Three Things Colleges Don't Want Us to Know

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe someday you'll go to a college and understand why that line you ripped off from a bad movie is wrong.

I have 3 degrees and I got a lot of my credits via the CLEP tests. But you are obviously one of the morons who needs to be spoon fed information so as to regurgitate back on a test that will be graded on a curve only to retain none of the info the next day.

I took CLEP tests while in the military, then attended U of Arkansas after discharging(tee-hee) er, being discharged from the Army.. They were not transferable according to them or my previous military education and physical ed.This was 1988

I had no problem with my CLEP credits. To date something like 3000 school accept them

 

[Unkotare]

Only if you don't know how to read.

Any text book based class can be self taught unless of course you are a complete idiot.

Maybe someday you'll go to a college and understand why that line you ripped off from a bad movie is wrong.

I have 3 degrees and I got a lot of my credits via the CLEP tests.

Yeah, I'm sure you studied for your GED all alone. Maybe someday you will understand what a university education really is. In the meantime you can go on quoting bad movies and kidding yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

I had no problem with my CLEP credits. To date something like 3000 school accept them

........

 

[Unkotare]

In my experience the the first year or sometimes two of especially a liberal arts curriculum can be self taught.

Even subjects such as mathematics and physics and basic chemistry.

Lab experience is tough to duplicate but anyone can teach themselves the principles via textbooks.

Your 'experience' of watching bad movies has given you the wrong idea.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In my experience the the first year or sometimes two of especially a liberal arts curriculum can be self taught.

Even subjects such as mathematics and physics and basic chemistry.

Lab experience is tough to duplicate but anyone can teach themselves the principles via textbooks.

Your 'experience' of watching bad movies has given you the wrong idea.

I have obviously spent more time reading than you.

And only a complete idiotic sheep like you would believe (you'll notice I didn't say think) that one must attend a school in order to learn

 

[Unkotare]

I have obviously spent more reading than you.

The back of cereal boxes doesn't count, champ.

 

[Unkotare]

And only a complete idiotic sheep like you would believe (you'll notice I didn't say think) that one must attend a school in order to learn

AGAIN, some day you may understand what a university education actually is. Until then, good luck with Netflicks and cereal boxes, professor.

 

[blimpo]

We need to start viewing colleges as places of learning again rather than just a place to get a degree needed for a good job. Only then will they start teaching again.

Learning can happen for free in a public library. Those who go to college need to master a skill or a profession in order to justify the time and expense.

If so, then why are college campuses crowded and libraries across the country not?

Could it be that many Americans don't have enough self-discipline to educate themselves?

Your statement is ridiculous.

I guess you'd think the same could be said for watching Jeopardy every night, huh?

 

[squeeze berry]

We need to start viewing colleges as places of learning again rather than just a place to get a degree needed for a good job. Only then will they start teaching again.

Learning can happen for free in a public library. Those who go to college need to master a skill or a profession in order to justify the time and expense.

If so, then why are college campuses crowded and libraries across the country not?

Could it be that many Americans don't have enough self-discipline to educate themselves?

Your statement is ridiculous.

I guess you'd think the same could be said for watching Jeopardy every night, huh?

there is a correlation between higher education and socio-economic status.
A college degree is no guarantee, but the fact that someone has a degree means they have at least one qualification.

What someone does with it is another story.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have obviously spent more time reading than you.

The back of cereal boxes doesn't count, champ.

How many books do you own?

I suggest you read Self University by Charles D Hayes

That is if you can read without some professor telling you to.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And only a complete idiotic sheep like you would believe (you'll notice I didn't say think) that one must attend a school in order to learn

AGAIN, some day you may understand what a university education actually is. Until then, good luck with Netflicks and cereal boxes, professor.

You are living proof that ignorance is bliss

 

[Skull Pilot]

We need to start viewing colleges as places of learning again rather than just a place to get a degree needed for a good job. Only then will they start teaching again.

Learning can happen for free in a public library. Those who go to college need to master a skill or a profession in order to justify the time and expense.

