The watering down of higher education.

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by jeffwhetzel, Apr 23, 2002.

Loading...
  1. jeffwhetzel

    jeffwhetzel New Member

    I joined this disscussion board because I am interested in furthering the distance education, in particular online programs at the college level. When I arrived on the scene I found two camps: one groups that has a real interest in expanding distance education as we know it and another side that was constantly looking for the easiest path to a college degree/profession. This is disheartening to me because I feel strongly that a college education, at any level, is about more than a credential. So many people feel that a piece of paper on ones wall some how qualifies a person to be a doctor, lawyer, teacher and the list goes on. But it is not that simple. For decades we have been on the honor system in this country, if you put out a shingle that you were a lawyer I knew that you had completed a course of study in law and that you were sanctioned by the bar. I always trusted that I was protected by that relationship/professional affiliation. I no longer feel that way because today, and it is not a new idea, more and more people are attempting to achieve a status that is beyond their reach and they see education as the great equalizer. That is the problem with many of the people on this baord, they are always looking for the quickest fix. They want the cheapest or easiest solution to their own educational situation.

    That said I do believe that some groups have been denied their equal right or opportunity to quality education and I think that this will be an area of contention for years to come, but opening the flood gate of college degrees does nothing to help these people. Instead it has a negative impact by undermining the strong foundation of our higher education system. If college degrees were being sold at a convenience store down the street would you want one? I get on here every day and read peoples questions about the validity of non-accredited degrees and what you can expect if you get one. Would you want a non-accredited doctor performing a bypass surgery on your mother? Would you like to have an non-accredited lawyer represent you in court if your life depended on the outcome? Honestly all of you that constantly proclaim the virtues of unaccredited degree programs and institutions do you feel that you are entilted to a degree or profession? By encouraging people to enroll in unaccredited colleges and universities and to accept degrees from places that we would personally consider to be unscrupulous we undermine all that is good about higher education.

    A retort written prior to the attack of the angry mob:
    I am not against unaccredited schools or people who want to better themselves. But, know going into a situation that if you have heard that the school you are considering is shady and you are only going there because of the ease of the required work or low cost, that you get what you pay for. It gets old listening to people ask the same questions about the same low quality institutions and I use that word very cautiously in this instance. Grow up already, being envious of educated people is fine as long as it directs you towards a goal of self improvement. Just remeber this: things that sound to good to be true usually are.

    Jeff Whetzel
    BA Indiana Univesity Bloomington
    MA Ball State University
     
  2. simon

    simon New Member

    Jeff,

    There is merit to what you state. The issue however is that many people seek the "easy way out" whether in pursuit of degrees or in other areas of their lives. The strong work ethnic and the attitudes that accompanied those values that epitomized our society up until the early 60's has long past. Many individuals seek the fast buck, the inpulsive opportunity and the desire to achieve success readily without the concomitant effort!

    We have learned that exhortation does not change or modify peoples' mindsets, value structure or belief systems!

    Our society, in most aspects depicts an unrealistic jet-set lifestyle marked by a lack of ethics in dealing with others, a negation of others rights and needs and a devaluation of life itself. Just look at the content and quality of the films that abound in movie theatres and note the propensity of these issues that I refer to above.

    Observe the "get over" behavior of many politicians including the level of presidential behavior in relationship to a female underling that the country had to endure for so many years and the message that this conveyed to this nation's constituents. Moreover, look at the issues that have surfaced in the religious sector regarding the pervasive abuse of children in even this "sacred" area of our lives.

    The point is that seeking the easy way to accomplish goals, such as in attempting to obtain unaccredited degrees, is not an isolated issue. It is symptomatic of a much more widespread and systemic problem that is linked to the erosion of ethics, altruism and integrity that is so prevalent in many areas of our lives.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2002
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Access to higher education was, for much of our history, largely limited to the privileged. Increasing access does not have to dilute either its importance, nor its quality, provided standards are maintained. Otherwise, exclusivity is the cause of its importance, a "good ol' boys" club, if you will.

