Educational Elitism

Re: Re: Educational Prestige in DL?

Possibly true, but few around here are doing that. I recall no one in the Columbia or Duke programs and only a couple at the University of London.

By the way, folks, do you really believe that he is senior vice president of anything? You really should not feed the trolls. It just keeps them coming back.



Tom Nixon

 

Elitism=anybody anywhere anytime suggesting anything that the accuser believes to be too hard.

 

There are certainly higher reputation schools offering DL--but my point still is that while many DL degrees are high in utility and learning outcomes, they simply don't carry much in the way of "prestige" (whatever that is). For example, a University of London degree is impressive, but a DL U of L degree is far less "impressive" socially (that is prestigious) than a degree completed in residence at London. I think one of the minor "problems" of off-shore degrees (or degrees taken in far away states while you are obviously living and working in your state)--is the question "Oh, how did you enjoy living in South Africa ..(or London, or Australia, or "how did you like going to Duke or Columbia? Where did you live up there?"). I think the explanation, "well, I didn't really live or even visit so and so place; I just did the degree at distance--you know, like on my computer" takes a little of the prestige factor away. (Don't misunderstand, I like and value distance education highly--I just think this issue is a reality in the life of the DL student.) It is one of those things that "should not" be but is.

 

I think a big advantage that DL holds is the ability to be self-motivating and show the courage to complete a degree while doing other things. This will help in respect to leadership roles.

Back to the question of degree versus eperience, I believe in balance, so while its good to give credit for experience or learning. Its very important to value what a person learnt in school and their ability to use that. There are cases where a person has years of experience but lack the skills to perform certain task.

My take is that a person should always educate themselves and if some school decide to grant a person a degree or credit for non-traditional learning, they should follow very strict standards. In other words, if you are careful about how your money is spent, you will not give anyone a blank check. That means if an educator is reputable, they will not grant degrees to anyone with just a basic resume..

Okay

Larkland

 

Research masters I see occasionally. The comments are basically exactly the same as for a PhD with the proviso that for the useful interdisciplinary stuff you will learn the majority in the first year of study/research. So for a completely unrelated subject the masters and PhD are the same. no significant difference at interview. Interestingly the arrogance factor never seems to be a part of research masters holders makeup even for the MPhil.

Note for anyone not familiar with UK research degrees. In general MSc = 1 year full time education, MPhil = 2 years, PhD =3 years with part time being in proportion i.e 2 years to get a MSc , 6 or more for a PhD. There is also a BPhil on offer from the OU which is directly equivalent to an MSc. Weirdly its a bachelor degree but at post graduate level (just to match all those bachelors level MA's people get!)

 

Oxford law degrees are bizarre, too. The undergrad is a BA that turns into and MA with age. The taught master's is the BCL. The research masters ARE the M.Phil. and the M.Litt. Then finally comes the D. Phil.

Since Civil Law lawyers take a Magister degree instead of the BCL, OU actually confers FIVE DIFFERENT MASTER"S DEGREES in law!

 

My guess is that the local law community has a very keen appreciation of the differences between each degree.
Jack

 

Oh, I'm QUITE sure they do!

 

Discrimination

For those that were not paying attention and didn't get the point of my post, let me explain. I would NEVER discriminate against ANYONE for ANY reason. I would never have made it this far in my career if I was willing to do that. There were a few folks that understood what I was saying about elitism, but there were others who continued to vomit their superiority and arrogance. Education is a great thing, but it involves more than just school. A good employer will recognize this. I have had interviews with candidates who had an MBA but did not have basic economic & financial knowledge. For those of you who were angered because you felt the stab of being discriminated against, GOOD. That was the point... When someone with a degree speaks in a demeaning tone to someone who does not have a degree, that is discrimination too... While I would never discriminate against someone who has a degree, I hope those of you that were angered and offended by my post can now understand what it feels like to be at the receiving end of ridicule over something as insignificant as having a degree. I realize that most of the true bigots will not change just because someone points out their behavior, but I hope that at a minimum I made some people think about how they treat others on this board, and in their daily lives..... As someone once said to me, "intelligence is not what you know, it's what you do with it"....

 

Re: Discrimination

Hmmmm. "Vomit, stab-GOOD, ridcule, something as insignificant as having a degree, bigots". Interesting words you choose to use. You state you don't discriminate, but your words seem to indicate otherwise.

 

Re: Re: Discrimination

What I meant was I don't discriminate against anyone for legitimate things. You know- race, religion, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation etc...
I will admit however that if I know that someone is racist, sexist, homophobe etc... I'm not hiring them... Bigots are NOT a protected class!!

Hiring ANYONE who thinks that they are superior to others is too disruptive in the workplace, and I find them to be personally repulsive... Being intolerant of bigots is a label that I am happy to accept...

 

Re: Re: Re: Discrimination

Again interesting words you choose. Being intolerant is at the heart of being a bigot. From Dictionary.com:

BIGOT-
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Discrimination

Perhaps you support racists, I don't know... As I said, and I'm PROUD to say it.... I am happy to be labled as intolerant of racists, or any other bigot who think themselves superior to ANY other protected class.... Your comments indicate that you support individuals with racist or other twisted attitudes... I feel sorry for anyone that supports racism...

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Discrimination

I understand you are proud to be intolerant. I think your posts clearly speak for themselves. I hope it works well for you.