https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/a...s-real-i-swear
Philosophically speaking.
Printable View
https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/a...s-real-i-swear
Philosophically speaking.
Australia's fictional, it was invented as an elaborate plot for the movie crocodile dundee and it's all just gotten out of hand now.
And this is why degrees should be meaningless without independent third party testing to determine if knowledge and/or skills have actually been acquired. This would shave off years of wasted time at college for people who can learn the skills necessary quickly. It will prevent people from being mislabeled as competent and better improve HR screening processes. It was also prevent shit shows like this story. Ridiculous, people paying good money to be 'taught' by a retard.
What's going to stop an imbecile getting a philosophy doctorate?
This is a shitty online college, and this was an adjunct professor. Chance are, the professor only has an MA. And no/little experience.
Testing will weed out the 'oh you have a pulse so you pass' degrees. Though I do think people should stop placing value on degrees outside of related fields.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
From a purely practical standpoint, how in the hell are you going to have a standardized test for a PhD? The work I did during my PhD was so specialized that a general knowledge test - even in my field - would have been only mildly relevant. For undergrad degrees, there are indeed tests for the more skills-based majors (e.g. the P.E. certification), and there are specific licensing exams for some professional degrees. But PhDs are by their nature involved in getting an extraordinary level of depth while, literally, expanding human knowledge. It's awfully hard to have a common standard for what you 'should' have learned. There is a testing process, of course - typically PhDs will have both a qualifier exam of some sort (for me, it was an oral examination during my second year in front of 5 professors who were allowed to ask me whatever they wanted) as well as a dissertation defense. But it obviously is tailored to the specific student's area of research, not some one size fits all kind of test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Doctorates can mean a whole lot - from the right institution and the right advisor with the right field, they are a confirmation that the student has a mix of specialized knowledge, skills, intelligence, and perseverance to grind out a degree. They carry weight not because of the specific work you did during your degree research, but because it's a signifier for a kind of expertise that's hard to come by. I'm continually reminded of this when I'm interacting with people in industry without a deep research background; they are generally quite bright and hardworking, but don't have the depth of knowledge or the critical troubleshooting experience that is standard with a PhD.
That being said, a doctorate can also be worthless. It's possible to sometimes get one by default, especially in certain fields and institutions. Then it's just a confirmation the student is stubborn. But standardized testing isn't going to tell you which of these scenarios is true; for that, you need judgment, references, and interviews. It isn't really that hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but for a low-paid adjunct at a no-name university, it's not like they get a lot of high-flyers applying to work for them.
At the PhD level it may be different but if you go up to Master's with the requirement of testing I'd be more than satisfied.
That being said aren't BAR exams fairly standardized? I honestly haven't looked into it and am not that interested since my wish is a bit of a pipe dream (too much money in the education industry washing around for people to support merit based acquisition of degrees, and of course liberals love their little indoctrination shops) but it may be a good template for some doctorates.
Aren't colleges accredited there? You don't really need standardized testing as long as the institution itself is tested for being of a high enough standard.
As someone who has gone to college I can personally attest that just because a college is accredited doesn't mean jack. Degree plans differ but it is laughably easy to get through most classes. The professors back then were highly concerned about their satisfaction scores from their students and I can only imagine in the decade since its gotten worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
True, they let you through after all.
Regardless, to get back to the original topic: if Australia is a country, clearly it shouldn't be.
In fairness, I expect even an adjunct professor with an MA and little to no experience to recognize that Australia is a country. I expect most 4th-graders to recognize that Australia is a country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Sure. But you can get through a lot of philosophy without learning anything from the last century.
Aus is just a tad over a century old now.
Either way though, if you're going to mark down a student for writing about a country that isn't a country then maybe check it isn't first? And when it gets challenged, maybe double-check before doubling-down on insisting it isn't a country.
http://www.wmur.com/article/snhu-rep...claim/16851921
The NWO anti-Australian Zionists won this one too, it seems.