    David Hapgood in 1971's "Diplomaism" made the argument that we have degree inflation; that our systems are demanding higher degrees to do the same jobs where lower--or no--degrees were required before. Increasing access to higher education would seem to feed into this; more people getting degrees means one must have even higher degrees to distinguish one's self. But this ignores the fact that more education also means a more capable and productive workforce. I'm pretty sure there's a strong correlation between a society's education and its per capita income.

    This could all be a sinister plot hatched by the higher education industry to increase demand for its products. But I doubt it.

    Distance learning doesn't necessarily increase access. True, it solves some issues for some people (like with scheduling, balancing family responsibilities, overcoming physical limitations, etc.). But the costs of distance learning remain high--and largely borne by its participants as DL schools and/or programs within schools are usually meant to be self sustaining.

    As for the "easy as possible," "get over" crowd, don't be too hasty in judgment. It is not too many people that would choose to work more rather than less to achieve most goals. It gets back to why people choose to pursue a higher degree in the first place. Sure, some (many? most?) people do it to further their knowledge and/or skills in their field(s) of study. But that can almost always be done outside academia. Some people are in it just for the credential. Others don't mind learning something new along the way to the credential. But it would seem daft to be in a degree program and not want the degree. How many doctoral candidates, mired in the dismal, primordeal ooze that is the dissertation process, wouldn't just take the degree if it was handed to them?

    Finally, the question of unaccredited schools is a complicated one, with as many facets as there are people to comment on them. To chose an absolutist's stance is safe, but it ignores the finer points of the issue. Personally, I like being both for and against unaccredited schools. It's a sign of my being involved with this field since the days when Heed University and The Fielding Institute could be mentioned in the same vein. Back then, who knew that Laurence University would evolve into an accredited school (University of Sarasota, now Argosy U.) and an unaccredited one (University of Santa Barbara). But it happened. Who knows what's going to happen in the field in the coming years? But ignoring the issues and closing one's mind to all the facts will certainly ensure one will miss it!;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2002
  4. defii

    defii New Member

    I've always enjoyed reading the well-considered comments made by Rich and Simon. More than simply enjoying it, I've come to respect the methodological approach inherent in your reasoning. Jeff's comments are also intriguiging and appreciated. Now, please allow me to add my two cents.

    First, I agree that we have seen a shift, particularly in more developed regions of the world, where everyone is trying to do more in a shorter period of time. Microwave ovens are intended to cook our food in 25% (arbitrary number) of the time it takes a conventional oven to do the same. So, yes, there is a quest to do things faster. This is true in higher education. People want to earn their degrees faster, often without regard to whether or not quality is compromised.

    Second, I would argue however that "quicker" does not necessarily mean diminished quality. Now if we are talking about the aging process necessary for a fine wine, that's one thing. On the other hand, if we are talking about the decrease in time it takes to travel transcontinentally by jet as opposed to turbo-prop, that's another thing. Where education falls in this respect is subject to debate. Does knowledge need the benefit of age and time to be sound? Or, is it possible that individuals with the right aptitude can acquire knowledge in shorter periods of time?

    Third, with regards to doctoral programs, I am well aware that a good number of people are enchanted by the idea of being called "doctor." A quick program from a less-than-reputable school is often seen as the shortest route to the endowment of a title. But there is another factor that is important. I think Rich alluded to this: COST. I have seen a few doctoral programs (RA) that are relatively low cost. However, the majority of them are very expensive and thus precludes the economically disadvantaged from pursuing them. Anecdotally speaking, while I would not consider myself economically disadvantaged, that is my biggest constraint - COST. I'm an "A" student. In all my graduate pursuits I've done extremely well. But to be able to get financial assistance for a doctoral program, I'll have to go to school full time and benefit from a fellowship or assistantship. I would not consider an unaccredited school because I have teaching aspirations. But surely you can see how people can become frustrated and choose that path.

