This book is a disgrace to academia
580281
This book is a disgrace to academia. The author has yet to master the art of forming a coherent thought or sentence. He routinely writes in the vernacular, rather than a formal researcher's form. Topics are generally discussed by listing a heading, then inserting some ramblings which are devoid of proper paragraph structure and citations. Once you get past the dire lack of high school level composition skills, you find an author bent on slanting his readers toward his own views, which, unsurprisingly, are quite socialist.  Rather than begin with premises and present supporting arguments and research, he automatically assumes his own slanted view is correct. I find it hard to believe this book is published and used in classrooms, but I suppose the socialists have to make up for a lack of logical thought with print volume.
1032600
This book was not written for students.  It was written so that the author can gain respect from his from his academic peers.  The explanations are absolutely horrible.  It purposely explains simple concepts in overly verbose, complicated ways.  The idea is to make the subject appear as complicated as possible when it doesn't need to be.  It reads like those academic papers that are purposely written in overly complicated language so that nobody understands what the author is talking about except the author himself.  The idea is to impress his academic circle by showing that he did a "complicated" analysis.

When are these people going to learn that "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Da Vinci?

Here's an example.  Do you know what's a percentile?  Think about your SAT or GRE score report.  80th percentile means 80% of the people scored lower than you.  90th percentile means 90% of the people scored lower than you.  Simple, right?  This book introduces the concept like this:

"The d.f. of a random variable X gives us the probability that X<=x for all real numbers x.  It is often the case that we choose a probability, like 1/2, and we want to know where in the distribution of X we can find that probability.  For example, suppose that X is the amount of rain that will fall tomorrow and we want to place an even-money bet on X as follows.  If X<=x0, we win one dollar and if X>x0 we lose one dollar.  In order to make this bet fair, we need Pr(X<=xo)=Pr(X>x0)=1/2.  We could use all the real numbers x trying to find one such that F(x)=1/2, and then we could let x0 equal the value we found.  If F is a one-to-one function, then F has an inverse F^-1 and x0=F^-1(1/2)." - P.114

Lol! If you want to learn like this, go ahead and buy this book.  I'll give this book two stars because there are probably a few souls out there who actually do prefer to learn like this.
4289445
Mr. Dimont does not apparently have any academic credentials, and his book shows it. While it is true, as another reviewer mentioned, that Dimont includes an extensive bibliography, Dimont does not provide footnotes, endnotes, or even informal mention of sources within his text to signal the sources of his claims. As a college English teacher, if one of my students handed in a paper written this way, it would fail. It's unclear which sources provide which information and which "facts" have been merely invented. This is unethical writing, bordering on academic dishonesty. Dimont frequently supports his points by referencing "scholars" or "archeological evidence," yet never reveals which scholars, in which texts, nor quotes directly, nor does he say what archeological evidence, found by whom, working for what institution. Shabby work. I confess that I am writing this review after only having read to page 37 of this book. While I rarely judge a book on so few pages, I feel obligated to review this book on this evidence, since I feel so misled by the many of posted reviews. To read further would subject me to the danger that I may remember some of Dimont's questionable "facts" and accept them for truth. I am so concerned about the potential for misinformation and disinformation in this book that I do not even feel comfortable reselling this book, as I often do with books I will not reread, since a less critical reader might take this for accurate history. I will be seeking out a book on Jewish history that adheres to standards of scholarship, and I recommend you do the same.
3520320
I finally got around to reading this book, and was astonished to find that nearly all of Michael Denton's impossibly wrong account of hierarchies in taxonomy was included as chapter six. Denton, in his "Evolution: A theory in crisis" bases the whole of his argument against common descent on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of molecular data. The error is so egregious that, had he submitted it to any organismal biologist for review, it would have been obvious enough to warrant the cutting of the chapter. Denton himself has acknowledged the error, and retracted his attack against common descent.
So what does it say that this "textbook" accepts with an uncritical eye the argument, verbatim, and makes it the foundation of its discussion on molecular systematics? Only that the authors were ill-informed about the field.
It is unfathomable that any student will get anything of scientific substance from this book. The arguments are incoherent, and the data are woefully out of date. The representations of modern biology are laughably simplistic.
As a propoganda tool, Of Pandas and People is of marginal value, as its muddy arguments are not likely to make much of an impression on thoughtful students. As a "science textbook" it is downright shameful.
4454463
I love books and own literally a small library. However I rarely take the time to review books.  But this book annoys me so much that I will make an exception.  I was forced to buy an electronic version of this book for a class, for full list price.  No way to re-sell it.  That is the insult.  The injury is that it does not seem to have been revised since 1960 or so.  The chapter examples cover things like 5 tube radios (the "All American 5" radio design was common in the 1930's through the 1960's) and computers that have a mean time to failure of 150 hours (what are they talking about?  The ENIAC?).  I get the impression that the only thing that has been revised in this book is the problems, so the publisher can call it a new edition and make the old copies unusable by students.

