Capella University

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capella University

Same here. I also did a search in degreeinfo and all I find are old threads about for-profits vs not-profits and occasional references to the troll capellastinks.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capella University

So you are blaming me becasue the search engine is less than wonderful?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Capella University

Hi Jim,

Not giving a cite doesn't strike me as particularly out of bounds, civility-wise.

On the other hand, this is an academically-oriented discussion board and it would seem appropriate to follow the academic principle of citing sources, particularly since it seems they are not being picked up either by the CHE or Degree.info search engines.

Regards,
GME

 

I agree, and in fact I did a quick search using "union" and "CHE" as well as "Capella" and "CHE" - not enough or way too much resulted. At which point I moved on to my doctorate completion efforts.

Since I do not control the editing of the archives and since Douglas was involved (with the inevitable stone-throwing), I have no idea if the relevant threads are still there. It was certainly in the CHE (re LD degrees) and it has been addressed several times - I would expect a "senior member" to be somewhat familiar with it.

 

I've been wondering. What is "CHE"?

 

Chronicle of Higher Education

 

Simon - Good point. I'm generally not impressed with any doctoral program that doesn't require a GMAT/GRE as one measure on incoming students. At the least, such exams give you a measurement point to consider in admission.

I'd argue that if a school wants to go with a more open admission approach, they need a rigorous, early exam or other measurement of students. At least here in the U.S., it seems that DL schools have a tough time not graduating a student if they simply stick around long enough. If you don't wash folks out early, the school is "stuck" with the student and will have a hard time saying "no" later on. Indeed, if the student has spent $xxxxx on several years' tuition, they can take a consumer attitude and say "where's my degree?".

Doubt what I say - tell me how many involuntary drop outs are there from the US crop of DL doctoral programs. I doubt there are many...

Regards - Andy

 

With all due respect, I think that tests may be helpful but they are certainly linear and don't measure other intelligences (social, intuitive, intrapsychic, artistic/creative, etc.). I find it interesting how "anal" psychological testing can get. I use methods that are more intutitive in my private practice versus utilizing psychological tests. I have consistently better results and many, many more healings that ocurr in my office than those who have to have some metric of the mind that rarely reveals the heart/sub-conscious issues/agendas, etc. I sometimes wonder if depending on psychological tests is more a sign that the test giver is not in touch with his heart/emotions,psyche, etc. It could be more evidence of incompetency or inhability to understand, connect, sense what is truth in a person.

When it comes to tests for academic entrance, I think that they do not measure character such as how determined is an individual to succeed, how hard he is willing to work, how creative he is versus conforming to a box, leadership skills, conflict resolution skills, people loving skills, etc.

 

I tend to agree that in lieu of the true test in measuring one's ability for graduate level work (i.e. graduate level work); the GMAT/GRE is the next best thing. If I believed standardized tests were the true indicator of success in college, I would have never have gone to college (my SAT scores were atrocious).

While searching for a doctoral program, I came across four programs that didn't require the GMAT/GRE. All of the universities are what I would consider respectable.

George Washington University (a local cohort DSc program in either Systems Engineering or Engineering Management)

Old Dominion University (PhD in Engineering with a concentration in Modeling and Simulation - GRE was not required if your masters GPA was at least 3.5)

Colorado State University (PhD in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research as long as you are a "Track II" student)
http://www.learn.colostate.edu/students/admissions_grad.asp#trackII

Nova Southeastern University (none of the DL PhD programs in the Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences)
http://www.scis.nova.edu/Admissions/admission_req_all_Doctoral.html

Of the programs listed above, ODU's program was the only I applied to and I was accepted. I wasn't impressed with ODU so I decided to stay with NCU.

 

If the sign of a genius is the extent to which they agree with you...then you're a genius.

