Western Governors University

Actually, yes. I try and teach students to step out of their bubble and learn things all the time. Sometimes we think we have things figured out and then realize there is a whole different world with a different perspective that is no less wrong or right than our own. So yes, thank you for pointing that out.

 

Originally Posted by Odin

I think you're problem is you really think you know what you're talking. Sometime you should step outside of your bubble. You might learn something.

I hope you did not major in or teach English. The quotation "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, scene II and may be appropriate.

 

1. All statistics are trash to the people who are being lumped into the statistical population and told that what they are doing is not proper because of the power of the bell curve. Humans don't like being quantified and self report is flawed. Nonetheless, statistics have value because without them, people would be managing problems based on gut instinct alone and organizations would be more susceptible to the charismatic.

This said, the reason why statistics in education are flawed is because the people interpreting the statistics and creating the measures are functional idiots. In my experience that's what "Department Chair" and "Academic Dean" is code for.

2. Long-tenured teachers of all levels are performers. Performers tend to be charismatic. Charisma alone doesn't ensure learning outcomes. It does generate a metric crap load of political garbage which tends to stunt progress and resist accountability.

3. Speak with real data or don't speak. This is a forum of very educated people and people desiring to be very educated in the near term. If you have an opinion, speak it as opinion. If you want to be taken seriously, post your data (with error bars visible) and make your case.

4. It's my opinion that kids who have involved parents that actively tutor their kids have better learning outcomes. This is supported by Malcolm Gladwell's research as popularly presented in "Outliers". This research compared low income and high income students, from impoverished and affluent areas in the same population group.

The difference in success were as follows:

1. Involved parental figures that worked with their kids. This was not dependent on number of parents necessarily. Impoverished kids who had parental involvement did lose information from grade to grade during vacations but quickly caught up once the routines were reinstated during school years.

2. Access to extracurricular activities. This was the vector that separated the affluent from the impoverished. Kids that had access to learning during vacation times through camps and other activities lost less information from grade to grade.

3. Being in the right place at the right time. This by far was the largest factor of success for extreme outliers on both sides of the curve. Bill Gates and Bill Joy had free mainframe time due to where they were living. Those in extreme poverty also were unlucky enough to be born during times of war in areas of famine, etc.

So if you've got some cash laying around, have parents that care and are in the best school districts, no kidding you're going to do well at school.. but if you're poor, have a broken family without good ethic and are in a war zone.. well there's your answer.

In my opinion, teachers by and large do have an impact in success, but are not vital overall. They're plug and play like everyone else is... except parents.

Before replying to this, I'll expect you read the book to develop an informed reply. Otherwise you will be ignored.

Thanks,
ITJD

 

Shucks, I wish I had said that --- wish I had of known this; you can bet I will read the book.

 

Well, if you had taken the opportunity to read the original post, you would see that the quoted text was all hacked up by the last guy that was attempting to quote it. Here's what you should do...go back, read the original post, and then take your foot out of your mouth.

You'd think a guy with a supposed doctorate would do a little more research when attempting to blast people on a public forum. Keep working at it. Maybe before you retire one of your colleagues will teach you how to be a little more detailed. It may even change your life.

 

LOL! You are one funny guy.

1. So you agree with me that most statistics are trash. Anybody that took stats in undergrad understands that. Congratulations. Also, it appears that you've been slighted in the past by your superiors, or perhaps ignored for a promotion to Dept. Chair or some other position. Degrading people in those positions makes you look angry and weak. Food for thought...

2. Tenured teachers are charismatic and produce a ton of political garbage? Let me educate you a little bit. I know that what you see on tv or read in your local newspaper about teachers unions has your panties in a wad. But the teachers union leaders are usually the douchebags that do what you just described. The VAST majority of tenured teachers are NOT involved in what you claim. So, take your own advice and offer some hard facts instead of spewing crap that you have no clue about.

3. Speak with real data or don't speak? I live this stuff every day. I'm not sitting on my @$$ wishing I had a job or dreaming of something to come. I read recent research and apply it. If a graph or some other type of representation of data is necessary to prove a point, it will be provided. And yes, there are a few educated people here in terms of degrees. But that has absolutely nothing to do with your logic. Good try though.

4. I've read more research than you want to know. And surprise, I've read the book that you alluded to. And guess what, money, educated parents, parents that want their kids to be successful, parents that understand what sacrifice is, and how well funded the school is all make a huge difference. That's something that's been known for ages. Thanks for stating the obvious.