    Finally, I would suggest that doctoral programs fall into several categories. Functionally though, there are professional doctorates and academic doctorates. I believe universities are blurring the lines. Nowadays, the Ed.D has the same requirements in most schools as the Ph.D in Education. Historically, that was not necessarily so. In some cases, I recall the professional doctorates costing less than the academic ones. Fact is, everyone pursuing a doctoral program isn't interested in becoming a tenured professor. There is room then for doctoral programs that are more functional in nature and do not necessarily have the academic rigor of research doctorates. And those who choose such programs aren't lazy or intelluctually inferior. They just have different objectives.

    My two cents...
     
  5. Peter French

    Peter French member

    An interesting topic you have started...

    Someone recently somewhere [I am sorry as I didn't tag this one] compared high school qualifications in 1960 year 10, with 1980 year 12 with year 2000 bachelor degrees, and came to the conclusion that there was not a lot of difference - did anyone else read this, or similar? It does bear considering in a context...

    In 1960 we could start our professional accounting exams at end of year 10, and on completion pay our fees and submit some references, and walk out 2-3 years later as a public accountant. In 1980 we had to have a college 3 year Diploma. In 2000 we required a 3 year university degree, plus a CPA program, then another public practice program to become a public accountant - in all another 2-3 years. In many practices, like mine [the one I had for 17 years until 1992, and the one I am again starting aged 58], principals and partners comprise all 3. Is any one any better or worse than the other? Are all equal? Some 1960's [not including me] may tend to put down the 2000's, but if they can't spell, use correct grammer or add up ....! but generally the 2000's look to the 1960's for mentorship.

    We can look at 3 interesting writers I read in my MEd on this:

    Cardinal Newman - any of his writings on the topic
    Abraham Flexner [Universities, OUP, 1930]
    Carl Rogers [Freedom to Learn, Merrill, 1969]

    and I think that the reader would see the evolutionary process there ... all attitudes expressed and developed are generally what we have in present quality education today. To revert to a Newman or a Flexner model, would deny the progress that they were engendering.

    In many cases, academic qualifications are obtained for entry into a profession or vocation - for example accounting, engineering, law, teaching. This the requires a second level of accreditation, by the professional body or licensing/Government authority. This criteria has been set by the previous generation who have in effect raised to bar by looking at the present requirements and realistically comparing this with what they did academically. This is not necessarily a qualification creep, or quietly stating that yesterday's bachelor is equal to today's master. It is simply assessing that current needs cannot be adequately met by yesterdays degree. Those of course with yesterday's degree realise why CPE/CPD is compulsory.

    However, post compulsory education is a business and in typically Government funded countries like Australia and UK, institutions are being coerced/forced to raise external funding. To do this they must look at a broader market, and two current examples of this are attracting international students, and creating new degree streams. In Australia, this is clearly evidenced by the proliferation of Masters degrees, which it can be debated may or may not lead to or develop masterly skills in anything in particular. Some people like collecting them - and the universities like collecting their money. So we have 'conversion masters degrees' which do not require a basic level of competency in the discipline for entry, but develop these in the 'masters' degree. We also have masters degrees stripped back so that there is no requirement for entry other than a bachelor degree, and then they only take 12 months - previously an honours [research] year, post graudate Bachelors [BEd] or Graduate Diploma was required and then it was another 2 years. And then we have direct entry into masters degrees by people for whom this will be their first degree. Just because mine was a tougher route, am I going to deny them their degree or secretly despise it?

    Your opinion on unaccredited degrees is simply that - an opinion, and I think that we are all big enough and ugly enough here by now, to discuss/debate this topic maturely. Our opinions don't always agree, and over time some of our opinions change. My opinion is that where commercial or professional utility is required, anyone who took a short cut, a sloppy accredited degree, or even an unacredited degree, has removed a lot of doubt as to their academic prowess. If commerciality and utility is not the issue, and it is a matter of learning for the sake of learning, accredited, unaccredited, state licensed, library card - is it significant? You say yes, I say no, Rich says somewhere in between. My recommendation was, is and always will be, to at least professionally qualify at the best place you can get into or afford that is accredited, preferably get the next degree level up the same way - which here is a Masters, and in US a PhD or professional docstorate in most cases [degree creep?], and after that does it really matter?

