Time Bomb for UCSD and Poet Laureate

Time Bomb explodes for California Poet Laureate Quincy T. Troupe who is also a Professor of Literature at UC San Diego.

Troupe forced to resign as California State Poet Laureate when state employees discovered he lied about having graduated from college. He now claims he attended by did not graduate from Grambling of Louisiana.

"http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poet19oct19.story"

On Troupe's UCSD webpage, "http://literature.ucsd.edu/faculty/qtroupe.cfm"

he ALSO lies about having a degree. Almost certainly this means that he lied when he applied for the position at UC San Diego. Falsifying an application for a state job is a vrime in California.

No action has been taken at UC San Diego as yet.

 

If there is any action taken, expect student protests and the race card being played. Anyone want to bet??


Bruce

 

Re: Re: Time Bomb for UCSD and Poet Laureate

The Race Card? Now that'll be a surprise!

Of course, IMHO, the issue isn't whether one needs a degree to be or teach poetry. But should a basically dishonest person be a college professor?

 

Re: Re: Re: Time Bomb for UCSD and Poet Laureate

Exactly. My favorite poet, Robert Frost, attended Harvard but never graduated. I'm fairly certain that he would have been welcome to teach poetry at any university in the world.


Bruce

 

Mr. Troupe retires, reported by the Chronicle here (subscribers only) CLICK

Retired from a job he obtained through fraud? Sweet.

The article lists several other, recent examples of academics getting caught in similar lies.

And, yes, race is an issue, at least with Mr. Troupe:

"Mr. Troupe has repeatedly apologized for the lie. But he has also attempted to make his fate a race issue. He believes the reaction would have been different had he been white. He says people wondered: 'This guy is a black guy, he doesn't have a degree, he's got dreadlocks, he's at the university, and he's making $141,000 a year. How can that be?'"

Throughout the article, Mr. Troupe and others minimize or dismiss the importance of the fake degree or of the lie, especially when compared to his extremely distinguished career. Fine. But if the degree was unimportant, why lie about it for 26 years? Troupe says it was because he was afraid of being found out. I believe him, but that means the fake degree was likely the most important thing in his life, until it reared back and bit him. Hard.

 

All this leads me to the obvious: why are degrees so important if you don't really need them to perform?

The system is broken because the degree doesn't measure anything other than the willingness to knuckle under to the masses that say you must have a degree. It equates to fraternity hazing.

I do not support the lies Troupe told.

 

This is a very large conclusion drawn from an article you might not have even read. (Unless you subscribe to The Chronicle or have some other form of access to its subscriber-only sections, of course.)

While arguments against college degrees have been convincingly offered (see Bird and Hapgood), and the literature is rife with discussion regarding degree inflation, there is nothing in the literature I've seen that reduces the meaning of a college degree to a "willingness to knuckle under to the masses that say you must have a degree." Nor have I seen it convincingly compared to frat hazing. But I'm certainly willing to read them.

College degrees--issued from properly recognized institutions--also represent the mastery of prescribed curricula, and the acknowledgement of such by an institution who's own operations are subject to peer review (accreditation).

The value of a degree in the workplace is also undeniable. And all the wailing against that fact won't change it.

 

Because other people have no way of knowing what your educational experiences have been simply by looking at you. Degrees are certifications that other people understand and know how to interpret.

That's not true.

Degrees are socially recognized measures of education. To earn one (an accredited one at any rate), one most have taken a prescribed set of courses that cover all of the expected material, and one must have performed adaquately in creative assignments, practical exercises and other assessments of that knowledge.

Most people have a hazy idea of what that includes, and professionals in one's field probably have a very good idea. When you present a degree to them, they can make reliable assumptions about your background.

It's interesting that situation here is exactly parallel to that in the accredited/non-accredited debate:

A person without a degree may know his or her stuff very well. The person my be totally competent. But other people have no way of knowing that unless they are personally familiar with the individual.

A non-accredited university might have given a student an excellent education. The graduate may be totally competent. But other people have no way of knowing that unless they are personally familiar with the school.

 

Right on! Next time I need a serious operation I want a doctor that didn’t “knuckle under to the masses.” I don’t care if she’s operating out of her basement or garage.

 

Then why do you "wanna JD?" Particularly given the fact that you have stated that you do not wish to practice law.

 

Hardy har! I'm not talking about doctors. But your point actually supports what I'm saying, sort of. Where a doctor must have absolute factual knowledge and sound scientific reasoning, I hardly think a poet needs the same...

 

In order to beat the enemy, you must join him

 

My statements do absolutely nothing to support your position. He didn't lose his job as a poet, did he? He lost his job as a college professor. As such, his firing was more than justified. Unless, of course, you do not believe that integrity and sound judgment are laudable qualities for someone entrusted with molding young minds (or anyone else for that matter).

What bothers me most is that it sends a message to many that you must resort to subterfuge and deceit in order to succeed. This is patently false.

 

You need only look to our current president for a perfect example of such subterfuge.

Yes, the Supreme Court made the decision. But it was lined up with perfect cronies.

America is a great place. We hold different people to different standards, however.

 

This sums it up nicely. Nice shot, Gus.

 

Again, I walk right into the over degreed buddy camp.




You folks have a nice, comfy agree-fest.

The guy did his job well without the degree, period.

Degree not needed.

Period.

 

The guy was a college professor.

He lied about his alleged college degree.

He was fired.

Period.

 

Is this a last word contest?


If so...

...dude did a good job, was kept on for years, would never have been hired without lying about the degree, thus, proved his point.

Period.

 

And so YOUR point is ... that it is A-OK to LIE
about a degree, that you don't have, in order
to secure the desired position?

Sweet ...

Is this the same logic you use/will use with
a career in either accounting or law?

UGLY ... you are the type that makes it tough
for all the good persons in those career fields.

Billy