Here’s the thing: you have posted several things in this thread that have been flat out wrong. You ask a question appearing to assert that one must be a PhD to teach an intro level class and a virtual Greek chorus pipes up to tell you that you’re wrong, which you respond to by repeating your original question several times. Somebody mentions peer reviewed research and you ask a vague question about an earlier post involving a published hoax article as an apparent dig at the peer review process. When it’s pointed out to you that the journal in question was not peer reviewed and that catching articles like that is actually the function of peer review, you post a vague question implying that peer review is bad because automotive something something something. You don’t address posts showing that you are factually wrong, you ask the same vague questions over and over, and you engage in some sort of circular one-way Socratic method questioning monologue instead of pleading whatever case you are trying to make. No more questions or blind links: what point are you trying to make?
No, you don’t do that. You do the following
And this does not increase mileage per gallon. You do what nobody really needs.
What about them? It’s not a revelation that there is competition between researchers within their fields and some of the less scrupulous ones may try to screw their rivals.
Rejecting a rival’s paper or poaching ideas from it, for example.
I don’t know, and don’t really care. I think a gifted instructor could learn the basics and teach them effectively.
Well, using the logic that water landings are not original, neither is doing research or publishing a paper–since that’s been done 10,000’s times before. How many pilots have been in Capt. Sully’s exact predicament–air speed, altitude, particular engine malfunction, weather and wind, and location?
Why don’t you tell us what your point is?
Did you fail a sociology class, get a paper rejected, or just get your pilot’s license?
Or, more probably, you really like that ecclesiastes911.net site and its articles.
Out of curiosity, I went to the Embry Riddle website and looked at the 100 level courses for a B.S. in Aeronautical Science (Professional Pilot)
Here are two descriptions:
So are you saying it would require actual flying experience to be able to effectively teach topics such as “time management, study skills, principles of learning, goal clarification, and college resources” and “regulations, safety, pre-solo operations, cross-country planning, airspace, chart use, communications, weather, performance, weight and balance, aerodynamics, and decision-making”?
People take SCUBA lessons because they want to swim inside kelp forests and coral reefs and see their inhabitants. In order to do it and not drown or develop caisson disease they do not just strip on SCUBA and go for it, but take lessons beforehand.
People allegedly go to college to learn skills necessary for their jobs. If they do not learn them they will fail their duties. But according to what you wrote they are taking courses just to get credits. Not to learn something, but to get a degree.
And this is indeed true. We, The People, hired Obama without inspecting his college transcripts. This means that the knowledge he did or did not get in college is not really needed.
And finally, we get to the point. Obama is teh suxx0rz.
Great stuff, Don. Really perceptive.
So peer review is sending scientist’s paper for an evaluation by his competitor. The most successful scientist is the one who got most positive evaluations from his competitors. What kind of people score high, when evaluated by their competitors?
Yes. And in the case of scientific papers this is not needed. You need many standard airplanes, many bridges, many houses. You don’t really need those standard, non-interesting papers.
Pilots all the time fly to new airports. And meteorological conditions vary every day. To get a Private Pilot license you need to do at least one solo landing at an unfamiliar airport.
If Abagnale taught sociology at BYU, he could do it at Embry-Riddle.
However, only a licensed pilot can teach AS 121. Otherwise the consequences will include injury or death and(or) aircraft damage or its complete destruction.
I’d suggest you take my 101 course, where I teach clear writing with a thesis statement, use of scholarly evidence to back up assertions, and the recognition and avoidance of logical fallacies when writing.
And if it weren’t for the classics, who would ever know quotes like “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
As part of their higher education.
Merely training to perform a task is NOT an education. It can be a PART of an education, even an essential part in some fields, but by itself it isn’t necessarily.
And that this is the end and purpose of schooling and the one thing that justifies the expense of time, labor and money at it, is a too common dumbed-down version, one that, yes, too many policymakers insist in using to sell the value of a higher education.
Nay. I would like to learn how to increase mpg. Please teach what you wrote above your fellow shakespeares.
I did not say anything like that. One can make two distinct conclusions from the fact that we elected Obama without inspecting his college transcripts.
One possible conclusion is that such election was improper.
Another possible conclusion is that the stuff they teach in college is not really needed.
Both of these “conclusions” involve such stunning leaps of logic that my head is going to be reeling for days.