    Above all, be proud of what you achieve, strive for quality, don't ever even be tempted to 'pass off', and any who look down on you - well, you know who you are.

    Peter French
    MEd MAcc CMA
    Australia
     
  6. jeffwhetzel

    jeffwhetzel New Member

    Simon, I couldn't agree with you more. You are right on target with your characterization. Mr. Douglas you bring up some very good points about this subject. I think that for your purposes setting right in the middle of things might work well for you, because you study both side of the issue that I have highlighted. It would not serve you well to argue one side or the other even though you could do very well. Mr. Fraser elaborated on the issue of cost and paying for your education and that to is important. I do see why people get frustrated, on a daily basis in fact. Cost is a serious concern for all students, but especially non-traditional aged students trying to go back school.

    I also appreciated Mr. French's reply as it also contains some really good information. In particular I like the quote he used to end his reply.

    "Above all, be proud of what you achieve, strive for quality, don't ever even be tempted to 'pass off', and any who look down on you - well, you know who you are. "

    I really like this! I wish that everyone could be proud of what they achieve, but the reality remains that there are people out there willing to scam others by offering inadequate education or even worse yet, bogus degrees. I feel that it is my duty as a student affairs professional to always steer students in the best direction. I am more commited to doing that than I am recruiting for my own institution. I have personal friends who come to me because they know what I do, and most of the time I reffer them out to another university or community college because it is a good fit. However, I always make sure I send them to a reputable school. I do not feel that it would be i my best interest as a human and friend to send them to someplace that I would consider to be fraudulent. I was affraid that some might misconstrue what I was saying, I am not casting stones because I have two degree from well respected RA schools. I just wish that those in the know, many of whom read, follow, or comment on this board would be more careful about the information they offer up to others. That said I know there are a good number of people who follow and contribute to this baord who have academic credentials that are questionable at best, and they seem to speak the loudest. I am really enjoying this thread and hope that it continues to grow!
     
  7. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    I am not sure it is good or bad but everytime I read your posts Peter I scratch my head a bit. Thought provoking and challenging at the very least.
     
  8. Peter French

    Peter French member

    Mate, it is just dandruff....not to woor, as none have ever died of it:D

    Peter
     
  9. Peter French

    Peter French member

    ...schorrie, ment "whurrie" not woor ... comes from being overedumacated - happens to all Calathumpians

    Peter
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not, since your charge is so vague. Be more specific: What kinds of things are people saying here that you object to?

    It's certainly a big part of it, particularly if the piece of paper certifies that you passed medical school. People place their diplomas on the wall to assure others that they know their stuff. If that weren't important, why bother to earn a degree at all? Just study informally.

    It is.

    I am a great champion of expanding educational opportunities to everyone who can benefit from them. I like the idea that people have avenues of self-improvement available if they want to take them. I don't react well to people telling others that things are "beyond their reach", before anyone has even been allowed to try.

    Of course, standards do have to be maintained. I think that's why most of the people that post here on Degreeinfo are so adamant about accreditation. If a university certifies that a graduate knows his stuff, then he obviously has to actually know the stuff.

    It's accreditation that keeps universities on the same page. Without accreditation, the burden of proof is squarely on the school to demonstrate its credibility in some other way. And the student needs to know that those other ways may not be nearly as well recognized in the wider community. So schools with non-standard accreditation become niche players whose use is most appropriate in specialized communities which already know and respect the school. A particular non-accredited seminary may conceivably be the best route to ordination in a certain small religious denomination, for example.

    As long as the program is sound and it meets the student's needs, why not go for the inexpensive and user-friendly alternative? Why should we select unnecessarily expensive or difficult alternatives? You need more specificity here, if we are to understand precisely what's wrong with us.

    The former is a straw-man example. The latter is common here in California. Many Bay Area attorneys have graduated from CA-approved (and CalBar accredited) San Francisco Law School, and one of them might be the judge that hears your case.