 

Simon, I respect your view of entrance tests. I don't share it because they only measure how well you do in taking tests. They do not measure creative academic output, stamina and determination in staying on a goal, intensity of dedication of working hard. Standardize tests do not measure these and these are certainly traits that can make or break a student. Some students are great test takers, but that is only one portion of a person's ability to do academic work. I don't believe these entrance tests accurately predict success. I know A.D.D. persons that do lousy in tests like the GRE and yet have ended up being wonderful students and professionals that can run circles around good anal test-takers. I know plenty of great test-takers that are total jerks, socially disdained by those around them, and lack key ingredients for real life effectiveness.

I do know psychologists that are lousy clinicians and who depend a lot in giving tests to diagnose or give effective interventions. I think tests are given too much importance among psychologists.

 

Black bird and Simon, what's the point of using the red/blue colored bolded font? ; )

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Capella University

And why a PhD in education anyway when there are much more prestigious academic disciplines to choose from? PhDs in education aren't always very well respected and there are just too many of them. Besides, don't they outnumber doctorates in all academic fields combined?

 

BLACKBIRD: Simon, I respect your view of entrance tests. I don't share it because they only measure how well you do in taking tests.

SIMON: That is not so. In fact standardized admission tests such as the GRE have been demonstrated statistically to correlate with one's ability to successfully complete graduate degree programs. Yes, learning test taking techniques can boost one's scores on such tests but do not negate the primary purpose of these tests.

BLACKBIRD: They do not measure creative academic output, stamina and determination in staying on a goal, intensity of dedication of working hard. Standardize tests do not measure these and these are certainly traits that can make or break a student.

SIMON: Blackbird as a person completing a doctoral program in psychology one would expect you to have a much more enlightened and fairer grasp as to the benefits and limitations of testing rather than to make global and definitive statements as to their malevolence! It sounds like sour grapes to me.

Once again, the purpose of admission tests is to discern the likelihood of one succeeding academically, not to measure the personal characteristics you mention above. Yes, being determined, diligent and highly motivated are factors that should be considered by an admissions committee for entrance into a doctoral program BUT NOT to the exclusion of academic potential to succeed! Yes, if a student is not motivated or driven to succeed it can result in that person not succeeding in a doctoral program. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with one's intrinsic academic ability to perform at a doctoral level.

As I previously mentioned regarding my online course experience at Capella, a significant number of "learners" could not write on par with the academic expectations of high school graduates. This experience was revealing in that it clearly demonstrated the outcome when individuals are admitted into a doctoral program without possessing adequate academic competency regardless of their personal characteristics.

BLACKBIRD: Some students are great test takers, but that is only one portion of a person's ability to do academic work.

SIMON: Obviously. However, this in no way negates the significance of possessing adequate academic skills to succeed in a doctoral program.

BLACKBIRD: I don't believe these entrance tests accurately predict success.

SIMON: Beliefs are not facts and I would respectfully suggest that as an aspiring graduate of a doctoral program in Psychology that you develop an objective and balanced perspective regarding the benefits and limitations of testing. Otherwise it appears that you are rationalizing for those students who are not academically suited for doctoral level education.

BLACKBIRD: I know A.D.D. persons that do lousy in tests like the GRE and yet have ended up being wonderful students and professionals that can run circles around good anal test-takers. I know plenty of great test-takers that are total jerks, socially disdained by those around them, and lack key ingredients for real life effectiveness.

SIMON: The above hostile generalizing statement clearly displays sour grapes defensiveness.

BLACKBIRD: I do know psychologists that are lousy clinicians and who depend a lot in giving tests to diagnose or give effective interventions. I think tests are given too much importance among psychologists.

SIMON: So what is your point? Obviously there are good and poor therapists amongst those who are proponents of testing as well as those who deplore testing. Your proclivity to generalize is not becoming a doctoral level "learner". One of the primary objectives of a doctoral education SHOULD be on developing more objective and broader perspectives that shed light on issues rather than merely taking a dogmatic position that does not add anything to furthering understanding of an issue other than expressing one's personal biases.

 

With all due respect...these are all "entitlement" measures. I would not want an architect, a surgeon, an attorney, etc. who received their professional degree and license based on these measures.

