualified in Economics which would have included quantitative techniques. There is minimal room for blagging here. He also had some association with the guys who wrote Freakonomics (one of my favourite non fiction books). He talks about how he was helped at the start but listening to his work it is totally clear to me this is where DEI is done right. He is genuinely capable.

And if we take those sociologists and cultural studies alum and then let them start commenting on scientific matters…

 

[FrumpyCat]

Found on X

Jason Arday was never trained as a sociologist. Jason Arday has no degree, no Master’s and no PhD in Sociology. None. Zero. His entire formal academic training is in Education and Physical Education: BA in Education Studies and Physical Education MA in Education and Pedagogy A second Master’s in Education PhD in Education — specifically on peer-mentoring among student teachers training to become PE teachers That is a doctorate in physical-education teacher training. It is not sociology. It contains no sociological theory, no sociological methods, and no sustained engagement with the core literature of the discipline.

Yet within a few years the same man was: Appointed Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Durham Put in front of students teaching modules called Sociology of Education and Societies in Transition Then made Professor of the Sociology of Education at Glasgow Then made Professor of the Sociology of Education at Cambridge Students were paying close to ten thousand pounds a year. Some of that money was buying teaching and supervision from a man whose highest qualification in the subject he was employed to profess was nothing. He had never studied sociology as an undergraduate, never taken a Master’s in it, and never written a doctoral thesis in it. The word “Sociology” appeared only in the job title.

Institutions simply accepted the re-description. A PE-and-education academic was re-labelled a sociologist and students were charged elite university fees to be taught by him. That is not an academic career progression. That is a category error that successive universities chose not to notice. My mind has been blown by this revelation. No wonder his students report him leaning on desks talking about celebrities and inequality! He appears to have known absolutely nothing about the s

I

Imagine deciding you’re a sociologist based solely on staying up past your bedtime to teach sociology to yourself. Unsuccessfully.
View attachment 4108368

I did part time A level in sociology. I wasn't very good at it (iirc I got a D grade). The only thing I can remember there were two theories, one society was shaped by laws and the other laws were a response to society or something. I think there was also a Marxist theory, but I don't remember anything about it.

Can I call myself a sociologist?

I have just remembered I also did a few modules at university (not a RG but in the same city as one, so I think that's close enough to say I did). In one lesson the lecturer said 'has anyone ever been in a council house? I laughed because I thought they were joking, apparently not.

 

[Tabitha D]

Yes, there is no way that someone could have blagged their way to any academic position in a STEM subject, history, languages, etc. They wouldn't get a PhD.

I used to know a man who was a lecturer in sociology. His specialism was a serious subject and he had written some very interesting papers and books that were very well regarded. But it all seemed a bit off when he spoke about his undergrads. He was constantly blabbering on about their marginalised backgrounds and how he listened to their 'voices'. He appreciated that they brought their own experiences to their work.

I thought that university was about developing the skills of weighing up evidence, formulating an opinion based on this evidence and then communicating this idea clearly. All this 'ways of knowing' and 'lived experience' drivel is debasing academia and filling its ranks with activists with no more evidence than 'trust me bro'.

They do say that education is meant to broaden the mind (by introducing you to thoughts and concepts and phenomena you’ve not been exposed to before).

This tendency to make yourself (or a very small group) and your own lived experience the subject of your “research” is the complete opposite of that. It just produces insufferable self-obsessed navel-gazers who add little or nothing to their field.

 

[SunsetSmile]

All the US Ivy Leagues have now reintroduced SATs. During the pandemic they had been scrapped due to the risk posed by big testing centres. The quality of candidates admitted without SATs became an issue.

SATs are believed to be useful in determing those who can cope with college level work. Now, there are educational theorists who believe SATs disadvantage minorities. Some Colleges allowed for this by adjusting SATs thresholds (the type of data Cofnas relied on).

IMV the UK should use SATs. As it says on the tin they are STANDARDISED. You can compare apples with apples not apples (physics degree) with kiwi fruit (sociology).