    Who on Degreeinfo "constantly proclaim the virtues of unaccredited degree programs"? I thought that everyone hated us because we were some kind of RA-only lynch mob. Now you are insulting us because you think we're not. We just can't win around here.

    I don't think that I am "entilted" to anything. But then again, if by some chance I graduated from SF Law and passed the California bar exam, then I would be entitled to practice law here in California.

    I think that if you come down from your dismissive generalities and look at specific examples, then things might not be as simple and clearcut as you imagine.

    School choice is an individual matter. Every student has a different field, is a different age, lives in a different place, has different life experiences and has different goals and reasons for enrolling in the program in the first place: Some of us want education in a vocational field. Some want ordination in a church. Some want to teach at the four-year level, others in community colleges. Others are high school teachers in search of a masters. Some are in the military. Some want licensure in some profession in some particular state. Some want a job promotion. Some want to pursue advanced education for intellectual reasons and don't really care much about collecting more degrees (that's basically my situation). Some of us have lots of on-the-job experience that they want to turn into university credit by exams and portfolios. Some even want spiritual enlightenment or to grow in their religious faith.

    One size does *not* fit all, Jeff. It's only by looking at each person individually, case-by-case, that an appropriate choice of program can be made.

    Some of us probably should enter a full-time on-campus doctoral program and forget DL entirely. That's true of young people contemplating university teaching or scientific research, I think. But somebody else might do very well in San Diego University for Integrative Studies' CA-approved DL program in Tibetan Buddhist psychology. Another would be well off in a TRACS school, another probably should look to Europe or Australia. The soldiers among us might like DETC's American Military University.
     
  11. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    :D
     
  12. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    Now I feel inadequate!

    The requirements for a law license haven't changed significantly since about, say, 1925...BA or nearly so, followed by three year LLB/JD on the Harvard model, followed by the Bar exam...

    By Golly, we lawyers need some degree inflation TOO!

    On a more serious note, the idea that Master's degrees are profit makers is certainly true. Even in state law schools, the school does all it can to keep the basic JD as cheap as possible but if you want the LLM, you're gonna PAY! You don't REALLY need it to practice, you see, and the public doesn't really BENEFIT by you're earning it...

    Nosborne, JD
     
  13. jeffwhetzel

    jeffwhetzel New Member

    How right you are Mr. Dayson, "One size does *not* fit all" when it comes to education. I am merely trying to point out the fact that far too many people on this board give others bad advice. Apprently the fact that I do not call people out by name and cite example makes my posting to "vague" for your liking. Sorry! Based on your reply to my original message you have demonstrated the mentality that I reffered to as beingso prevalent here. It is the idea that anyone, anywhere can become anything they want to be through education, regardless of the quality of that education or the power of the institution in question to confer degrees. It is this type flawed ideology that has created so many problems for students now. Lets say for example that a student "earns" a degree from an unaccredited university and all they did was assemble a portfolio and take a written exam. That person now feels very good about him/herself and this has no impact on their ability to sucessfully complete the taks associated with their current job. However, the new degree allows them to apply for a job that they would not have been qualified for prior to earning the degree. They apply, receive the job and are now overwhelmed by the responsibility and work load. I see this happen over and over where someone thought that a degree was the answer to their problems when in reality it can create more problems.
    Does that mean that I am not infavor of portfolio assessment or rewarding people for work experience? No, not at all, and if you thought so you have missed my point. I have friends who have benifited greatly from this type of situation and I know others who could now. But we do ourselves, as educated people, a dis-service when we reffer people to institutions that are not up to par academically. I see people on here on a daily basis giving people advice on where to go to get done the quickest and for the least amount of money possible. And some of those people actually consider the type of institution they recommend, and to them kudos. The rest of you know who you are, you feel that if you scream loud enough about where you received your degree, regardless of quality, that others will go there. Then if enough people go there and enjoy the experience, some how that will make what you did more credible or widely accepted.
    I also enjoyed your comment about denying people the right to education. You said," I don't react well to people telling others that things are "beyond their reach", before anyone has even been allowed to try." And I agree with you, on this point. We are all different, we can not prescribe what form of education will work for one person based on what did or did not for another. But why we are on this subject higher educatuion is privilege not a right. Certainly everyone is entitled to a k-12 education if they choose to participate in our educational system. That is where their rights end. No one is entitled to a college degree or a title, these are things that must be earned. If I could buy a degree out of a vending machine and call myself a doctor of medicine would that make me a good doctor? You said yourself, "Why should we select unnecessarily expensive or difficult alternatives?". The problem is that everytime someone who is less than qualified receives a pseudo-education from a shady institution of higher learning it hurts all of us that have real degrees! Is that specific enough or am I still just createing more "dismissive generalities"?