If so, then why are college campuses crowded and libraries across the country not?

Could it be that many Americans don't have enough self-discipline to educate themselves?

Yes. People have been sold a bill of goods that they must pay someone to teach them rather than teaching themselves.

http://www.autodidactic.com/profiles/profiles.htm

 

[Againsheila]

Odd. Here I am, nearly 70 and once again attending college. And I find real learning to be had there. Of course, one has to have the desire to learn.

At the university level, one's education is up to the individual. According to all that I know about conservative ideals, that is the way it should be. The professors and textbooks are there to give you direction and guidence. But if you are not willing to put in the time to study, and do individual research on the subjects, then the failure is on you, not the school or professors.

Are you paying for your own classes or is this some sort of program to help seniors? When I was in college they allowed seniors to take college classes for free as long as there was room in the class. I met some great people that way and I'm hoping I get the same opportunity when I'm a senior and I'm almost there now.

 

[Valerie]

And only a complete idiotic sheep like you would believe (you'll notice I didn't say think) that one must attend a school in order to learn

AGAIN, some day you may understand what a university education actually is. Until then, good luck with Netflicks and cereal boxes, professor.

Skull Pilot makes a good point. However valuable a formal college curriculum may be for certain elements of obtaining a high quality education, libraries are indeed full of free and valuable information which can be learned independently by anyone who is innately intelligent enough to discern and apply practical information. Many people who earn college degrees aren't necessarily all that intelligent either...

 

[rosends]

While there are, I am sure, classes in colleges which are based heavily in text reading, I would like to think that they also have some measure of assessed responses which can't be done without a teacher. Other classes which use text reading as a springboard for discussion and group investigation can't be approximated by a lone person in a library. Can information be gleaned by reading a broad based selection of books (in order to balance opinion and confront one text's version with that of another text)? Sure. But a college course isn't just about memorizing facts. It is about building ideas and testing them against the ideas of others in a live (and I hope lively) dynamic fashion.

So could I have gotten all the information from the Intro to Psych class by just reading the book? Much of it but I wouldn't have had a chance to discuss implications or see methods in practice.

So you have to pay tuition to talk to people about psychology?

well, I paid tuition to have experts in the field help me understand ideas expressed in books and help me both understand and eventually create case studies for discussion -- the application of text based ideas in something akin to real world situations -- a practice that text based learning alone cannot provide.

In my experience the the first year or sometimes two of especially a liberal arts curriculum can be self taught.

I guess that depends on the class. A curriculum and syllabus can tell you what to read but not what its significance is or how it developed as an idea in response to or in spite of other ideas. A Comp Lit class is more than just reading novels. It is about learning how to unpack ideas within the novels and depends on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular group on any given day.

Even subjects such as mathematics and physics and basic chemistry.

I have very little skill in math and even less in Chemistry. Part of that has been dealt with by teachers who show me not just what to do but why it works, so I can intuit my way through applying it in unfamiliar situations. Also, when I run into a problem and have a question (which may not be relevant, but I can't know) I need someone who understands a bigger picture to tell me how to correct my thinking. A static text or a fixed video can't provide that interaction which will deal with my particular concern. This gets to some of my own observations about education -- someone who already has a knack for a subject needs less instruction because he simply "gets it" more quickly. I could unpack a text well before my math major friends could. But they could pick up a math book and teach themselves while I was floundering.

Lab experience is tough to duplicate but anyone can teach themselves the principles via textbooks.

true, but isn't real learning more than just reading a principle? If I give you a dictionary definition of a psychological disorder, does that mean that you will have any skill at recognizing that disorder in a real situation? Saying that we can learn by texts alone strips learning of any level of meaning other than information gathering.

 

[Skull Pilot]

While there are, I am sure, classes in colleges which are based heavily in text reading, I would like to think that they also have some measure of assessed responses which can't be done without a teacher. Other classes which use text reading as a springboard for discussion and group investigation can't be approximated by a lone person in a library. Can information be gleaned by reading a broad based selection of books (in order to balance opinion and confront one text's version with that of another text)? Sure. But a college course isn't just about memorizing facts. It is about building ideas and testing them against the ideas of others in a live (and I hope lively) dynamic fashion.

