This explains a lot…
Since there is some reason to suspect that Jill Biden has been doing an Edith Wilson impression for at least some of her husband’s ill-starred term as President, a substacker decided to do a deep dive into Dr. Jill Biden’s dissertation to assess exactly how intellectually qualified she is to be shadow-President. What she found was, to understate it, horrifying….and yet, all in all, not surprising.
To summarize, the doctorate of education Jill received from the University of Delaware in January 2007 was based on a “scholarly” dissertation that was objectively crap. It is riddled with typos, mathematical errors, and horrible writing. Holly Mathnerd (not her real name, presumably) writes in part (this is a huge essay),
I carefully and closely read her dissertation to get an idea of her intellectual capabilities and worldview. I skimmed it a few years ago during the “call her doctor!” controversy, but this time I read it quite closely. I wanted to understand what sort of mind will be making the decisions if the President has to be woken up to make nuclear decisions. How does she think? What kind of work ethic does she have? Is she intelligent and conscientious? What I learned was more than a little bit startling….
A doctoral dissertation represents an original contribution to the body of knowledge in its field. It involves the extensive collection and rigorous analysis of substantial data. Beyond its scholarly significance, a dissertation serves as a showcase of one’s mastery and academic prowess. If there is any work that merits meticulous attention, including enlisting others to painstakingly review it for errors, it is unquestionably the doctoral dissertation….Her dissertation is so terrible, lazy, pathetic, and lacking in anything that’s even ambition-, originality-, or creativity- adjacent, that I wondered if clever conservatives wrote a parody and flooded the internet with it….
The document is 137 pages, of which the dissertation itself, from Abstract to Conclusion, is 80 pages. The majority of the 80 pages consists of putting the survey results into words, often with unforgivable mistakes of simple arithmetic. For example: “Of the 159 students surveyed, 55 receive financial aid; 41 pay their own tuition bills; 45 students’ parents pay; 3 spouses pay; 9 receive scholarships; and 9 others receive funds through the GI bill, vocational rehabilitation programs, or grants. Thus, only one-quarter of the students are able to finance their education themselves.”
First—yes, this doctoral dissertation surveyed only 159 students. Or was it 162? The breakdown subtotals add up to 162, not 159. This error is symptomatic of the lack of attention to detail in the whole project…
The final sentence of the one-paragraph Abstract provides the reader a taste of the insipidity to come: “Overall, problem areas are identified, and recommendations and solutions are offered and encouraged.” If you’re wondering how a solution can be encouraged, congratulations on speaking English, not bureaucratese. She means, of course, that she encourages people to offer potential solutions. The entire paper demonstrates one of the most powerful elements of that odious English dialect. In bureaucratese, qualifiers and transitional phrases get dropped in order to artificially basket non-similar items, which lends an air of disinterested authority to an otherwise stupid thought…
I wrote an honors thesis to be able to have a cum laude attached to my American Government AB. Even for that relatively minor scholarly work, I was on alert that typos, mistakes in calculations and analysis, and rhetorical sloppiness would be fatal. I’m a poor proof-reader (as anyone who visits here knows), and I regarded avoiding any errors as my mission, indeed, essential as a matter of integrity and responsibility. Submitting a doctoral dissertation as intellectually and academically sloppy as Jill Biden’s is incomprehensible except for a few explanations, all deeply troubling:
- Jill just isn’t very bright, and suffers from Dunning-Kruger, being convinced that she is smart because she has been passed through successive stages of academic credentialing that themselves lacked rigor, integrity, and quality.
- The University of Delaware allowed a sub-par dissertation to earn a doctorate because the student involved was the spouse of a prominent Delaware politician.
- Our entire higher education system is untrustworthy, unprofessional, and stuffed with fakes and frauds.
Holly flags many jaw-dropping quotes from Jill’s dissertation like this Kamala Harrisism: “A more compelling reason for students to form friendships is to find ways to engage in learning. Colleges and universities need to find ways to promote student involvement in learning.” In another section, Jill uses “skyrocket” to mean “going down quickly”: “The first sacrifice has to be school; hence, student retention rates skyrocket if there are no safeguards in place to help students cope with all they are trying to handle.”
