The only trouble with David Lipscomb is that old man Lipscomb apparently didn't like football. So we don't have a football team, but we have a great faculty.
But you do have to be careful about one thing. My professor—I have this great professor—told me that you have to be careful not to get too much education, because you could lose your foundation, your core values.
If you get a bachelors, you'll probably be okay. But my professor said that when you get a master's, and definitely if you go beyond that, you can lose your values. He said that college students have to be watchful because if you get too much education, you could turn liberal. He's seen it happen to a lot of good Christians.
Even at Lipscomb, you have to be careful what you pay attention to. My professor said that a few faculty members might lead you astray without meaning to, by bringing in ideas that aren't biblical. He said that if you're ever taught anything that sounds questionable, you should talk about it with your minister to see if it's right.
My first reaction is “Well, come on, what do you expect from people who think Starbucks is good coffee?” Even in Nashville, there are much better places to get one's daily caffeine fix.
A college professor advising his students to avoid "too much eduction" is hypocritical. The mistaken belief that liberalism is inconsistent with Christianity is depressing. But sadly, I don't find either of these particularly surprising. I grew up in and near Nashville. David Libscomb is that bible college that we drove by every day on the way to my high school. It's where the ultra-religious evangelical Middle Tennessee parents send their kids to get a college degree, without having to worry about them straying from the fold. Lipscomb is not the sort of university one attends to experience the unfettered expression of dangerous ideas; if anything, it's the opposite.
At least, that's how it appeared to me growing up.
It might surprise some of these skittish students, faculty, and parents to learn that David Lipscomb esposed a few liberal, perhaps even multicultural, ideas himself (however attenuated by his condescending turn-of-the-20th-century southern racism and sexism).
It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this.
I published what I did to show that the best sentiment of the people is not in harmony with the narrow and bitter prejudices of many against the negro, with the hope that the knowledge of this would soften their prejudices and feelings against him. The bitter feeling against the negro is not found among those who know him best. Those who know him best know his weaknesses and shortcomings. They learn to make allowances for and bear with these, and recognize and cultivate his good points. Then all should recognize that there is much of the brutal in all classes and races, and that the negro is much like the whites in this, and can be benefited and uplifted by kindness and attention.
This is my judgment as to the line between the permissable and prohibited. But there are difficulties in drawing this line, and for one man to say I draw the line here, and if you do not come exactly to by standard, I will withdraw from you - is to show himself a bigot and to declare his utter unfitness for ruling the church of God. They are not to lord it over God's heritage, but they are to rule in love and by fidelity, in example and precept to the teachings of the Master[.]
Update: As usual, Teresa Lhotka hits the nail squarely on the head.
I guess it is not surprising that such an idea; that ignorance is Godly, is promoted by people who are ignorant enough to misperceive what scholars mean when they describe that moment of pure possibility. I guess it makes sense that those with a fragile faith would teach others that faith is too fragile to withstand the power of knowledge.
Starting from New Kid's list:
Copy this list of 10 authors, and replace each author not on your bookshelves with one that is. (Replaced authors are in bold.)
More than 80,000 funny-looking brown people may have been killed in this wekeend's tsunami, but at least Petra Nemcova is still alive! What a relief! Isn't she beeyootiful? Oh, thank you, thank you, CNN for setting our pasty white sex-crazed minds at ease. We should start a campaign immediately to forge the pin for her broken pelvis from silver recovered from the World Trade Center!
Sigh. Just when you think American news can't get any worse....
[via Language Log]
Alan Selman comments on Lance's blog about copyrights on conference and journal papers. Essentially, his point is that the common practice in many areas of computer science (but not all; see below) of submitting the same paper verbatim to both a conference and a journal is legally dangerous and therefore to be avoided.
Assuming that the publisher of the conference proceedings holds copyright of the papers that appears in the proceedings, the paper that one submits to a refereed journal must be substantially different from the one that appears in a conference proceeding in order to avoid copyright infringement. [...] The essential point is that the journal version must be essentially different from the conference version.
If Prof. Selman's argument had focused on self-plagiarism or resume-padding, I might have bought it. But the copyright argument just doesn't hold any water with me, for one simple reason—publishers shouldn't own the copyrights in the first place! Authors, not publishers, should be the final arbiters of the legal use of their written work. There should be no legal prohibition against my publishing my own papers as many times in as many different media as I like. Of course, I'd still have to convince all those editors, but that's a different problem.
(Once again, I'm tempted to submit my next conference paper with “This paper is in the public domain.” plastered on the bottom of the first page, just to see what ACM or SIAM or IEEE does.)
The argument is further weakened by the existence of short, self-contained, high-quality papers. See, for example, Ben-Or's classic paper on lower bounds for algebraic decision trees, or Seidel's paper on shortest paths. Should the authors of such short papers cripple them further for conference publication, or artificially inflate them for journal publication? Neither choice serves either the author or the research community.
I don't have any problem with the “common and acceptable practice” of sending virtually verbatim conference papers to journals, provided that paper appears as a single entry on the author's CV. I think good computer science papers should be published twice: once at a conference to make the result known to the community, and once in a journal to benefit from rigorous refereeing. But listing the same work in five different places on your CV is simply dishonest, even if it was published in five different contexts with five different levels of detail.
An anonymous commenter asks:
Don't most journals anyway have the requirement that the journal version be substantially different from the conference version?
In my experience, the answer to this question is no. At least in the journals where I publish, neither the editors nor publishers seem to care about duplicating conference papers, if they even notice.
However, I have been told by some systems colleagues that in their communities, republishing results in a journal that previously appeared in a conference is strictly forbidden; once a paper is published, it's published. And simply providing more details or running more experiments with the same system isn't good enough; journal papers must reflect new research. This makes it much more difficult for systems researchers to publish journal papers, since to have any impact they must present their work at prestigious conferences and publish it in the proceedings.
Most (all?) academic fields outside computer science treat conferences in a way that avoids this problem entirely—conference papers just don't count as publications. In many ways, this seems more sane than the computer science standard. Unfortunately for computer scientists who prefer sanity, it's not the computer science standard. For better or worse, computer science conference publications really do matter. (It's not entirely clear why computer science evolved this way; Lance thinks it has something to do with airplanes.)
Needless to say, the differing social standards for conference and journal publication, even within computer science, play absolute havoc with the tenure process.
I'm glad I don't have a TV in my new apartment, but if I did, I'd be watching
Law & Order: Complex Variables Unit CSI: Bourbaki Prime Suspect 24 Numb3rs! FBI Special Agent Don Eppes recruits his genius brother Charlie (ahem) who uses a mathematical equation to solve the crime! It's like Quincy, only with a slide rule instead of forceps!
"You see, the thing here is that the button for 5 doesn't light up."
"...I think I'm gonna be sick..."
Sorry, that was "Law & Order: Elevator Inspectors Unit".
Moebius Stripper takes some comfort in the results of a CBS poll. Not me. CBS isn't exactly well-known for its believable statistics. At least “Don't be ridiculous; of course not” should have been one of the possible answers.
I suppose we math folks can hope that Numb3rs will have the same effect on mathematics that CSI had on forensics and LA Law had on lawyers—those TV shows made kids more interested in their respective professions. But somehow, given Suresh's glowing review, I doubt it.