distinguishing between ducks

One can get an education in many places and in many ways. But one earns a degree at a university. St. Regis isn't a univeristy. No educational authority says it is. Therefore, it doesn't issue degrees; it sells paper. Very expensive paper, in terms of money and risk to the paper user.

One has to wonder how much more of this the St. Regis operators will take before they "close" St. Regis and re-open it with a different name?

 

Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

Plato is not always consistent in his views nor am I since my views often tend to be heuristic. I also agree with you that multiple cognative modalities are welcome in the educative process. I only worry about exclusive virtual modalities as defeating the the idea of education in its broadest implications as a type of life, the "philosophical life" or thinking life for lack of a better term which must be lived socially within a living community of fellows.

This, on my view, differs from training to do certain routines. It goes to the type of ideas we are now opining upon rather that how to program a computer, do surgery, fly a fighter jet or even write up a lesson plan. It's more a way of thinking about what knowledge is and how to put it to good use, how to live good lives--and indeed, why mill degrees are bascially unethical even if the grad would have been eligible for a legitimate degree at a real school. I think that the old fashioned Liberal Arts college approach is one of the best ways to be inducted into that sort of intellectual life style--not the only way, but a very good one, for many younger people. Will exclusively virtual education replace this socially based system: I doubt it just like TV didn't replace teachers in the classroom. Computers won't either.

 

Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

I don't think anyone here is arguing exclusivity in modalities; physical and virtual methods can co-exist as alternatives for the benefit of all. Nor will one modality eliminate the other. Also, a philosophical life doesn't end with the formal degree process. The process to earn a degree is just a step along the way, and in many cases, an early one. So, there will be many and varied opportunities for the philosopher to exchange and contribute within society regardless of the means of official education. However, (and to get back to the thread) if one is to earn a legitimate degree in say liberal arts including philosophy, that credential in most cases is based on official (re: government) approval or recognition. Neither SRU or KU have that, at any level.

 

Re: agenda or difference ?

An interesting point of view. It makes me wonder two things:
1) If you sincerely hold that view are you just a gadfly? Why then do you hang around a DL website when you believe that any DL program is inferior to any classroom based program.
2) So you would maintain that the MBA program at Fayetteville State University is clearly superior to the DL MBA program offered at Duke University?
Jack

 

Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

 

Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

1. Assumptions are meant to be questioned--mine as well as yours. This forum is full of all sorts of debatable and questionable assumptions and perspectives on education.

2. Is an MBA education or professional training? My views go more to undergraduate education, supporting the traditional, on-site liberal arts model. Grad school seems to me more like training for some specific job function. So, in that case, Duke might well be better than Fayeteville State. But for the primary undergradute gig, I'll go with live, on-site instruction every time.

Plato: Alfred North Whitehead (of Harvard) said all Western philosophy was but a footnote to Plato. Sure, Plato was only the intellectual father of Aristotle, etc, etc. His relevance to the nature of live education seems obvious. Was the Academy "government approved" and accredited ? Did it gränt degrees ? Could one get an education by studying at the Academy ? Did education even exist before DL. Socrates and his students--a possible model for the optimum learning environment ? ( of yes, Jesus and his students--all on-line, I'm sure).

"But times have changed for the better now, we have all that electronic media that extends our brains. What is a Luddite like you doing here on this forum, questioning our assumptions ?
I know that you must be a mill shill to question the way you do. Only mill shills and trolls question our assumptions on this forum."

 

Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates ...definitely the foundation of Western philosophy, but not the last word on modern formal education. There were no universities in Plato's time however the Academy formed a working model for universities and collaborative thought for many centuries which continues to this day. There are also different modalities now (including DL) for educational delivery and thought collaboration. To each his own. However, one need not have a degree or be in the educational system to engage in philosophical thought. The Academy did not grant degrees. On the other hand, a modern degree is a formal education credential conferred by an institution (hopefully government approved or recognized) which stipulates that a program of studies has been successfully completed.

 

Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

Rocco's agenda seems pretty clear to me: to collapse the distinction between legitimate DL and mills.

The first try was to argue that it's OK for a student to claim a degree-mill degree if he or she did real work. That one didn't fly because degree mills don't employ credible assessment processes.