How is this for doctorate-level writing (by an English teacher!)?…
“Instructors were then asked what one solution could be offered to increase student retention. Many felt that better advisement was needed. Mary felt that better advisement was needed…The common theme that runs through what all faculty and pre-tech English faculty, in particular, are saying is that students are lacking study skills. This lack of how to study and organize hinders their success in all subject areas.”
Yikes.
Dr. Jill’s dissertation is also more evidence, as if more were needed, that our supposedly credentialed “experts” are as likely to be dolts, rogues and fools as not.
The greater issue, at least in this fraught moment, is to what extent this unelected mediocrity has been manipulating the elected mediocrity in his waning years to the detriment of the nation. Surely, surely—-please tell me it’s surely!—no First Lady today could get away with completely isolating a disabled President from his aides, reporters and the public the way Mrs. Wilson did (with the help of Wilson’s physician) after Woodrow’s crippling stroke. Nonetheless, that Dr. Jill has considerable influence over Joe is not in question, nor is her lack of judgment. How could any caring spouse urge her obviously crumbling POTUS husband to subject himself the ardors of a Presidential campaign and conceivably four more years in the most challenging and consequential job in the world after an incident like last week’s debate debacle? It isn’t merely irresponsible, it is cruel.
First Ladies are a traditional weak link in our system. They are un-elected and unaccountable, but they have influence out of proportion to their expertise and ability in the vast majority of Presidencies. Some, like Mamie Eisenhower, Jackie Kennedy and Melania Trump, have chosen (or been forced) not to abuse their positions to meddle in public affairs. Others, notably Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, became powerful Presidential aides. Still others, such as Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison, Lady Bird Johnson and Nancy Reagan, acted as loyal and trusted advisors and confidantes.
Other First Ladies played the roles of in-house therapists and caregivers: I’d put Pat Nixon, Laura Bush, Rosalynn Carter and Ladybird under that heading. Then there were the First Ladies who for varied reasons burdened their husbands beyond the pressures of the job. The wives of Pierce, McKinley and, famously, Lincoln end up under that heading.
Even some of the best and the brightest First Ladies have led their husbands astray. The huge scar on John Adams’ Presidency is his enactment of the Sedition Act. Adams didn’t want to do it, but Abigail, who was fiercely defensive of her husband and furious at the harsh criticism he suffered as President, insisted that he sign the unconstitutional bill to his eternal shame. Ambitious First Ladies, like Jill, have done their husbands and the U.S. no favors. Teddy Roosevelt, while President, offered his best friend William Howard Taft a choice between being his successor or having a seat on the Supreme Court. Taft, a judge to his core, said that he preferred his gift from Teddy to be the Supreme Court. “Let it be the Presidency!” Mrs Taft said. Taft capitulated to her wish, resulting in a miserable term, the infliction of Woodrow Wilson on the nation, and the ruination of his friendship with Roosevelt.
This is a flaw in the institution of the Presidency, and the evidence is that Jill Biden is taking full advantage of it, the nation be damned.
Ethics Alarms 
“Of the 159 students surveyed, 55 receive financial aid; 41 pay their own tuition bills; 45 students’ parents pay; 3 spouses pay; 9 receive scholarships; and 9 others receive funds through the GI bill, vocational rehabilitation programs, or grants. Thus, only one-quarter of the students are able to finance their education themselves.”
It occured to me that the apparent error in math could be due to students falling into more than one category. It’s likely that at least some of the students fund their education through more than one source.
Upon reflection, though, if that’s the case there are two other potential problems with her dissertation. First, she should have identified students who were in that situation, at a minimum to explain why the numbers didn’t add up, and perhaps more importantly to give more context to her assertion.
Second, and this is conjecture on my part, but I would be shocked if there were only three students out of 159 who used multiple sources of funding. That number has to be low. If I’m right and she missed many cases of overlap in her survey, who knows what else she missed.
And it’s likely that Florence Harding was one of those women behind the scenes that inflicted her less-enthusiastic husband on the country.
“Surely, surely—-please tell me it’s surely!—no First Lady today could get away with completely isolating a disabled President from his aides, reporters and the public the way Mrs. Wilson did (with the help of Wilson’s physician) after Woodrow’s crippling stroke. “
You wrote it right there – “with the help of Wilson’s physician”. Yes, Mrs. Biden is doing just that with the help of a great many more people than a doctor.
