Hello, I was viewing Lawrie Millers' graduate listing and there is a site "go here, it's free". I am not pulling a school up. Was that a joke? Hille (Great work Lawrie)
Hille: Do you have a link to Lawrie Miller's site? I think one used to be on here, but I can't find it now.
Looks like advertising to me. Fair enough; Lawrie ought to be paid (or at least reimbursed) for this effort. Nice site, BTW. Lawrie and I sparred over the validity of awarding credits via multiple-choice testing, especially the ETS variety. I'm basically against it, and that's from personal experience, having completed an AA and two bachelor's degrees almost entirely by testing before I turned 21 (at Excelsior's predecessor, The USNY).
off topic, but go up one level from that 'free' site and look at the AWESOME javascript clock! it follows your mouse cursor too http://www.geocities.jp/baryonlee/
Re: Re: Lawrie Miller site BA in 4 Weeks does not now, nor has it ever, accepted advertising. If BA in 4 Weeks were ever to feature commercial sponsorship from any source, it would be clearly identified as such. Sneaky, surreptitious, and specious misdirection such as you allege will never be allowed. The link is a residual reference to a FREE download of a utility that blocks FLASH ads and popups. Those visiting geocities free sites such as BA in 4 Weeks will find it very useful in blocking the intrusive commercials. I removed the explanatory graphic but missed the text link. The link was offered to help visitors. The text is a little vague since announcing overtly that I sought to aid and abet visitors in blocking my hosts ads, did not seem prudent. The utility was and is offered complete and free by the designer. It is NOT shareware, it is freeware. He does not look to make money from the download, though he may accept donations from those who appreciate his efforts and care to make one. That is self evident if time is taken to read the top of his page. Rich Nice site, BTW. Thanks Rich Lawrie and I sparred over the validity of awarding credits via multiple-choice testing, especially the ETS variety. I'm basically against it, and that's from personal experience, having completed an AA and two bachelor's degrees almost entirely by testing before I turned 21 (at Excelsior's predecessor, The USNY). Yes, but you neglect to mention that that was at time when one would be awarded 39 credit hours for a GRE subject exam score above the 35 percentile. Under those conditions, I might well agree with you. It was an infinitely simpler job to attain a degree under that liberal regime than it is now where a similar GRE subject score would net you just 3 lower level credits, and when individual 3-credit exam pass criteria have been tightened more than some. As I understand your position, you eschew degrees earned by the method yet sought and still seek to benefit personally from the opportunities such credentials present. If indeed it is the case that such degrees are of little or no real worth, why have you, for *decades*, continued to list them and use them to advance your academic and professional career? In Brief: 1. With respect to your experience of USNY/Regents/Excelsior degrees, requirements are much tighter now. You are not comparing like with like. 2. You continue to use these degrees as if they were genuine and worthwhile, while believing (knowing?) them to be academically worthless (or near worthless). Is it not demonstrably the case that you are saying one thing and doing another? 3. No, there is no commercial advertising on the BA in 4 Weeks website. That is stated on the front page of the site and reiterated elsewhere in other pages. Were I to allow ads while stating that no ads are allowed, I'd be a hypocrite. That is, I'd be saying one thing and doing another. Lawrie Miller BA in 4 Weeks http://bain4weeks.com
Thanks for the correction. I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite. I'm a critic of awarding credits for standardized testing, regardless of how many. Perhaps it is hypocritical to accept one number of credits while rejecting another? As I recall, the major point of contention was that I firmly believe these tests can be beaten. I still do. Should I drop the use of my degrees because I'm critical of the process? Or can I do both? I've said critical things about the Air Force, so I guess I can't be a retired officer anymore. I've criticized my company, so I guess there goes my job. I've been critical of California, so I guess I have to abandon my heritage. I had a cold order of fries at McDonalds and turned them back in, so no more for me. Perhaps rejecting the notion that this subject is worthy of debate and has room for contrary opinions is hypocritical of someone working with academics. Or perhaps you can just stick to the point and stop calling me names?
I wonder who is going to take which side here. If myself, or certain others complain about personal attacks or name calling we are too sensitive, and can't handle debate. Somehow I do not think they will go after you on this Rich. I expect silence. I agree with you though, Lawrie could have left hypocrite out. It would be nice for more on this forum to show respect when having debate.
The irony is, there is great room for discussion and debate about this topic. And I didn't say a thing critical of Lawrie or his site; quite the opposite, in fact. But I did--and will continue to--criticize aspects of the testing game. My mentioning of hypocrisy was to point out how silly the name-calling was, and that almost anyone's statements--unless utterly dogmatic--could be labeled as such. Lawrie is no hypocrite, and neither am I.
Ahh, it's like old home week. Rich and Lawrie at it again. It brings a tear to my eyes. Glad to have you back, Rich. It's been too long! Tom Nixon
All I have to say is that if I were truly critical of the process, and believed it could be beaten too easily; then I should denounce my degree and go about getting a degree in the traditional manner. I can't speak for anyone else, but I actually study for most of the tests I take, especially the more difficult topics. In my opinion (which is worth 2 cents), I actually know more about the subject than the average traditional student when I get through. I read the entire textbook for each test. In some of the traditional classes I took way back when, the teacher outlined what chapters he was going to cover, usually about 65-80 percent of the book. So I am actually doing more work to get to the same end. Yes you can improve your score on standardized tests by eliminating obviously wrong answers, but if you do not have at least a basic knowledge of the subject, then you will not pass. I usually score at least in the 80th percentile on most tests. Let's not forget that the students that normed these tests actually took a traditional course and STILL only got a 50%. So unless someone takes these tests blindly with no study, I feel that the degree earned by proficiency exams is equivalent. And if someone did take these tests blindly with no study and still passed, then either they have a natural curiosity and have learned a lot about the world by experential learning, or they were just plain lucky. If someone manages to do that, good for them, that is a choice they made. I have made the honest choice to actually learn something at a college level, not to learn to beat the system. There will always be those who try to take the shortcuts in life, and skate by on as little effort as possible. I believe that the majority of people on this forum fall into the honest category, not the skate-by group.
