US, RA Degree worthless in the UK. BOOM!

reply

I find all of this back and forth, rather amusing. Yes, I have seen where the Americans and Brits will say that there way of education is better over the other. I find that both countries are rich with knowledge and information. We speak the same language, but interpret it differently. It was Sir Winston Churchill that stated this.

The United States has a certain system for education. The United Kingdom has a certain system as well. Although, there are certainly differences, I think that each has a unique role to play. We could argue about rigor and requirements, but it does not mean that one system is better over the other.

I like to follow the British Parliament with Prime Minister's Questions. It is a really cool system that you have in place and it has worked for a long time. The Americans have there system as well.

I guess my point is that instead of arguing about which system is better, perhaps, it is best to try and appreciate the differences and learn from each other. I am an American. I also like to meet people from different countries and cultures. By the way, are there any British friends that I could strike up a conversation with.? FANCY THAT. Peace!

 

Re: Re: Re: The new "Empire"

Don't give me that snotty little winky smiley face!

You think it's funny making jokes about 9/11?

Yeah, a large part of the Pentagon was destroyed by a some insane freaks. Lots of good people died. Ha ha. So funny.

God, you make me sick.

 

Actually, Fred, I think you either spun the article in a particular direction on purpose or misunderstood the issue from the beginning. The Professor's RA undergraduate degree was not in question, only his certification to teach the subject given current UK standards. This sort of red tape is common in secondary education, especially here in the States. For example, a RA Ph.D. in Business Administration would not be able to teach High School business classes without at least some sort of emergency credential and even then might have some sort of provisional status at a reduced salary, depending on the school district. In sum, there was nothing wrong with the Professor's undergraduate academic preparation, just his certification to teach that subject at that different level.

Cheerio,

Dave

 

Actually if the UK (area 94,525 sq miles) became a state it would rank number 13 in area beating out 38 other states including RI (1,545 sq miles).

 

I'm convinced. Let's make the UK the 51st state in the USA! While we're at it, let's rewrite the constitution to pick our President the same way that it is done in the UK. I tend to like the last few UK prime ministers better than the last few presidents. I don't think we need the monarchy though. The tabloids have plenty to write about already.

 

For purpose of comparison, the land mass of OREGON is 96,003 sq miles.

 

Eeeww! What if it started spreading?

Driving on the wrong side of the road is cool. (I do it after the bars close, but don't tell Bruce.) I'd love to see Nosborne in a wig.

But would we have to start giving our sons names like Nigel and Trevor? Would we have to start playing football with our... feet??

 

Maybe. There is a waiver system in CA for the subject matter competency requirement. If one's prior coursework covers all the required areas, then no qualifying math exam is required. One can earn the credential by fulfilling the credential coursework only.With a PhD in physics, it's likely that his coursework would cover all the math areas - except they require a "history of math" course, which fouls up a lot of people.

 

(content deleted by moderator)

 

that was out of line.

 

If he were in California he would have to pass the CBEST and the CSET in the subject area. He might be able to function temporarily on an emergency credential but he would have to pick-up all the education theory and practice classes that he is missing -- in addition to taking the tests. Of course, that's only if he wants to teach in a public school (which over here means that it is government run). If he were to teach in a private school no credential would be required and thus no tests or additional education classes.

 

More of the same from Fred

Ah Fred...stirring up the hornets nest again I see.

You only gave half of the story. But, then again, what's the point to giving the whole story if it doesn't serve your need? After all, "That wasn't the point."

You posts are humorous...keep them coming; you are entertaining.

Thanks again.

 

I know of a school administrator from the State of Connecticut whose PhD in Education from University of Hull (U.K.) was deemed “not-recognized” by that State for the purpose of promotion, simply because the so-called “transcript” issued by University of Hull did not detail courses pursued, and credits awarded (as it was done by research only, as are most such degrees in the U.K.). However, the U.K. system is rapidly changing, and now most students accepted to PhD programs must first complete a sort of master’s degree in research.

 

In Italy you both need a BA in the intended subject + ( with new regulations ) some 3 years of teachers' college & what's next.
I think a MA is not needed but i might be wrong.
Anyway you can't teach many subjects: only those who are preminent in your degree ( ex history+philosophy; math + accounting etc ).
And i'm talking about HIGH SCHOOL teachers.
University level demands Ph.Ds in the intended field.

Canada ( high school teachers again ) is the only place where (at least in Québec ) you may (once you get a BA in education & a teaching permit ) teach whatever, provided you qualify with 15 BA level credits in the pursued discipline.
University level teaching requires Ph.D ( very few M.A's and in "political"circumstances ).
Then you've DEC, that sits in-between.



about "rescuing" anyone...

