question for Russ "without horns or teeth"

Why the sarcasm, Russ? I asked you a question. You chose to answer it as you saw fit. Well and good. Each subsequent post from you has contained an element of antagonism. Why don't you tell me plainly what you dislike in what I have said to you on this thread?

 

I totally agree with this statement. In fact, there is historical validation for this concept during the US space program. At the beginning of the space program the government was using the services of captured German rocket scientists who did not have their doctorates. The government "obtained" legal PhDs for them so that they would have the same status among their peers. Those doctorates were not earned in the traditional sense of a classroom but were given for their extensive knowledge through practical experience. In this case, they were not tested for the PhD or required to write any dissertation, they were simply given the PhDs for their work.

 

If you have not noticed, I have been attacked by just about everyone on this board who have made comments insulting my intelligence and my integrity, called a "shill" for diploma mills even though I have denied this several times, and various other comments that I won't discuss. Yes, I have become defensive to anyone's post.

I was not trying to be sarcastic. I was being sincere. I agreed that you were right and I did not know what you were thinking.

 

None of that speaks to the post I just quoted, Russ. Most of it speaks to what others have said, not me. Nor did you answer my question--what is it that you dislike in what I have said to you on this thread?

 

Nothing.

 

That is my point, nosborne48, that RA or national accreditation is not the only standard for higher education nor should it be. A prospective student needs to be aware of the standard elitism that exists in the country and the consequences of having an unaccredited degree but they still can get a very good education at an unaccredited school.

My endorsement of unaccredited schools is distinct and completely separate from degree mills which are simply fraudulent. In my opinion, unaccredited schools should never be joined together with degree mills as being similar operations. One has value, the other does not.

 

And the best, most convenient, most well established and reliable way to determine whether a school is legitimate is that it is accredited.

 

Your statements reflect my opinions on unaccredited schools. I believe that the accredited schools should be the first choice for the bachelors degree, to lay the proper foundation. In the accademic world the accredited terminal degrees still rule the roost. In the business world the importance of accreditation is less important for terminal degrees.
Although accreditation is the ideal choice, it isn't always the best option. There are other factors (money, time, field, education history and individual's background) that make the unaccredited school the logical choice.

 

In the measurement business, we call this validity. Does the test measure what it sets out to measure? And does it discriminate effectively between students who have the knowledge and those who don't?

Since I'm one of those people who have both benefitted from, and poked at--credit-for-testing, let me point out something. If one accepts the validity of these tests, then passing them means one does, indeed, have the knowledge. But if they can be "beaten" (passed by people without the knowledge the tests purport to measure), they are not valid.

I've often suggested the latter.

 

Fine. But you've suggested no other. Your "idea" most certainly describes an "academic bureaucracy."

 

I would be very interested in learning more about this. What is your source of information?

 

Actually, it was you that was attacked, for no one knows you. It was yourideas. That's the natural function of this board. Stop complaining about it, since you're doing it, too.

 

Please tell us whether or not you "endorse" any of the following (and why or why not):

California Pacific University
Kennedy-Western University
Century University
Knightsbridge University
Madison University

 

Re: Re: Re: question for Russ "without horns or teeth"

Already up to 7.92, going up that far in just a few hours.

 

I have also benefitted from these tests, so I may be somewhat biased. Still, I would like to know how these tests can be "beaten", and what that means for the student sample they were normed against.

 

I agree with this to a certain point, except that it is difficult to know how much knowledge you actually possess about certain subjects. Clearly they had enough to pass the exam at a sufficient level.

I think I could probably go in and take most of the English and social science-related tests and pass at a level that would give me credit.

Is that because of classes that I've taken, books that I've read, television that I've watched, discussions that I've had, and lectures that I've attended?

Yes.

However, how much of each of those was used to pass a particular test is difficult to know. Passing TECEP English Composition 1 would have more to do with a lifetime of writing, while passing Psychology of Women would have more to do with reading and lectures.

So, I guess what I am saying is that we learn many things as we journey through life. I think it is almost impossible not to know some of the information for these tests, regardless of what you *think* you know, and apparently for some of us, that knowledge is at the undergraduate level.



Tom Nixon

 

It gets to the very basic flaw in multiple-choice examinations: the answer is right there in front of you.

The way multiple-choice exams succeed is to either (a) allow you to find the right answer or (b) fool you into selecting one of the wrong answers. (These are called "distractors" for that very reason!) Multiple-choice exams are devious by nature. Such deviance can be beaten.

Solid test-taking skills can allow skilled takers to select correct answers over distractors without actually knowing the subject matter of the questions. All it takes is to recognize the correct answer, normally by excluding one or more of the distractors. That makes guessing at one of the remaining selections statistically favorable. (Guessing on these tests is still advisable; if you do it randomly, it is still statistically neutral--eliminating even one selection tips the scales in your favor.)