So could I have gotten all the information from the Intro to Psych class by just reading the book? Much of it but I wouldn't have had a chance to discuss implications or see methods in practice.

So you have to pay tuition to talk to people about psychology?

well, I paid tuition to have experts in the field help me understand ideas expressed in books and help me both understand and eventually create case studies for discussion -- the application of text based ideas in something akin to real world situations -- a practice that text based learning alone cannot provide.

I guess that depends on the class. A curriculum and syllabus can tell you what to read but not what its significance is or how it developed as an idea in response to or in spite of other ideas. A Comp Lit class is more than just reading novels. It is about learning how to unpack ideas within the novels and depends on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular group on any given day.

Even subjects such as mathematics and physics and basic chemistry.

I have very little skill in math and even less in Chemistry. Part of that has been dealt with by teachers who show me not just what to do but why it works, so I can intuit my way through applying it in unfamiliar situations. Also, when I run into a problem and have a question (which may not be relevant, but I can't know) I need someone who understands a bigger picture to tell me how to correct my thinking. A static text or a fixed video can't provide that interaction which will deal with my particular concern. This gets to some of my own observations about education -- someone who already has a knack for a subject needs less instruction because he simply "gets it" more quickly. I could unpack a text well before my math major friends could. But they could pick up a math book and teach themselves while I was floundering.

Lab experience is tough to duplicate but anyone can teach themselves the principles via textbooks.

true, but isn't real learning more than just reading a principle? If I give you a dictionary definition of a psychological disorder, does that mean that you will have any skill at recognizing that disorder in a real situation? Saying that we can learn by texts alone strips learning of any level of meaning other than information gathering.

Diagnosis of mental and or physical conditions are more a function of experience I'll agree but no student really has that experience until they intern or do clinical work as part of the degree process.

I consider clinical work to be the same as lab experience. That said one can learn the necessary principles needed as a prerequisite to lab or clinical experience on their own.

 

[rosends]

So you have to pay tuition to talk to people about psychology?

well, I paid tuition to have experts in the field help me understand ideas expressed in books and help me both understand and eventually create case studies for discussion -- the application of text based ideas in something akin to real world situations -- a practice that text based learning alone cannot provide.

I guess that depends on the class. A curriculum and syllabus can tell you what to read but not what its significance is or how it developed as an idea in response to or in spite of other ideas. A Comp Lit class is more than just reading novels. It is about learning how to unpack ideas within the novels and depends on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular group on any given day.


I have very little skill in math and even less in Chemistry. Part of that has been dealt with by teachers who show me not just what to do but why it works, so I can intuit my way through applying it in unfamiliar situations. Also, when I run into a problem and have a question (which may not be relevant, but I can't know) I need someone who understands a bigger picture to tell me how to correct my thinking. A static text or a fixed video can't provide that interaction which will deal with my particular concern. This gets to some of my own observations about education -- someone who already has a knack for a subject needs less instruction because he simply "gets it" more quickly. I could unpack a text well before my math major friends could. But they could pick up a math book and teach themselves while I was floundering.

Lab experience is tough to duplicate but anyone can teach themselves the principles via textbooks.

true, but isn't real learning more than just reading a principle? If I give you a dictionary definition of a psychological disorder, does that mean that you will have any skill at recognizing that disorder in a real situation? Saying that we can learn by texts alone strips learning of any level of meaning other than information gathering.

Diagnosis of mental and or physical conditions are more a function of experience I'll agree but no student really has that experience until they intern or do clinical work as part of the degree process.

I consider clinical work to be the same as lab experience. That said one can learn the necessary principles needed as a prerequisite to lab or clinical experience on their own.