I think my favorite Joe Biden story (very likely apocryphal, but you never know) recounts Joe walking through an airport with an aide. This was after the first Mrs. Biden had been killed in a car wreck. Joe saw a poster advertisement on the wall featuring the future second Mrs. Biden. This was when she was working as a model. Joe is reported as saying to the aide as he pointed at Dr. Jill, “Get me in touch with that woman. She’s the kind of woman I’d like to (and here, take your choice) marry” is one version. The other, the one I lean toward, particularly given Joe’s scion’s proclivities, is, “she’s the kind of woman I’d like to fuck.”
A.M. you are spot on that “Doctor” Jill has many coconspirators. You asked what their motive is. Biden was selected in 2020 because he was impaired and would be the perfect frontman for Obama’s third term. Harris was selected for the VP backup because she has demonstrated that she is incapable of independent thought but is good at taking orders.
If you look at Biden’s cabinet and departments, it is staffed predominantly with former Obama staff. Why does the media, the DNC, and Biden’s staff inflict this charade on the American people? The Obamas are this century’s Camelot for the Democrats in media and politics. Why does the electorate support Biden? He is not Trump. He is a Democrat. The NY Times wouldn’t lie. The electorate lacks critical thinking skills and enjoys free stuff.
i think it is more likely that the same people behind Obama are the same people behind Biden. After leaving Harvard, Obama was funded as a ‘community organizer’ by a major bank that groomed him or office. Obama isn’t behind anything. In have resisted making the obvious joke.
Ah I’m mixed on this.
Lack of being an expert doesn’t mean lack of being able to lead or coordinate a complex organization…
Jill shouldn’t be shadow president.
But a crappy dissertation isn’t evidence of inability to lead.
Also she shouldn’t be president because her politics are genuinely destructive.
point accepted…BUT: is sloppiness, laziness, lack of language or math facility likely to indicate a lack of leadership ability? The correlation between intelligence and leadership is weak at best, nonetheless, I am less able to trust a dim bulb than a legitimate intellect. No?
Keep in mind we have been experiencing Dr. Jill’s capabilities for some time now. His condition did not present two weeks ago.
Added: did you see her ridiculous antics at Joe’s “I’m not completely a vegetable” rally after the debate?
“You answered all the questions!”
Is something you say to encourage a kindergartener.
It’s a fair concern.
At least Dr. Jill Biden earned her honorific doing sloppy work on a desktop.
Dr. Jill’s husband’s apparent successor earned her honorific doing sloppy work UNDER a desktop.
Okay, I know it’s a cheap gag. But it fits.
Not cheap at all—it’s true.
I’m pretty certain she knows what “skyrocket” means. It’s the difference between “attrition” and “retention” that baffles her.
Looking at it a second time, I’d concur with you. But that’s just as bad in a different sort of way, don’t you think? I’d say high school grads ought to know the difference between those words.
When does “skyrocket” mean something diminishing?
Try reading the whole thing. It reads like the work of a non-native English-speaker.
Skyrocketing attrition rates, rather than retention rates. That wording makes sense — but it moves the error back a couple words, it doesn’t make it better.
Oh! Right. But if one writes that incoherently, who knows what anything is supposed to mean?
“Of the 159 students surveyed, 55 receive financial aid; 41 pay their own tuition bills; 45 students’ parents pay; 3 spouses pay; 9 receive scholarships; and 9 others receive funds through the GI bill, vocational rehabilitation programs, or grants. Thus, only one-quarter of the students are able to finance their education themselves.”
I’m a numbers geek. One could parse these numbers different ways, but none of them that make sense to me equate to ‘only one-quarter’ being able to finance their own education.
If you get a scholarship or grant or GI bill, to me that means you’re financing your education. That alone takes it up to 59 of 159 (37% — well over a third). But I would also content that, in today’s society, having your parents or spouse (especially) also counts. That takes you up to 107 of 159 (67% or two thirds).
I presume that the one-quarter ratio is important to the thesis — but that I disagree with that percentage, just for starters. That’s what leaps off the page to me.
Spoiler alert.
DG– From the original article by Holly (more accurately the portion linked by Jack at the beginning of the post) U et the idea that Dr Jill was trying to address an issue of a high drop out rate at community colleges, specifically that one in Delaware. I saw nothing in the article of the excerpts from the dissertation that tied in the percentage of self-funded students.