    Jeff Whetzel
     
  14. simon

    simon New Member

    Jeff,

    As I noted previously, your observations are basically accurate. Unfortunately the nature of our current socio-political culture dictates that almost everybody has a right for higher education although they may not possess the academic or intellectual capacity. Nonetheless, as the rhetoric goes, they deserve a chance to be anything they want. This perspective is pervasive and reinforced in every sector including the media, in schools and in the political realm.

    Many graduates of undergraduate degree programs do not possess basic skills in writing or in reading comprehension. These academic deficiencies are even more evident in their basic arithmetic skills. There are many individuals who are admitted into doctoral programs, law and medical schools based on factors other than capability which has diminished the integrity of our admission standards and the quality of graduate that derives from such a process.

    This unfortunate state of affairs has established an entrenched attitude of "entitlement" that pervades our society in a multitude of areas other than education. Unfortunately Jeff the nature of this phenomena is currently unalterable although truly disappointing and frustrating for those who clearly comrehend its deleterious implications.
     
  15. jeffwhetzel

    jeffwhetzel New Member

    What I am attempting to do is point out that if we, the ones who should know better, give bad advice to other we hurt everyone involved. Higher education is not one size fits all and some courses of study are more difficult than others because that is a reality. I would encourage anyone to learn as much as they can from the best source that they can. Now you know how I feel and I am interested in others oprinions on this issue.

    Disclaimer: The following is my real name but the degrees and institution are either made up or borrowed from real life examples of bad credentials. This in no way means that I endorse any of these programs or schools and I am affiliated with any of them. It was meant to be facetious. No animals were harmed in this incident and children, do not try this at home! Warning prolonged exposure to this posting has been determined to cause caner in lab rats.

    Jeff Whetzel
    ASGS, Saint Francis Commnity College Of South Central Michigan
    BOB, John Smith University Virtual Campus
    MSDS, OSHA Community College
    MBAASAP, McDrivethru College
    Pre-Ph.D., Oduesp State University
    Ed.D., Evian Golbal University LLC
    J.D., www.whowantstobealawyer.com
    MGM, University of Saint Croix a division of Scamco Productions
    A+ Certification, Guyonthestreetcorner University
     
  16. jeffwhetzel

    jeffwhetzel New Member

    Simon you are right again! I agree, need proof give a cashier at McDonalds a $5 dollar bill and a nickel when your bill comes to $2.03. They will instinctively hand you back the nickel telling you that you have paid too much. Then then procede to count out .97 cents change, when that was what you were trying to avoid in the first place. I know what you are saying and it is clear that others do to, they just don't want to acknowledge the fact.
     
  17. merc

    merc New Member

    I believe people should go cheap and RA all the way. Well as inexpensive as possible. Do not get caught in the "How well is this institution regarded trap." Just make sure it is accredited. Do not expect things to be easy. They never are. If you work hard and expand your horizons you will succeed. Success will not happen overnight, but it will happen.

    Oh, do not be envious of educated people. I have never met an educated person that did not have problems (many of the the same as mine), and many had more. Also, my grandmother was the smartest woman I ever knew though she never went to high school. She had the most common sense too.
    :)
     
  18. Peter French

    Peter French member

    I think that we sould reconsider the who educational process and scene. We have our education now, so lets turn back the clock and stuff the rest of them.