The french rescued the USA during the independence war.
the french "rescued" everyone, russian included, to shatter monarchy & bring enlightement ( along with $ & whatever from there back home ).
Germans rescued Europe from plutocratic establishments.
Americans rescued Europe from Germans.
replace "rescue" with invade, pillage, establish protectorates.
Are straw man governments Americans created in Europe any better than those created by Germans?
Hell, Russians DID manage to successfully find a bunch of hardcore communists to start their own in the DDR.
In 1921 the red army tried to invade Poland.
A bunch of communist were locked in the basements drafting the new constitution & knitting flags.
They revolted (being convinced tha red army had won ) just to find the french & the polish on the streets to execute them ( the red army had been shipped back home ).
Do i feel safer with american missiles & armies here rather than german?
Sure is if Hitler had sold 50% Europe to Stalin as the USA did, there would have been no problem with them at all.
Stalin was very practical & you may be interested to know USSR was the LAST country to recall ambassadors accredited by the Chinese nationalist government, which was persecuting mao & the communists.
About speaking german...
well, now we're supposed to speak yankee (whatever that may mean )...

 

Are you, like, for real???

I' too, see "rescuing" argument hugely arrogant. Especially from "me again" who apparently thinks USA singlehandedly won the WWII by being the only noble knights of the army of Christ or something. But "those created by Germans"? You mean, death camp administrations?

Sometimes those anti-American europeans can be dumber than the dumbest Bush supporters. Those, at least, do know Hitler was pure evil.

 

so do YOU think there have been no "camps" created by americans?
There were "camps" created by anyone, russians included.
Some sources claim about 2 million german prisoners died in allied camps.
It is for sure many tens of thousands of italians died in russian camps well after the end of the war, because Stalin didn't know better & Togliatti suggested a few more casualties would help Italy remember fascism in a "better perspective".
The Dresden bombing ( 45.000 casualties in one night, wanted by Churchill ); Hiroshima & Nagasaki show that "pure evil" is very subjective.
About "straw governments", i made my point clear: is current Afghanistan regime more or less or in-between " pure evil" than Najibullah's?
I see no difference: one was sponsored by invading russians; this one by invading americans.
Many pointed out Najibullah used to be quite open-minded: women could wear skirts & attend schools & work etc.
So if you say the USA only brought barber's shops, miniskirts & porn back to Afghanistan, sorry but the "evil empire's" clone had hit home first.
Opium, geopolitics anyone?
Didn't yankees refer to the USSR as the "evil empire"?
Same as Khomeini used to blame the USA as the "great Satan" ( funny how the USA masterminded Iran's rebellion under the Shah, only to find they had made a big mistake by doing so, same with the cuban rebellion & dozens others ).

Bottom line: those who want to read history in a marvel comics format; or consider Rambo or Rocky IV or Pearl Harbour an accurate & dependable reharsal of "the underlying truth", please do so.
My last post about this.

 

You have compared post-war pro-American European regimes with "those created by Germans" (as if those were even proper "regimes", not simply occupational administrations). And my question is, how DUMB is that?

As evil as Bush politics might be, anyone comparing him with Hitler shoud have their heads checked. And to compare WWII ALLIED FORCES with Hitler... well... pure maddness.

 

I agree totally.

 

nice how you evaded my points & backed up behind blanket statements.
Now please let's stop this: feel free to get drunk to whatever rhetorics fits your needs best.

 

Well, here's some rhetoric for you....

War is hell, and it is about killing enough of the enemy, including their population, so that they eventually give up and surrender. That's something that bin Laden & co. have figured out, and we have not.

Dealing with radical Islam needs to be confronted as a religious war. We are so politically correct these days that our government analysts aren't even allowed to explore the topics of religion and culture when dealing with our enemies. Bin Laden also knows this, and exploits our weaknesses mercilessly.

Camps? Sure - against an enemy whose stated purpose was the domination of the world and the elimination of World Jewry. I'm talking about Hitler here, but it could just as well be bin Laden and his Arab world allies....

In other words, let's not kid ourselves about the nature of war, and what is required in order to guarantee victory. America has been blessed the entire 20th century without having a war on its own soil. We've become accustomed to war being on some other part of the planet. In the last 50 years, we've also become accustomed to the idea of limited war, of police actions, etc. as being the "norm".

Well, it isn't.

The war we must fight today is a real war, one with real casualties, and far flung battlefields in an area where we are particularly ill prepared to do battle - asymetric warfare, which al Qaeda has taken to new levels. However, the same principles of old hold true - we must kill enough of the enemy, including their populations (women, children, etc.) so that eventually they see the light of day and give up against our superior force of arms. How many more casualties do any of you think bin Laden needs to inflict on us before we'd give up? 3,000? 5,000? 10,000? The numbers are unthinkable, yet remember from a previous post about the bombing of Dresden, where 45,000 German civilians (and some military) died in a single NIGHT. They still kept on fighting. This is what we are facing, my colleagues. And we'd better be prepared for a long, and bloody path, and we had sure as hell better be prepared to win it unless you want your wives and daughters walking around wrapped in heavy robes from head to toe.....