Crucial theoretical background is left as exercises which do not even have a hint as to how to approach them, and many of the problems do not not obviously follow from the chapter discussions.  Although many problems have "solutions," the"solution" is a number with no clue in most cases where it came from.  At best, a solution is given in fractional form, which might suggest one way of setting up the problem.  I found an old copy of Hines and Montgomery (1972) to be far more helpful, and wish I could find my old copy of Walpole and Myers - it is the best introduction to statistics I have found.
126102
As a graduate student, I am completely disappointed in this book being used to teach a 500 level class. This is the 4th Edition, and yet it is absolutely riddled with grammatical errors. There are incomplete sentences, missing words, incorrect uses of commas, and improper verb tenses throughout the entire text. Nystul also contradicts himself in many places, relies too heavily on his own research for supporting evidence, and includes an overabundance of personal notes, many of which are irrelevant to students going into a Master's level counseling program as opposed to a Ph. D psychology program. This is by far the worst textbook I have ever dealt with as a graduate student.
1029689
Waxler and Hall argue that literacy is the only form of education worth pursuing. They do this while undermining the arts and the rest of education. They gather and regurgitate anecdotal evidence (not that either of them really understands research) in seemingly no particular order. Ironically one of the worst books I have ever read. The only reason you're looking at this review is because you have to buy it. I'm telling you that you don't.
1842814
This book should be a disgrace to the author who mocks others who have written books that later shamed them (takes up excessive space criticizing - as this book is chalked full of digs into others experiences including but certainly not limited to respected authors, scholars, and Native Tribes). It is more about putting everyone else down in an attempt to appear smart than to teach us anything at all. In this book she speaks of those people who "trip out" and come up with strange interpretations or even have visions of the future as if every prophet in hisotry took acid and there is no validation of such an experience. She even states that one respected Mayan elder "loves publicity" in the context of discounting his own words about the matter. What is the purpose of such a remark...it is as if she had no self control and was on a tangent - no proofreading. She is smug, undereducated, and uses sarcasm in the worst way. This book is in bad taste. We can give facts without putting people down. We can share our knowledge (which by way many things from this book were plagiarized from reports I have read, yet not cited), and still share how peoples experiences matter. I don't believe in the 2012 hype either but I also do not discount the experiences of others as 'tripped out people' or build things up only to attempt to sound more intelligent than the rest of humanity by tearing people down. There is a reason people believe these things and I think it would have been better served to share facts and interpret them with a spirit of respect. The Hopi prophecy was not foretold by a bunch of crazy people tripping. It was a spiritual event. I think this book is a disgrace, as said earlier, and would recommend anything on 2012 but this. If you chose to read this do so because you have no opinions of your own and have no respect for the most esteemed elders in history.
2914493
This book is absolutely terrible. It is being used as a graduate level text in neural networks and it is perhaps one of the most abysmally written textbooks ever. The chapter problems are completely out of scope given the material presented and even the solutions manual is poorly written, incomplete, and presented with little or no explanation at all. Many of the solutions do not even answer the questions that they are associated with. The text relies very heavily on esoteric mathematics that are not even remotely explained nor are references even provided to provide foundation. Very few examples are provided throughout the text and the material is nearly impossible to follow.
1641466
I don't read books that I think I will dislike. I had high hopes for Beyond Fundamentalism. But the inescapable conclusion for this one is that it is a piece of unmitigated intellectual dishonesty. Aslan has had three titles for this book, which preface what is confirmed within the book: that Aslan does not have any clear, coherent, consistent thesis (that he's willing to admit to the reader at least). One of the titles includes the subtitle "Confronting Radical Religions". He does this by regurgitating examples of religious violence and extremism that exists in every religion. Nothing original there. The only interesting part is that he spends the majority of the book attacking and ridiculing Jews, Christians, and secularists under the theme of the repression of Muslims. When he does write of Muslim violence, it is strictly and explicitly Sunni Muslim violence. Aslan mention the word 'Shi'a' a total of five times in his book, and every single one is describing the hatred Sunni 'Jihadists' feel for Shi'as. In a book about radical religions, Aslan mentions the word 'Iran' a total of eight times, not one of them actually criticizing any Iranian for radicalism. Did I mention that Aslan is both of Iranian descent and Shi'a? What are the odds that he would attack virtually every other tradition for their religious violence while deflecting and avoiding any and all instances of religious violence from within his own tradition (of which there are numerous examples)?