I can hear it from here. It sounds like you hooked a marlin.
And what is the useless part for? To save their souls?
That was solid logic. Your head is not accustomed to it.
The real leaps of logic would be needed to justify awarding Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, who started couple of wars.
These are two possible conclusions. These are not the only two possible conclusions.
Other possible conclusions:
The American public is simply too stupid to think to check college transcripts.
College transcripts are not needed for the position of presidency, but may be relevant to other position (e.g. Electrical Engineer, head of NASA).
College transcripts and degrees are not necessary, but only if the person’s other accomplishments outweigh them.
Among many, many other possible conclusions
The last one is largely how the world works, you can get a great job in a normally college-heavy field without going to college. I’ve known engineers who passed their certification exams by themselves by teaching themselves things as kids. This is atypical and does not mean college isn’t important, or is bad, it just means that a select few people have the motivation, intelligence, or whatever to teach themselves skills that most people need guided instruction to learn.
It’s also true that, largely, transcripts become irrelevant after a certain point. Your academic record is more important to set you apart from other inexperienced or entry level candidates. It’s a certification that your skills are genuine and you’ve learned the basics of your field to a degree that should make you competent enough to begin doing more advanced work in it (be that research or industry). One you have many years of experience, it stops mattering. This is largely where almost all presidential candidates fall. They already served their terms as lawyers or law professors or activists or whatever else, that’s what the transcripts are for. What we care about is the advanced skills that their college education enabled them to learn, not the college education itself.
Most people, even Democrats and people who voted for him, kind of WTF at the Peace Prize. You’re not breaking very new ground with that statement.
He posed as a pilot to cash fake checks, lucrative, but a serious crime. Pretending to be a qualified teacher may have broken laws, but none all that serious, and likely to be covered up by the school if he was found out. I saw the movie, didn’t read the book, but based on the summary knowledge I would assume he was simply a con man, doing these things primarily for financial benefit, and taking advantage of the side benefits of free travel, respect and admiration from students and faculty, and maybe banging co-eds.
So I checked the wiki on him, he claimed he was a TA, and the school says he was never there. This referenceadds more info. So maybe the claims about being a TA, lawyer, doctor, and whatever else besides cashing fake checks were just part of his current con game of being a security consultant.
This thread is full of fail–some of it hilarious, of course (Because of academic fraud Obama!)–but this quote is what I was thinking since the beginning.
A good con artist decides what he wants to target to believe, and then figures what to say and do to get the target to believe it.
A good lawyer* decides what he wants the jury to believe, and then figures out what to say and do to get the jury to believe it.
A good teacher decides what he wants the student to know, and then figures out what to say and do to get the student to know it.
If the target belief/knowledge isn’t terribly complex, then the main job is figuring out the appropriate course of words and deeds that impart that target belief/knowledge to the audience in question. I don’t con my students every day, but I spend a lot more time thinking about how to convey ideas than I spend thinking about the ideas themselves.
That might be different if I taught a very complex body of knowledge, but I teach third grade. Abagnale or whatever taught an intro class. The body of knowledge he needed to know was simple; in order to be effective as a teacher, he needed to figure out how to impart those ideas to his audience. And of course there’s a lot of crossover skill from his skills as a con artist.
- Obviously not true for all kinds of lawyers, or even all cases–here I’m thinking about trial law
Woosh? Manda JO is being sarcastic; he was debunking the premise that sociology is bunk because Abagnale taught introductory classes cold. Abagnale just happened to be exceptionally bright, as evidenced by passing the bar without a juris doctorate.
He simply flashed his fake badge to get on the plane, claiming to be on a deadhead back to his next assignment.
Cut out the insults, please.
If American people are, as you say, stupid, then they are not qualified to chose their leader using general elections procedure. Therefore this procedure is improper. As a consequence, every elected president, including Obama, was elected improperly. We have returned to the first of my possible conclusions.
The position of the President is the most important in the country. The head of NASA, whom you mentioned, reports to The President. If education is not needed to occupy a superior position it is even less needed to occupy the inferior one.
This would imply that the person already has some achievements. And he accomplished it despite his lack of education. This means that education is not really needed.
Yes, this nonsense is very obvious. But as you see from other reactions to this comment, some people want to shun me.