The response was to argue that legitimate DL uses different processes than B&M classes, so legitimate DL is closer to the degree mills than to real education.

It isn't very pursuasive but the goal seems clear enough.

 

Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

May not be very persuasive, but you can see the point. All virtual institutions, legitmate and mills, rely on processes other than traditional, viva voce, face-to-face encounters as a predominate form of learning. IF one holds that the Socratic/Jesus model with live presence is essential to true education, all virtual forms of learning fail the test. You may not believe it, but I'll bet you that Socrates an Jesus would--but who are they in respect to the learned heads here.

So you see, it really doesn't matter what kind of virtual degree you have got, legit, illegit or indifferent--they are all virtual. Welcome to the Matrix.

 

What would Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates think of a point that was not very persuasive?

And do you honestly believe that in traditional institutions the learning actually takes place only (or even predominantly) during face-to-face encounters? I’ve had face-to-face encounters with professors so drunk as to not be cognizant of what chapter in the text pertained to his lecture. I had one give a lecture that was prepared for a different class altogether.

If you compare most any teacher to Socrates and Jesus, he or she would probably fail the test. It isn’t the methodology; it’s the execution. Moreover, you are relying on a false assumption to make a point.

Socrates and Jesus would what? Are you saying that Socrates and Jesus would believe that, “live presence is essential to true education?” How would they (or you, for that matter) explain the fact that both individuals educated considerably more individuals after their deaths than while they were alive?

Virtual? What do you mean by “virtual?” Aside from the jargon that was a quasi-interesting term when computers were in their infancy (which hardly applies now that that they are ubiquitous and pervasive), “virtual” actually has two meanings. Do you mean “virtual” as in being such in essence or effect though not in actual fact? Or do you mean “virtual” as in being actually such in almost every respect?

The fact of the matter is that Socrates (and Jesus, Aristotle, Plato, etc.) communicated with the tools available during their times. Today, we communicate utilizing the tools available today. Research scientists collaborate and communicate by electronic means all the time. My customers place orders, verify shipping status, and express their appreciation electronically. They don’t consider any of this to be “virtual,” as you employ the term.

For example, a cholycystectomy was recently performed via robotics and remote manipulation. While the computer simulations for such a procedure could be termed “virtual reality,” I’m sure the patient does not consider that she had a “virtual” cholycystectomy, or that her “virtual” gall bladder had been “virtually” removed.

To a great extent, distance education prepares individuals for how business, research, and socialization take place today. The fact that you are here, Mrs. Evans (why is that when I write or say this visions of Dame Edna dance in my head?), waxing philosophically and discussing this is proof of that.

 

Of course, virtual worlds intersect with ordinary reality. But an entire education based on virtual means? I see education more in sacramental terms-Chistian sacraments don't operate through absence but through presence--the priest and communicants must be present to each other and physical elements are enployed to transfer spiritual (hidden) graces. The Socrates/Jesus model of true education works in an analogous way: the physical presence of the teachers with the students in living, ordinary time is the authentication of as well as the actual process of the educative experience. Education (in the sense I am speaking of) is not only collecting, storing and retrieval of information, all possible internet activities. Again, some kinds of job training may be well accomplished in the virtual mode. Learning can obviously take place in virtual modes.

Here, I am placing an ultimate VALUE on a particularly type of learning--one which once was the primary form of college education---real time, viva voce, face-to-face, see the people, socially contextualized, intergrated into daily life, on campus-learning. You might say it has a mystical quality like the sound of the human voice or the luminosity in the eyes of an eager learner.

All your concerns about mills would diminish greatly if you excluded ALL virtual degrees from consideration. Would you trust a medical doctor or surgeon who had only virtual training ? I think you see my point. No one has to accept the VALUES of another, but mine are not illogical nor without historical precedent.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

 

I am not referring to the intersection of the virtual (as in being such in essence or effect though not in actual fact) or real worlds. I am referring to the fact that much of which you disparagingly refer to as “virtual” are simply tools (particularly concerning education) that are employed daily in (and reflect) a very real world.

This is a medieval viewpoint. In a sense, I guess we are making progress; you previously viewed education in Hellenic terms.

I guess you can’t explain the fact that both individuals educated considerably more individuals after their deaths than while they were alive.