Aslan couches his rhetoric in liberal and intellectual language, yet he is no liberal and no intellectual (in the sense that he seeks the truth, which has nothing to do with intelligence). His mission is to justify and excuse atrocities done in the name of Islam with the argument "Well they did it too!" Such is an example of Hasib Hussain, one of the '7/7' London bombers that killed over 50 people in 2005. Aslan spends an entire chapter providing the reader with reasons to believe Hussain was confused and had no other choice, mainly due to Hussain's (and every young European Muslim's) "crisis of identity". Aslan does not mention that most teenagers suffer from crises of identity. He does not consider that, for example, gay, disabled, transgender teenagers all over the world suffer from a severe "crisis of identity". Yet they do not often blow up busses. This suggests to me that Aslan's justification's for Hussain's actions are off the mark. He did not write one word of condemnation of Hussain or his actions. Yet, in the same chapter, he blasts "neofascist' European politicians, "pseudointellectual" critics of Islam such as Aayan Hirsi Ali, a blatantly "Nazi" political party in Britain, and endorses religious violence as being good for social movements (although Jihadism takes it too far).

Aslan markets himself as the go-to modern, liberal, Muslim 'intellectual'. But Islam does not need his dishonest defense; he does more harm than good. The world is more than able to see that the majority of Muslims are a beautiful, generous, fascinating people without the dishonesty of Reza Aslan.
3292259
An alternate title for this book would be "Captain Underpants Aces Graduate School (Extra Bonus: 'Frickin' Gratuitous Pseudo-Swearwords on Every Page !)".  I purchased this book based on positive reviews that confused the distinction between lewd and stupid - lewd I can handle.  This book will be relished by life members of the fart & burp club who wish to obtain a graduate degree with the least effort. It largely ignores the concept or utility of graduate education.  Perhaps the book relfects the biases of the social sciences, but my grad students in the natural sciences would skin me alive if I assigned a book that squandered so many pages on the excessive trappings of extended adolescence while instructing them carefully in the art of dodging.  Its key redeaming features are a collection of excellent quotes and written caricatures of professors in the social sciences and humanities - the authors must know my dean.
4225046
This is a terrible book! The author claims to base her work on research; however, the research would not stand up if it were peer reviewed. The book is self-published. The ideas promote deficit ideology and blames the victims (poor people) rather than exploring systemic causes of poverty. It is unfortunate that educators choose work like this rather than critical work that attempts to dismantle the systems that create and maintain poverty.
2255368
John Meacham's book is horrible. I doubt very much that if Meacham was not the editor of Newsweek, would such brilliant writers as Kearns swallow hard and give this book rave reviews. Sentences run so long you feel like you are reading this book in a car- by page 120, I needed to take a motrin. Whole sections of the book simply quote earlier biographers. Whole passages of history are sandwiched between - and -, so Meacham can avoid hard analysis of historical trends. It is as if you are reading a college sophmore trying to fit in as much history as he can during a test, hoping the professor does not notice he cut class.

