Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
... blatantly misleading conclusion. So bad, whoever the hell reviewed it should be ashamed.
That is all for now. Ugh.
|
^This.
As a U of C alumni, I have defended the school from charges in some quarters that the University's name is "for sale" two or three times. I know at least one case when it allegedly was.
While I may not always agree with others points of view, they have a right to that point of view and it adds to the discussion when that discourse is at a standard that is at least defensible. Credability is critical as a university sanctioning junk science debases the actual science the institution does and anyone associated with the University (i.e. alumni). It's your reputation as an alumni too. This document is at the academic level of something presumably thrown together in an hour by Friends of Science under the University's name.
The sneer at the planning profession is unprofessional and unbecoming as well. It comes off as juvenile.
As a U of C alumni, I'm embarassed. The lead author's credability really loses as well. A quick google search doesn't provide a quick way for alumni to provide feedback to someone at the U of C; anyone know of one?
Threaded Mode