Even pre 1992 when good degrees were valued highly it was common for prestigious employers to make applicants take tests (like SATs but from UK company that ran graduate + / A level standard etc) in maths/english/spatial reasoning.

Even in my late 30s, for an advisory role, a US firm put all of us through extensive intelligence & psych testing. They were harder than others I've done. A year or so later I was in US when this Harvard PhD prospective hire was being given the full marketing spiel, meet & greet out to lunch with US & international (me) to encourage him to join. He signed up - then nothing and eventually massive embarassment as he'd flunked the tests. I questioned whether it was the type of mistake where he'd missed a line resulting in all following answers being wrong but correct for line above. This can happen in multiple choice. Nope, they'd checked and he'd totally flunked.
And, yes it was a potential underepresentation initiative.

 

[Bridgeofsighs]

This reminded me of JA

It echoes what he said to the Guardian.

 

[bracrumbs]

I have a masters in a social science (psychology, from UCL, la-di-dah!) and shortly after receiving it, my (unrelated) work paid the husband of someone I worked with to come in and do some work with us on how we could work better as a group.

This man had clearly just read a few of the popular pop-psychology books of the day and was regurgitating them(poorly). He’d set up a company to offer this kind of training and from what I could gather was doing alright with it.

a lot of the problem with social sciences is not the study of them (my grapples with SPSS would argue that it’s not a completely easy ride) but that as humans, we all think we have a basic understanding of them so when charlatans come along explaining it all to us in layman’s terms with enough flowery terms, we all feel like “yes, I get this. This must be right”

That’s why I don’t fuss too much about papers and companies falling for Jason. Cambridge though needs to have a long hard look at itself.

 

[boombalat]

And now people have started to look into the PhDs that JA reviewed:

https://benryan.substack.com/p/cambridge-says-jason-arday-was-an

I had never heard of 'Critical Poetic Inquiry'. Every day's a school day.

 

[MavisBeacon]

And now people have started to look into the PhDs that JA reviewed:

https://benryan.substack.com/p/cambridge-says-jason-arday-was-an

View attachment 4108976

I had never heard of 'Critical Poetic Inquiry'. Every day's a school day.

I feel like a right mug for spending 10 hours a day in the lab for four years to get my Cambridge PhD when I could have just written a pome about myself.

 

[TheStrawberryThief]

I have a masters in a social science (psychology, from UCL, la-di-dah!) and shortly after receiving it, my (unrelated) work paid the husband of someone I worked with to come in and do some work with us on how we could work better as a group.

This man had clearly just read a few of the popular pop-psychology books of the day and was regurgitating them(poorly). He’d set up a company to offer this kind of training and from what I could gather was doing alright with it.

a lot of the problem with social sciences is not the study of them (my grapples with SPSS would argue that it’s not a completely easy ride) but that as humans, we all think we have a basic understanding of them so when charlatans come along explaining it all to us in layman’s terms with enough flowery terms, we all feel like “yes, I get this. This must be right”

That’s why I don’t fuss too much about papers and companies falling for Jason. Cambridge though needs to have a long hard look at itself.

This reminds me of some training my work did. Some women did a talk about how we could provide better customer service by going the extra mile. She was absolutely terrible.

She kept going on about what if you were walking by a river in kept seeing dogs in the river. The average person wades in to rescue the dogs, but the smart person walks along the river to find out who is throwing dogs into the water.

She must have been laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[InkHeart]

This reminds me of some training my work did. Some women did a talk about how we could provide better customer service by going the extra mile. She was absolutely terrible.

She kept going on about what if you were walking by a river in kept seeing dogs in the river. The average person wades in to rescue the dogs, but the smart person walks along the river to find out who is throwing dogs into the water.

She must have been laughing all the way to the bank.

No, save the dogs. Jesus.

Anyway, yeah, I know several people who do this kind of "consultation" for a living and I have no bleeping idea who decides to hire them, but they all make megabucks.

 

[drmortimer]

She kept going on about what if you were walking by a river in kept seeing dogs in the river. The average person wades in to rescue the dogs, but the smart person walks along the river to find out who is throwing dogs into the water.

Yes! and Ho!