How is this done? By coaching students to understand the tendencies of the test preparers. And believe me, those tendencies exist. Inapt selections are quickly spotted and eliminated. Hard questions are put aside until easier ones are completed. (Due to time limits--hard and easy questions are worth the same.) And many others.

If I was sending my son or daughter to an SAT prep course, I'd pick one that emphasized beating the test (and the testing environment) over one that emphasized math and verbal skills. Those are developed over time, but test-taking skills can be learned quickly.

 

It is true that some people are much better at passing tests than other people.

On the other hand, as most everyone reading this understands, this does not lend the least bit of credibility to unaccredited life experience scams. Even when the unaccredited institution has their own tests like SRU's test that can be passed by a fair percentage of the pigeons.

 

That is hardly cricket.

 

Okay, then I will.

Russ... answer the damned question!

I'll re-state it for you -- for a second time -- in case you've (conveniently) forgotten:

• Would you set forth ... the schools you may have attended or worked for, if any? What in your experience gave rise to your strong dislike of the regional accreditors? In short, what happened?

I can't believe how everyone around here is letting this knucklehead distract them!

The participants in this thread have lots to say about lots of things, Russ. Most of them are very knowledgeable -- even downright authoritative -- regarding the things they dare to discuss. They have much to contribute... and do, as often as they can... and, more often than not, to the benefit of all who read their words. In fact, reviewing the posters here, sans you... and maybe me, I see a laundry list of this fora's best and brightest.

There is no doubt in my mind that you've noticed this; and, moreover, that you have also noticed how easy it is to sidetrack them, in part, because they have so much to say, and so want to help as many people as they can, and in as many ways as possible. All one need do is take a giant step back from this thread, re-read it from its beginning, note all the posts to which you do not reply, and note also how you suddenly drop back in to reply to only select posts -- but only in a way virtually guaranteed to cause everyone to stray off the point and lose sight of the ball.

I interviewed a guy for a job about two months ago (he was the candidate) who tried to play the interview that way. I needed to get to the meat of something and had started to ask, quite directly, the question I was trying to get answered. But whenever I would get that close to getting the truth he would ask questions of his own and try to distract me in other ways. Being polite (yes, I am capable of being polite when I need to... I just hate to), I let the conversation roam a little whenever he did.

Finally, after he did it for the third time, I closed his file folder on my desk and silently sat back in my chair, clasping my hands across my stomach with my elbows on the arms of my chair, and letting something of a small, closed-mouth, "I-got-your-number" kind of smile come across my face. I said nothing... just stared at him with that knowing half-smile... until, after a long and awkward silence, he finally said, "What?" with that half-assed kind of sweaty chuckle that a con artist gets when he begins to realize the jig is up. I still said nothing and let another long and awkward silence pass before he finally lost his patience and said, "What?" again, followed by, "Did I say something wrong?"

"You know," I replied, "if I were a younger or less experienced person, I might have fallen for your little dance. You're very good at this... I must compliment you. You've got how to move the interveiwer away from certain questions down to a science. But I'm no kid... obviously. And I'm from one of the toughest cities on the planet. I learned to spot guys like you before I was 12. Hell... I think I was a guy like you before I was 12."

I then moved my clasped hands and elbows up to the top of my desk as I leaned over them and forward, continuing, "So I'm going to ask you a question I've already asked you three times, and which you've skillfully tried to dodge. The fact that you've done that, I must tell you, has probably already cost you any possibility of getting the job; but on the off chance that it hasn't, let me caution you that if anything other than a flat-out straight and direct answer to my question passes your lips in response thereto, you'll not only not get the job, but I'll be forced to exercise virtually unbearable restraint to keep from grabbing you by the collar and the seat of your pants and escorting you out of this office through that window over there. So I caution you to very carefully consider your next words... either that or just end this interview voluntarily and leave through the door... while you still have the chance." And then I asked him the question, directly, for a fourth time.

You're that guy, Russ. You're responding to everything in this thread that you can possibly respond to without actually answering the thread-starting question. And when there's nothing like that to which you can respond, you're silent.

So, how's 'bout you stop jerkin' us all around, here, Russ, ol' buddy... and answer Janko's original question... directly, and with no tap dancing by way of accompaniment. No more "See? That's how people around here are" sorts of answers, okay, Russ? Just straight answers to the questions.

I'll re-state them... for what is now the third time in this thread:

• Would you set forth ... the schools you may have attended or worked for, if any? What in your experience gave rise to your strong dislike of the regional accreditors? In short, what happened?

Hmm? We're listening, Russ. Step up...

...or shut up.