    I did a subject [a subject here is a 1 smemster topic] in my BEd on 'elitism' and education, and I really liked it. When they were considering educaion for all in UK after the second world war, the cut off age for free education was year 10. The reason was that if you offered education to every bugger with a brain, who the hell would do the jobs that entailed 'work'?

    So, lets return to 'elitism'. We have what we want, so as i siad, stuff the rest of them. At least you have the pay for it in US so that must keep out the poor and the undesirables - and a price hike wouldn't hurt either.

    Out here, for goodness sake, every undesirable can get educated, because it appears to be free, but actually i am paying through my taxes for some silly buggers kid to get educated to complete with my kids who have a right to be educated. If they are born the wrong side of tracks, leave them there - don't interfere with the natural system. If they have to have education because some misdirected slime ball rants on about equality, zone the system, so that we can say - private school kid, rich kid, dumb rich kid, slobs kid, bums kid.

    I am NOT against equality, as long as my mob are more equal than the others. I am not in favour of emitism, I'm just against average people being empowered to become less average.



    PF;)
     
  19. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Degreeinfo is an internet discussion board, where several hundred people participate and where a wide variety of different opinions are shared. That's as it should be. None of us are going to agree with everything that we read here. That's inevitable.

    But my impression is that the consensus opinion here is actually quite responsible, and whenever something questionable is posted more posts soon appear giving the other side. Things balance out.

    So I'm denying your whole premise, Jeff.

    Unless you can give us some examples of bad advice, we can't even be sure what you are talking about. Why is whatever it is bad advice? How prevalent is it? How can we learn not to do it, if you won't even tell us what it is?

    I never said anything remotely like that. I supported giving people the *chance to try*. I said that I strongly support educational opportunity, but my very next paragraph said:

    "Of course, standards do have to be maintained. I think that's why most of the people that post here on Degreeinfo are so adamant about accreditation. If a university certifies that a graduate knows his stuff, then he obviously has to actually know the stuff."

    Can you give an example of somebody being referred to an institution that is "not up to par academically"? I want to know what kind of institutions you think those are, what the context of the referral was and how prevalent such referrals really are here.

    Who is "screaming" about where they got their degrees? What schools are those? What's wrong with them?

    I think that most of the people that frequent this board got their degrees from fine schools, whether residentially or by DL. I have no problem with people recommending these programs to prospective students when that's appropriate.

    If nobody talked about programs that they had personal experience with, then everyone would be talking about programs that they had no experience with. Would that be better?

    I'm not sure if we disagree on that or not.

    I don't think that a single person on Degreeinfo has ever said that everyone in the world is entitled to a university degree, regardless of their skill, knowledge or intellect. So while I agree with you in opposing that suggestion, I think that it's a straw man.

    Here in California, all state residents 18 or over are entitled to enroll in one of the public community colleges. It's a right. But they won't receive any college credit unless they actually pass a class. The community colleges provide remedial classes, counseling and tutoring to help poorly prepared students get up to speed. But if the student wants the credit, he or she will have to successfully do the work.

    My actual words were: "As long as the program is sound and it meets the student's needs, why not go for the inexpensive and user-friendly alternative? Why should we select unnecessarily expensive or difficult alternatives?" The qualifier that you omitted was that the program is sound and that it meets the student's needs.

    I think that you already know the answer to that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2002
  20. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Thirty years ago I remember some 400 student classes taught by professors and a large portion of small classes taught by grad students.

    The library was where one checked out a bibliography. Term papers were usually written the night before.

    I majored in social life and although classes tended to be an inconvenience, they were not demanding enough to deny me a B.A.

    You mean its gone downhill from there?

    When my father was young, the the temperature was colder and the snow was deeper. Other than that everything was better.

    For an eternity, every generation has believed that society was better, in all aspects, when they were growing up.

    Has education, gone downhill? I doubt it. To succeed, concerted effort is required. Competition among students to get into limited enrollment programs in desirable schools is probably greater than ever.
     

Share This Page