Just a tad pissed off

There are 3000 degree granting Universities in the US and methinks if you were to see where these students are studying you would find that they are actually studying at a relative small number of US Universities.

The number of foreign students can indicate a number of things... one being that the US has some of the best Universities in the world (which I have said many times). In fact it is not uncommon for the best and brightest... if finances allow... to pursue education opportunities in the US.

 

There's something about this thread that's been bugging me:

When you say that a school is "better" than another, what do you mean? A large state university that serves the underserved and offers remedial classes is unlikely to be prestigious (partly for this reason), but is almost certainly morally "better" than a small insular university in the same community that makes no attempt to serve the underserved population. If a fourth-tier college serves a student's needs better than a first-tier college, then it's her best choice, regardless of what the rankings say. And so on.

I really can't even pretend to understand this thread, because schools don't exist on a linear scale; someone firing up a new university is not going to say "Yes, put me at position #171, between Colorado State and the University of Iowa." From what authoritative source is this objective judgment of a university's worth supposed to eminate? Shouldn't we all admit that we're just expressing our respective opinions, and leave it at that?


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

If you speak with international education folk there is somewhat of a GAAS (i.e. Generally Accepted Academic Standards) regarding the level of academic rigor expected for University (i.e. degree) level studies. A Bachelor degree may be defined differently in different places but it should mean that you have participated in a academic exercise at a certain level.

In Canada, for example, they have the colleges and techs which are obviously "better" for some students but few are disillusioned to believe that they have the same level of academic rigor as the Universities (i.e. they are worse on the academic scale).

Similarly, the level of academic rigor in the US various greatly... now the less rigorous schools may be "better" for some students than others but they are clearly "worse" on the academic scale.

By your arguement a diploma from a degree mill could be "better" than Harvard because it meets my needs better.

Incidently, this is actually a predominant characteristic of US education which is not found to anything close to the same level in any other system on the planet (to my knowledge)... a decidedly market-based orientation.

A report by the United Nations also noted the market-based influence within the US system.

 

I'm trying figure out what it is that is even being debated here?

1. Majority of world's worst universities are in the USA.
2. The USA higher education is inferior to the UK system.

In my mind these are two totally different arguments. If it's the first argument I might even agree, if the argument was that the majority of the world's degree mills are in the USA. If the second argument is being debated then I'll just be an interested observer.

 

OK. Looking at my old year 2000 copy of USNews' America's Best Colleges that's sitting on my desk, I find the percentage of foreign students at a representative cross section of California schools to be:

Azusa Pacific 4% of 2,795
Biola 4% of 2,391
Cal Tech 9% of 901
Cal Lutheran 5% of 1,751
Cal Poly Pomona 5% of 15,351
CSUDH 2% of 7,834
CSU Fresno 3% of 14,518
CSU Long Beach 4% of 22,868
College of Notre Dame 10% of 992
Golden Gate U. 18% of 1,407
La Sierra U. 8% of 1,169
Menlo College 16% of 534
Pepperdine 8% of 3,256
Pomona College 2% of 1,605
San Francisco State 6% of 21,042
Stanford 5% of 7,146
UC Berkeley 9% of 22,261
UC Davis 1% of 19,403
UCLA 3% of 24,103
UC Santa Barbara 1% of 17,059
USC 8% of 15,553

 

Ken, you're attempting to once again change the subject. I've never said that US schools were superior, inferior, or anything in the middle.

You, however, made the assertion that the majority of the world's worst schools are in the US. Therefore, it's up to you to prove your assertion, not me.

Perhaps because people let your blatant anti-US bias slide so many times that you thought you'd always get away with it. Well, the above assertion was the last straw for me, so I'm going to press the issue until you either produce the evidence that you claim you have, or admit that you were either simply expressing an opinion, or that you're just full of crap. Either would be fine with me. You see Ken, I can deal with and even welcome opposing opinions, it makes for good debate. But when you pull something out of thin air and try to pass it off as fact, well, I'm going to call you on it. And I've called you on it. For about the tenth time without answer.

Bruce

 

Lewchuk seems to be claiming this: The majority of American regionally accredited colleges and universities are inferior by international standards. So unless you choose a "top tier" American school, you should consider only foreign (preferably British commonwealth) schools.

 

Originally posted by Lewchuk:
>Predictably, you are in such a passionate rage to win the war over communism you missed the key salient point.

You're the Evil Empire? Hardly...the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight perhaps. Passionate? Bored.

>One would think that there should generally be a 1-1 relationship between a standard RA US program and a standard UK program. Now what exactly that relationship is (i.e Bach(Hons), MA, etc.) is a discussion for another day.

>What the British Council is saying is that, upon review, the diversity of education in the US precludes a 1-1 and results in a 1-many. They do refer to structural differences (i.e. amount of specialization in the undergrad) but they also refer to the quality of the program (note the adjectives "prestigious", "rigourous"). In other words they are saying that there is a diversity of quality in the US which precludes a 1-1... the UK equivalent depends upon the quality of the school in the US you attended.

The diversity of quality is really a diversity of services. The U.S. system isn't under latent Feudal tendancies whereby you either study auto mechanics or university studies. A broad spectrum of education services raises the average level of public education without lowering the top tier one wit, so to speak. It is too bad the British Council finds it confusing. You referred to it as "market-driven" with disdain. I'm not the least bit offended by that term. Market forces weed out the useless offerings, improve the mediocre, and eventually reward the innovative, trail-blazing and effective products and institutions. I'd have thought someone with an MBA would think along these lines. Are you embarrassed by business?