In the sense I am speaking of? Communication and civil discourse become virtually impossible if you are going to define terms willy-nilly to suit your needs.

I’m glad you place such an “ultimate VALUE” on this particular type of learning, as it is consistent with your self avowed snobbism and elitism. I hate to tell you this, Mrs. Evans, but this kind of “education” does not currently exist, if it ever, in a pure sense, really did. In other words, what you refer to “virtual” education is infinitely more real than the kind of education you value so much. Mind you, there is indeed a certain attraction to clapping your hands and having a slave hand feed you grapes while you soak in words of wisdom. Perhaps the ancient Greeks had it right.

Or all degrees and schools too, for that matter…

No, I don’t see your point. There are no legitimate medical schools that are, as you employ the term, entirely “virtual.” Many fields, such as the hard sciences, do not lend themselves to distance education. This only reinforces the concept that the methodology is a tool legitimately used only when appropriate and effective.

True.

Well, at least you’re half right. Historically speaking, perhaps they were not illogical in another time and age. However, the same cannot be said today.

 

"It's not the methodology but the execution."

Hemlock or cross?

As you were.

 

education as a value-driven activity

First, Uncle Janko, you are a true wit.

Next, we all have had our various "says" on this issue of virtual learning. Dr. Sanz uses various exaggerations in an attempt to reduce my points to absurdity, but they aren't really so absurd, just not very contemporary.

I have argued that (undergraduate) degrees, NOT LEARNING, based primarily or exclusively virtual modes are suspect against traditional, on-campus, degrees that are earned in a living context of fellow students with live profs. I stand by that value judgement: it is based on an educational model from antiquity, Socrates and Jesus. I do not claim that one cannot understand or learn from each by reading or the internet, but one could not have been one of personal (historical) desciples, either, without that personal contact. Their model was that a close personal association with a mentor is the BEST type of education. I agree, especially for undergrads; others may not.

Why so much concern on DL fora about mills--because mills most closely imitate DL virtual degrees. Nobody ever spent four years at a local degree mill campus to earn an undergraduate milled degree. I do not propose eliminating DL or or any of the forms of virtual learning from use as part of a degree program. I would, however, require some personal, face-to-face interaction for any authentic undergraduate degree. I can't see how this position is stupid or illogical--retrograde, indeed yes, but so what; it's just my opinion.

 

Re: education as a value-driven activity

Unquestionably, this is something upon which both of us can agree.

The name is Sainz, and I only responded to absurdities in kind (and then only to make those first posted by others all the more salient).

You are, conveniently, ignoring your past comments. For example, first you insist that you are only referring to undergraduate education. Then, you insist that the only legitimate assessment is “taking an oral test, live, in front of a panel of experts.” As this methodology is more characteristic of graduate (and particularly doctoral) education, can you name any institution issuing undergraduate degrees assessed in this manner? You disparage any kind of “virtual” education in favor of this model of education. In order for this preference (or if you prefer, VALUE judgment) to be an actual preference or be valued above other alternatives, it must, in reality, exist. If not, “virtual’ doesn’t even come close to describing it.

Once again, if what you are expressing a preference for does not exist, it is merely conjecture and fantasy. Moreover, I would appreciate if you would refrain from employing an “appeal to authority” fallacy. Please leve Socrates and Jesus out of your arguments. First, they have absolutely nothing to do with the point you are trying to make. Second, I got the funny feeling neither would agree with you.

One cannot be a historical figure without being present at the appropriate time and place. However, historically speaking, your comments just may be offensive to anyone who has ever considered Jesus Christ their personal Lord and Savior.

Once again, mentoring is a characteristic of graduate work (as well as vocational training), not undergraduate education. Undergraduate students are a number; the extent to which they excel is directly proportionate to their own personal efforts, and rarely the result of mentoring.

In a word, poppycock! It is quite obvious that you have NEVER taken a single distance education course.

No one has ever spent four years at a “virtual” degree mill to earn a bogus credential either. So what’s your point?

Why? You have yet to answer this very simple question (aside from utilizing “mother logic” and asserting “because I said so, that’s why!”). Interestingly, most distance education doctoral degrees do indeed require some kind of face-to-face interaction.