When I took developmental psychology, part of the classwork (not any external internship) was group diagnosis based on case studies. Sure, I had read the text, but working through issues with like minded students made a heckuva difference. Even my philosophy class was more than book reading. Having a professor use the Socratic method on me and help me refine my own thoughts as I reflected on the text based ones was instrumental to effecting real learning.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By Richard Vedder @ Three Things Colleges Don't Want Us to Know

Universities are in the knowledge business, and the creation and dissemination of it is at the very core of what colleges do. Yet some forms of knowledge about higher education itself are either unknown, or hidden from the public. Why? Release of the information would prove embarrassing and possibly even costly to the school.

1. What Are the Teaching Loads?
2. How Do Pell Students Do?
3. How Much Do Students Actually Learn?

1. Teaching loads for a teaching professor or instructor at LSU is 9 hrs. of coursework per fall/summer semester. For research professors its 3. In the summer its 3 for research and I forget if its 3 or 6 for instructors. Research professors often buy out their summer teaching responsibilities.

I have no idea why you'd think they wouldn't want us to know this, its common knowledge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

well, I paid tuition to have experts in the field help me understand ideas expressed in books and help me both understand and eventually create case studies for discussion -- the application of text based ideas in something akin to real world situations -- a practice that text based learning alone cannot provide.

I guess that depends on the class. A curriculum and syllabus can tell you what to read but not what its significance is or how it developed as an idea in response to or in spite of other ideas. A Comp Lit class is more than just reading novels. It is about learning how to unpack ideas within the novels and depends on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular group on any given day.


I have very little skill in math and even less in Chemistry. Part of that has been dealt with by teachers who show me not just what to do but why it works, so I can intuit my way through applying it in unfamiliar situations. Also, when I run into a problem and have a question (which may not be relevant, but I can't know) I need someone who understands a bigger picture to tell me how to correct my thinking. A static text or a fixed video can't provide that interaction which will deal with my particular concern. This gets to some of my own observations about education -- someone who already has a knack for a subject needs less instruction because he simply "gets it" more quickly. I could unpack a text well before my math major friends could. But they could pick up a math book and teach themselves while I was floundering.

true, but isn't real learning more than just reading a principle? If I give you a dictionary definition of a psychological disorder, does that mean that you will have any skill at recognizing that disorder in a real situation? Saying that we can learn by texts alone strips learning of any level of meaning other than information gathering.

Diagnosis of mental and or physical conditions are more a function of experience I'll agree but no student really has that experience until they intern or do clinical work as part of the degree process.

I consider clinical work to be the same as lab experience. That said one can learn the necessary principles needed as a prerequisite to lab or clinical experience on their own.

When I took developmental psychology, part of the classwork (not any external internship) was group diagnosis based on case studies. Sure, I had read the text, but working through issues with like minded students made a heckuva difference. Even my philosophy class was more than book reading. Having a professor use the Socratic method on me and help me refine my own thoughts as I reflected on the text based ones was instrumental to effecting real learning.

You don't need a professor to practice the Socratic method.

A couple friends and a flagon of spiced mead will do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Compared to regular school teachers college professors have it made.

On the other hand, they are required to do research and have articles published regularly. This is a big part of their evaluation.

If Pell students aren't doing well the people that hand out the grants and the way it operates needs to change.

In college students are on their own. They can't be herded like third graders. How much the student learns is up to them in most cases.

It is getting so ridiculous in education, I can see it coming where colleges are held accountable for students cutting classes.

Failure to learn never falls on the student anymore.

There is this attitude among large numbers of college students that their professors are supposed to baby them like in high school. I overhear the whining and moaning fairly often just in passing as I walk to and from places at my work (LSU). The last one I heard was a kid whining about how a teacher wouldn't respond to his emails. Hey moron, if its that important and you care about your grade that much, ever thought of going to his fucking office during office hours? Or talking to him after class? College is a place where you should develop self-motivation and ambition, not whine.

What a lot of them don't seem to get is that the primary purpose of a research professor is actually - to do research. And the instructor professors are given heavier courseloads and often simply don't have the time to give individual instruction to all their students. 3 3 hour classes doesn't sound like much for a high school teacher but they teach classes with 25-35 kids in them. Intro-level classes in college are typically much bigger.