To the earlier poster who asked about foreign students attending U.S. schools I would say that it would be difficult to characterize them with one generalization. Some are excited by giants like MIT, for which there is no equal, but I think some are left out of the UK system in the huge vacuum between Cambridge and the hairdressing school down the lane.

>Once you accept this, then you can ask the question... what differences in the two systems may contribute to a more diverse level of quality in one system and how does this level of quality compare with the other... but children, that is a less for another day.

>Incidently, I find the "controversy" regarding this a little surprise considering the importance of "attending a good school" in the US vs. the relative lack of such importance in, say, Canada.... of course, you probably don't know that.

>Master's degree - in terms of specialisation, the American Master's degree from prestigious colleges and universities is considered comparable to the British Bachelor (Honours) degree. Candidates who have followed academically rigorous programmes have reached a standard comparable to that of a British taught Master's degree.

Feudal thinking, as I said earlier and little to do with the question that you've been evading for days. BTW, you always pick the same 3-4 business schools from among the U.K. MBA offerings when that topic comes up. Why do you do that? Do the others suck? If you believe what you say, why do you always select just those three or four? Why not just say, "any U.K. program that you can afford will do; they're all exactly the same.

Perhaps if you went to twelve schools in seven countries, studying Erasmus, St. Paul, the Federalist Papers and Karl Marx's accountant, you'd get it (to use your own ploy).

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

Dear Dennis,

I hope you are well.

Please let me politely point out to you that I think that your statistics are wrong. The majority of international students in the United States are not from Europe. It has been my experience that the majority of them are from Asian countries like China, Japan, India, Korea, etc. Since I don't want to state my opinion here without backing it up (as it appers to be the case with some), please check out the following:

http://www.esiusainc.com/html/educators.html

According to this article, Asia is the origin of more than 57% of all international students studying in the U.S.A.

I hope this helps.

My best regards,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Attention Lewchuck and followers!!!

"UK spending on education lags behind other industrialised countries."

Full article at:
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/database/internat.html

Say what???...


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

I agree... my point was 1 (Glad to see someone agrees). However I think the point of the debate has been lost in the passionate desire to "win".

 

I never even brought up the money factor. But now that you mention it, why should a university exist if not to serve the needs of students?


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

I never even brought up the money factor. But now that you mention it, why should a university exist if not to serve the needs of students?


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Yup, that is about it (although you can probably go lower than the top tier).

 

I have evidently offended your patriotic jollies so you want me to itemize in detail every bit of research and experience I have had so you can surf around and try to find something someone else has said that in someway "discredits" my opinion... of course after you have had your jollies and salute the flag we will still be no closer to the truth because your intent is not to discover but to discredit. You don't even care about the issue so why should I even entertain your rants.

 

Well boys this may be my last post for awhile because this has become very boring.

However,

[/B][/QUOTE]

 

Interesting... maybe it is just Canada that is vastly superior to the United States (smile).

 

That is a interesting question

Historically, and even currently relative to the US, the British schools served the discipline... students be damned (slight exaggeration)

The US schools served the student... the discipline be damned (slight exaggeration).

Hence why you find UoP, 4week BAs, etc. in the US and not in the UK... these programs serve their students but at a cost of not upholding the highest of academic standards. Whether this is a desirable trade-off is a matter of opinion.

 

Ken, once again you're trying to turn this back on me, but I won't allow it. I never made any assertions that US schools were superior, inferior, or anything else.

You were the one who stated that the majority of the world's worst schools were in the US. I asked you to provide evidence. You stated there was plenty of evidence. I asked once again that you post it. You ignored me, so I started pressing you for it. You trot out a bunch of lame excuses that I'm the "dark side", I don't care about the issue, I'm satisfying my patriotic jollies, etc.

All of these are clearly desperate attempts to avoid admitting you have no evidence, and IMO, you're really starting to look foolish. BTW Ken, I'd be doing the same thing if you asserted that the UK had the majority of the world's worst schools and then refused to produce evidence that you said you had. "Patriotic jollies" has nothing to do with it, it's more a case of calling someone's bluff. And I'm calling yours.

Long story short Ken, I'm not going to drop this. You can ignore me if you choose, but rest assured that every time you try to issue a blanket statement condemning US schools, I'll remind everyone of this not-quite artful dodge that you're attempting to pull. Sorry, but you yanked the tiger's tail once too often.

Bruce

 

>Originally posted by Lewchuk:
Well boys this may be my last post for awhile because this has become very boring.

Always was.

>>....The diversity of quality is really a diversity of services. The U.S. system isn't under latent Feudal tendancies whereby you either study auto mechanics or university studies. A broad spectrum of education services raises the average level of public education without lowering the top tier one wit, so to speak.

>That is just bull****.

Thank's for the beautiful wrap up. No one ever explained it like that to me before.

Hyperbole, but in effect true. Aside from the votech schools, where do the second tier of British students go to upgrade their skills? You have to say "nowhere" to be consistent. Of course, they can wait until they are mature adults and take advantage of the U.K.'s burgeoning system of lowered entry standards and life experience credit using PLAR guidelines. Too bad they have to sit on their hands until then. This has to be so or else you're arguments hold no water.