Meacham is perplexed that Jackson became President without proper schooling. He tries to make Jackson into an intellectual ( he liked Greek Revival Architecture, even if he did not go to Harvard!)- this leads Meacham to probe into what made Jackson into a great man. Maybe it was religion.

"Jackson also heard the call of Gideon's trumpet- the call to, as Saint Paul put it, fight the good fight".  Here Meacham is discusing Jackson's Presbyterianism; but in striving to write about Jackson's embrace of religion in language better suited to a Hollywood movie, Meacham distorts the tenets of Presbyterianism -which argued that God has already decided who was saved. Meacham finds Jackson's rise improbable because he was not educated; Jackson's mother wanted Jackson to be a minister- " an ambition for him that may have been among the reasons he (Jackson) was able to envision himself rising to a place of authority". So in Newsweek fashion, Meacham twists historical reality to prove Meacham's theory. Why? Because Ministers were educated!

Meacham's contempt for his readers his best shown by  such brilliant feats of analysis as the following: "Referring to his "juvenile companions," Jackson said," but alas, most of them are gone to that bourne where I am hastening and from whence no one returns"- in other words, they were dead."

I am so glad I have Meacham to gloss over such hard passages, I would never have known.

There is a good book here. If you cut out Meacham, and leave the earlier biographers (who are quoted for pages), the words of the actors  themselves, yes, you do arrive at a pretty good. Let me get out a razor blade so the 25 bucks was not a total waste.
716454
There is so much scientific nonsense in the book that it is appalling!

Working in the field of self-organized behavior in insects colonies, I can tell you that the presentation of that subject in the book is awful!

The number of wrong statement is so outrageously large that they are impossible to list below 10 pages of text!!

It is a pity because such a book completely discredits a real scientific field that is confronted enough with new-age babble, scientific unfounded or wrong statements, pseudo-philosophical stupidities and so on.

If you want to learn something real about "emergence" please stay away from this book.

The rating of 1 star is just for the paper on which the book is written...
430286
As a world history professor, I consider myself to be relatively open-minded as far as popular history goes. Popular history is a great and admirable way to make academic studies approachable to the public at large.

Having said that, this book is popular history at its worst. Legitimate historians worldwide find these authors to be guilty of the worst kind of manipulation of history and fabrication of "fact". This book lays its foregone conclusions like a blueprint over the past, manufacturing myths, and (what is worse) disguising them them as history. There is no legitimate scholarship here, and a heinous disregard of evidence.  This book is dangerously far from the honest pursuit of historical knowledge, and is in no way a legitimate study of the past.
4094907
This "text" is so full of errors and mis-characterizations that I am astounded that supposedly educated people even tolerate it.  Just in the introductory section, for example, the author tells the gullible student that explorers determined the earth was round - but it was Eratosthenes of Egypt who did that - and calculated the diameter fairly accurately, nearly a millennium earlier.  In the economics section, he tells the student that scarcity increases demand.  But any economist know that scarcity shifts the supply curve leftward, raising the price intersection on the demand curve (reducing demand), and thus raising the market price.  The book is filled with Islamic sales pitches - tolerance blossoms while the decrees that deny women equal voice in courts, that compel that infidels be struck on the necks (beheaded), and that divorce is effected by simple declaration by the male (even against little girls too young to menstruate) are never mentioned.  Mosques are mentioned in the index 10 times - cathedrals 0.  You don't have time in this report to read all I discovered in my copy (2104).  It is sloppy in detail and biased in characterization.
3293592
Look, this book according to well done responsible journalism by CNN has been found to have 50 instances of plagiarism of a variety of sources. For a doctoral recipient of Columbia University to do such an act it is totally disrespectful of the academic honesty that the school promotes and, also, it affects the credibility of the publisher Harper Collins as they are selling this book. If there is a silver lining, it is that this book reminds all of us that we need to strive for something better than doing things to improve ourselves but rather we need to realize that we all are in it together and communicating with one and other honestly (in this case by giving credit to all sources of what we have used in our book) is important. This book is unfortunately discredited and not worthy of proper attention or debate.