Maybe it tied in later, since some of the quoted material mentioned the students’ suitability for “college work” and usefulness of material taught. I would have entertained the idea that if the material was substandard (alluded to in the dissertation) and fellow students who were not properly prepared stalled learning for the entire class, that maybe the self-funded students found they were not getting a good return on their investment.
Also, I do not understand how the categories of funding were arrived at. I would say that funded by the family and funded by the student could be one group (age of the student could say otherwise) but those appear to be the only “non-financial assistance” of the groups. Again, the need for them at all is not obvious.
The entire dissertation is emblematic of today’s professional “educator” class. The focus is on student retention and what they believe students need to be successful and not on what makes faculty successful. Student retention and student success are typical metrics used by administrators to justify their ability to educate the next generation and to support the existence of multiple developmental programs.
Because the focus is on ensuring student success and its related metric retention, faculty are encouraged to prevent student failure. This is how grade inflation works. This is not solely in the province of full-time faculty. Adjuncts are also schooled in the administration’s “core values” of ensuring student success and their periodic student evaluations strongly influence if they will be given another contract. Whether students know that those evaluations can end an effective adjuncts teaching at a particular school is unknown it is known to me that the highest rated adjuncts have a strong correlation between high student favorability ratings and the number of A’s and B’s awarded.
The purpose of education is to prepare people to be able to contribute to their own well-being and thus society as a whole at a greater rate than had they not gained an education. The best teachers instill in the student a desire to dig deeper and explore the subject matter beyond that which are the keep points of the chapter in their textbook, or in the parlance of students “will that be on the test”. As a faculty member, I can ensure retention by just making tests no-brainers and giving high grades. The students will love me and that will translate into my retention as an adjunct.
It is absolutely incredible how often employers and professional educators believe that education can only come by paying exorbitant sums of money to these colleges to get a degree. For so many students today they are mere scarecrows with a diploma in hand. That is not what I would call success. If they were successful we would not have to forgive the money they borrowed for their investment in education.
Dropping out of community college in some cases might be the smartest move a person can make if that person is more inclined to learn how to create substantial value for others through a technical specialty. Student success is determined by the student. Faculty success will be determined by how many students perform well in a rigorous college environment.
Back when I was kind of a middle manager in corporate America, my company gave several of us the opportunity to take classes at a nearby university that specialized in reaching out to the non-traditional student (mostly military but many other adults). They thought it valuable for us to have degrees, and they felt that what the degree was in was secondary.
The idea was that a college degree demonstrated that that person was willing to put in the time, effort, and perseverance needed to achieve that goal. I think there has historically been justification for that approach.
The problem we may be running into today is that, if you make it too easy to obtain that degree, if no one is allowed to flunk and if course credit is awarded for attendance and not mastery of the subject — then it cheapens the degree.
At some point, if businesses decide that college degrees are no longer markers of the kind of employee they’re looking for, they will find a different way of finding new employees.
I am not sure you can state that this dissertation was pushed through because of Biden’s status. I am afraid this may be representative of many dissertations today. We have expanded the number of graduate programs and doctorates awarded drastically in the last 5 years. The caliber of student in the new schools awarding doctorates is far lowers than the previous standards. Many fields have adopted multicultural and DEI standards for degrees.
A survey of ~150 people is not worthy of a master’s degree, much less a doctorate. For a doctorate, I would expect someone looking at the survey and coming up with 3-4 ways that advising could be made more effective. Then, a study was devised, with control groups, that tested the 3-4 changes over 3-4 years with statistical analysis of the results. That would be minimal. Now, the risk is that if the results don’t come back great, you may not get a doctorate, you may be downgraded to a master’s degree. I know a man who spent 4 years collecting rock samples from all over the world. At the end of his studies, he packed them all into a 500 lb crate to be sent to a facility for SQUID analysis. FedEx ‘lost’ the crate. No trace (sure). There was no time or money to reacquire and analyze the samples. His dissertation was downgraded to a thesis and he was awarded an M.S. In today’s world, I would expect that he would still get his doctorate. I am afraid Jill Biden’s survey is typical of what passes for doctoral work today.