I’m not saying your position is stupid or illogical. I am saying, however, that you yet to share with us what intelligent or logical basis you have for holding such an opinion.

I foresee the day, any day now, Mrs. Evans, when you will echo the cockamamie theory espoused by your husband that degree mills are the cure for the social ill of diplomaism (degree creep).

 

Re: education as a value-driven activity

As we move through this debate we seem to draw the line with an increasingly finer pen. With that in mind I'd say that, considering your quoted statement above, you would believe that the student(#1) who goes off to his residential college, spends lots of time drinking, smoking pot, sleeping through classes, borrowing other students class notes and graduating with a 2.0 GPA has gotten a better education that the student (#2) who while working a full-time job, comes home after work, shuns the TV, goes out of their way to access library privileges, deliberately stays in touch with teachers and fellow students and graduates with a 3.5 GPA? So you think student #1 has the better education?
Jack

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: agenda or difference ?

Socrates was interested in the process of eliciting and refining ideas through questioning and intellectual critique.

I think that Socrates would have been thrilled by distance learning, in part because it allows people all over the world to enter into an extended intellectual conversation.

I'll add that many academic fields already resemble extended Socratic conversations, but few of the participants are ever physically in the same room with one another.

As for Jesus, I'm not sure that he's the most appropriate model for higher education. Students aren't seeking salvation and professors aren't their saviors.

 

final remarks

I am sorry, Dr. Sainz, for mistyping your name, but when I think and type at the same time, it happens.

I will try to answer a few of the points raised by others since my last post, and I hope that we can conclude here.

Why should someone think that live, face-to-face education is essentially better as "education" than any form of distance learning or just privately reading books, for that matter (not necessarily better for specific types of training) ?

Because Socrates and Jesus did it that way---not good enough because clearly we don't live in antiquity. The question is, rather, why they did it that way and why should we now need to imitate that old model. Because both of these ancient teachers saw education as broader than information transfer (cyber model) or the mastery of a body of knowledge (test-out model). They saw in education ( check out the origin of the word--educare) social implications, character and mind development, the lived experience of learning in a commnunity--educator mixes with, meets, talks to students. This sort of experience is primative, no techology intervening (whether stylus and papyrus, pen and notebook, or computers). In other words, how does learning come out in the simple presence of others after the papyrus roll or the reading of books or the computer research is left aside. How does it look for the prof. to solve a problem with you, the student, face-to-face sans books or other technological support system. How does one solve social, ethical, religious, value issues without a palmpilot ?

This is a primative model because it is based on learning by imitation just like the practice of medicine is learned by apprenticeship=imitation. Personal contact with those who know how to diagnose and treat disease, in short, how to behave like doctors--not just books and pictures, though these are clearly indispensible. I guess what I am trying to say is this: the absolute essence of "education" is what you get when you have the person alone, without any technology--just his brain, soul and voice, as he interacts, thinks speaks and functions as a thinking human being. Traditional, on-site, educational experiences seem (to me) best for producing those kinds of encounters.

That's why the on-site, face-to-face, live model is both the process and the authentication of that process. Much of this process cannot be specified in quantitative terms because it is, of its nature, qualitative. Does the 4.00 DL grad knw more than the 2.00 frathouse bozo--yes, he knows more, but frathouse Joe has had a qualitatively different sort of experience--whether this has reached him or not is another question, but he has had access to a diffenrt type of educational process, more primative, more basic. He, at least, has had to face his fraternity brothers in off-hand moments, perhaps even a prof. or two. He has seen high-level problems addressed by live folks in a live social environment as part of the degree-earning experience. He has had the possiblity to imitate=to practice what he has encountered.

In short, learning itself may be very private; education is public and the best education (according to me) happens in a living community of teachers and learners as they live out their learning together in daily life.

Just an opinion. By the way, Dr. Sainz, you ask excellent, probing questions. I hope you share your sharp edge with students somewhere: I am sure they would profit greatly.

Oh yes, it doesn't go on ?--try St. John's College as an example.

 

corrections to last post

Read primitive not "primative" (and please ignore other typos). Perhaps better archetypical in some sense. I also think that more basic, primitive or achetypic the concept, often the more diffucult to put into words.