 

The reason for the color is the same reason why tests are "anal," boring, and folks need to transcend those linear states.
big grin

 

Simon, I don't wish to get involved in a "pissing contest" and I sense a little shaming coming from you. I respect your view of how powerful testing is. I just don't share that. Yes, I do have sour grapes experiences and I have seen others experiencing similar and going on to do quite well in doctoral programs.

My point is that we put too much stock in any kind of "standardized testing" whether it is for academic filtering to find "intellectual elites" or whether it is the MMPI. I find academic instutitions and also psychologists (and psychiatrists that depend on the psychologists) too stuck on using these measures. This shows, in my worldview, incompetence at a higher level, it shows the insecurity of the institution/clincian/etc. also.

You mentioned that I am rationalizing for those that do not qualify for doctoral programs. That presupposes that if I don't agree with your criteria as the only valid one that I am therefore either a poor doctoral candidate or not as "good" in terms of your values. I feel that your statement could make you out to look like you are better. I'm sure that is not what you want to communicate about yourself. That would be arrogance, which would prove what I said earlier about linear and anal academics that people dislike.

Again, I don't wish to get involved in a "pissing contest." That would not be "objective" right?

 

BLACKBIRD: Simon, I don't wish to get involved in a "pissing contest" and I sense a little shaming coming from you.

SIMON: This is not a "pissing" contest but merely an understanding that ANYONE who engages in black and white thinking, without considering the grey areas, is open to question.

BLACKBIRD: I respect your view of how powerful testing is.

SIMON: You have misinterpreted my point. I never stated that testing is "powerful" BUT that it has a purpose, that although not foolproof or perfect, to predict one's ACADEMIC potential to succeed in a doctoral program.

BLACKBIRD: I just don't share that. Yes, I do have sour grapes experiences and I have seen others experiencing similar and going on to do quite well in doctoral programs.

SIMON: I can understand the frustration you have experienced but quite frankly, using you as a hypothetical example, you may not have been admitted to a brick and mortar doctoral program in Psychology IF you achieved low GRE scores and may not have been able to successfully complete the course work either in spite of your high motivation level, people skills, altruism, etc. Let's face it online Psychology doctoral programs, with the exception of Fielding, do not have the rigor that one ordinarily finds in a traditional B&M School.

BLACKBIRD:My point is that we put too much stock in any kind of "standardized testing" whether it is for academic filtering to find "intellectual elites" or whether it is the MMPI.

SIMON: With all due respect, you are too biased against testing to engage in an objective discussion.

BLACKBIRD:I find academic instutitions and also psychologists (and psychiatrists that depend on the psychologists) too stuck on using these measures. This shows, in my worldview, incompetence at a higher level, it shows the insecurity of the institution/clincian/etc. also.

SIMON: Same as above.

BLACKBIRD: You mentioned that I am rationalizing for those that do not qualify for doctoral programs. That presupposes that if I don't agree with your criteria as the only valid one that I am therefore either a poor doctoral candidate or not as "good" in terms of your values.


SIMON: Unfortunately Blackbird that is exactly what you are doing, rationalizing! It is not a matter of not agreeing with my opinion but the fact that a doctoral program presupposes that an individual has the academic and intellectual competencies to succeed in such a program. This is not a matter of an applicant being nice, or having excellent emotional intelligence BUT of their academic capability. Anything less serves only to dilute the value of the doctorate and create an image of individuals who obtain such doctorates as being less than competent in their chosen fields.


BLACKBIRD:I feel that your statement could make you out to look like you are better. I'm sure that is not what you want to communicate about yourself. That would be arrogance, which would prove what I said earlier about linear and anal academics that people dislike.


SIMON: Lets keep this objective. It is not a personal issue but one of preserving the basis for the doctorate; to educate SCHOLARS not nice people to engage in research guided clinical practice in Psychology. To water down admission requirements and criteria for course completion and graduation may superficially benefit the student but not society.