And thank you for ignoring me. I was getting tired of your incessant replies and attempts to feign expertise or even knowledge in the subject that we're addressing. Have an awesome day!

 

Ah, wipe the egg from your face --- I have been retired for quite some time. Seems your research is not up to par. Imagine that, an old geezer on Degreeinfo.

 

Well, it's all starting to come together now, isn't it? I feel like I'm defending myself against a senile old man. But I'm glad you've found something to pass the time, at least.

 

Did I say that I was old or did I say that I was retired? Ah, maybe you should do more research, grasshopper.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but you are old. Unless you're one of those guys with a mental disability that was able to retire early because of medical issues. Wipe the egg off your face and move on, already.

 

Thanks.

1. Not all undergrads who took stats truly understand that. That usually comes up when doing a research project and people start applying statistics.

2. I'm an IT consultant that teaches on the side because I can. The only time I've been asked about potentially joining a department full-time, the answer has been no.

3. Good professors or teachers with decent track records end up doing research or consulting. Most admins and chairs don't do research, don't teach much and generally make the lives of the people who do teach more difficult. I grant you this is my opinion and is shared by most in my extended family in the field.

I think I hit a nerve with the statement though: "Et tu Twit?"

What does this have to do with anything? Another nerve hit I presume.

So start doing so. As to my logic. Most of us know stats and know silliness. Sillyness has everything to do with this thread.

So then tell me why you didn't do the research, aren't the author, and aren't making a real difference by pushing the paradigm of academic thought..

I believe it's because you're a secondary educator and guilty of a lot of the things I've pointed out in previous posts. Nuff said there. We'll see what you do here on the forums over time.

Don't want none, don't give none. Happy Easter!

 

Thanks for another pointless reply. And the fact that you said "Nuff said" has nullified every opinion you've ever shared here. What are you, 12?

And I think I'm the one that struck a nerve with you. Hence the reactions that you offered with the immediate response that you were somehow striking a nerve with me. It's a nice way to deflect you inadequacies. Funny little child. Move along now.

 

Keep digging the hole.

 

Are you ok? :bigeyes:

 

I wanted to chime in here that you do need to be a bit careful with WGU because their classes are "units" and not credits. My husband was looking to transfer there from Baker College online and out of 26 actual classes completed, they were only going to accept 10. Add that to the fact that he started calling different colleges and found that they likely would NOT accept any transfer classes from them since their units give a pass/fail and not actual grades, and since they are units instead of credits it would be next to impossible to determine how many credits they should be worth. So I would think hard before going there. Im sure if you have the actual degree from there, depending on the field its in, you would be ok in going on for a higher degree after, but you may find trouble if you need to transfer in credits or transfer out units.

 

Usually transfers into WGU work best with whole degrees (e.g. A.S.), as that allows them to cancel out whole sections of competencies (e.g. liberal arts).

Transferring out of WGU is a different matter entirely. While some schools accept their credits, others won't. My suggestion to anyone considering WGU has always been. . . only go in if you're sure you'll finish.

 

That sounds tough. It almost seems like a way to make sure students have few options and have to circle back to them to finish their studies.

 

I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's an end result of their methodology, which is competency based rather than credit hours based. I do have to say, though, I think WGU could do a better job of at least trying to better align their competency units given with standard credit hours at most schools. I'd think it'd be better if a course based on certification is worth two credit hours to ACE, it should be worth two competency units at WGU.

To be fair, WGU is not the only school that has courses that are difficult to transfer. I've seen a number of other schools have similar issues-- the most frequent I've run across is modifying a course title and structure sufficiently that it doesn't align with other schools' similar courses, yet in practice the course covers the same knowledge area.

 

I don't mean to sound accusatory towards them, but when I think about the end result of their methodology I have to wonder about who benefits the most from it when talking squarely about transfering credit to other schools. I have to think they would've considered the possibility of students having difficulty at some point due to their credit format.

 

It's a trade off.

Positives:
1. You pay 3 grand for a six month semester and can take as many credit hours as you can handle within the six month period for the same rate. (ex. I knocked out 30 units in one semester once.- that would have cost me 15k at Northeastern, 10 years ago.)

2. If you're self motivated and have some credits going in you can get a reasonably well respected RA degree that gets you into decent grad schools for under 10 grand.

Negatives:
1. If you leave part way through the program, the value proposition changes.