community colleges

There is an old metal sign on my office wall. It's dated 1928 and says. "Help the President with Law Enforcement. Repeal the 18th Amendment. For Prosperity." The sign had hung on a barn wall in eastern North Carolina for more than 75 years. I bought it at an auction and had it framed. The sign is old but the message is timeless. The only reason that lots of things are illegal is that they happen to be against the law. We can spend more and give up more freedoms for enforcement. Or we can get rid of the law. The 18th Amendment of 1919 prohibited the sale of alcohol. But Prohibition proved too expensive too intrusive and too difficult to enforce. So we helped the President with law enforcement: Prohibition was repealed in 1933. "Law enforcement" has been the key issue in the last few weeks for North Carolina's community colleges. On November 7 the NC Community College System issued a mandate that read in part: "To comply with the State Board's regulation requiring an open-door admission policy to 'all applicants'.. colleges should immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals." What? Why should illegal aliens be able to attend community college? Because that's our policy and Governor Easley has rightly stood by that policy. But we could "help the Governor," just like my old sign says. The problem is not with community college admissions. The problem is the law that makes folks "illegal" in the first place. Political scientists refer to the coalition that kept Prohibition in place as the "the Baptists and the Bootleggers." The Baptists for moral reasons and Bootleggers for economic reasons wanted states to crack down on "illegal" liquor sales. Strange bedfellows. I suppose but Baptists got their morality and the bootleggers got a protected monopoly. Well the Baptist and Bootlegger coalition has come back. Demagogues like Lou Dobbs are playing to a resurgent nativist sentiment widespread in our population. We are all immigrants but the ones who got here first want to pull the ladder up. "I've got mine! You have to stay out!" So they play the moralistic loudmouth role. And the Bootleggers? Well that role has been taken on by the giant agriculture corporations and the meatpackers and other companies that depend on keeping immigration illegal. We don't block immigration; we block legal immigration. That's the way we keep labor costs low to unscrupulous employers. That's the economic part. Employment welfare insurance education crime... all these issues are dumped on the Governor as law enforcement problems. One way to address the problem is to spend more money and divert more resources to a hopeless attempt to enforce a useless law. But the other way the sensible way to solve the problem is to change the law itself. Allowing illegal aliens access to community colleges at out-of-state tuition rates is the right policy but it's a baby step. The real way to help the President and the Governor with law enforcement is to change the law. The solution is complicated but I think it has three parts. Remember as it stands we don't block immigration. Millions of people have crossed our border in the last decade. No we just use paper barriers to prevent people from coming here legally. The first step then would be to gain control of borders giving us confidence that we can keep criminals repeat offenders and terrorists out. Second start a guest worker program. Make it possible for people to be legal and go through a probation period. Law-abiding hard-working immigrants shouldn't be deported. And if we have control of the border deportations of the law-breakers and the chiselers would stick because we can use fingerprints and retinal scans for positive IDs. What you are supposed to say about immigration--what most of the presidential candidates say what the radio talk jocks say--is that you are not against immigration. Not at all. You salute the hard work and noble aspirations of those who are lining up at American consulates around the world. But that is legal immigration. What you oppose is illegal immigration. This formula is not very helpful. We all oppose breaking the law or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be or why. Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all there are lots of laws not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration. And it's barely a debate at all. On the Democratic side the arcane issue of whether illegals should be able to get a driver's license has bitten both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side the candidates take turns accusing one another of committing some act of human decency toward illegals and indignantly denying that they did any such thing. Immigration has long divided both parties with advocates and opponents in each. Among Republicans support for immigration was economic (corporations) while opposition was cultural (nativists). Among Democrats it was the reverse: support for immigration was cultural (ethnic groups) while opposition was economic (unions). Now for whatever reason support for immigration is limited to an eccentric alliance of high-minded Council on Foreign Relations types the mainstream media high-tech entrepreneurs. Latinos the Wall Street Journal editorial page and President George W. Bush. Everyone else it seems is agin. Maybe the aginners are right and immigration is now damaging our country stealing jobs and opportunity ripping off taxpayers fragmenting our culture. I doubt it but maybe so. Certainly it's true that we can't let in everyone who wants to come. There is some number of immigrants that is too many. I don't believe we're past that point but maybe we are. In any event a democracy has the right to decide that it has reached such a point. There is no obligation to be fair to foreigners. But let's not kid ourselves that all we care about is obeying the law and all we are asking illegals to do is go home and get in line like everybody else. We know perfectly well that the line is too long and we are basically telling people to go home and not come back. Let's not kid ourselves either about who we are telling this to. To characterize illegal immigrants as queue-jumping lawbreaking scum is seriously unjust. The motives of illegal immigrants--which can be summarized as "a better life"--are identical to those of legal immigrants. In fact they are largely identical to the motives of our own parents grandparents and great-grandparents when they immigrated. And not just that. Ask yourself of these three groups--today's legal and illegal immigrants and the immigrants of generations ago--which one has proven most dramatically its appreciation of our country? Which one has shown the most gumption the most willingness to risk all to get to the U. S and the most willingness to work hard once here? Well everyone's story is unique. But who loves the U. S most? On average probably the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction getting thrown out and returning again and again.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/12/two-perspective.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

There is an old metal sign on my office wall. It's dated 1928 and says. "Help the President with Law Enforcement. Repeal the 18th Amendment. For Prosperity." The sign had hung on a barn wall in eastern North Carolina for more than 75 years. I bought it at an auction and had it framed. The sign is old but the message is timeless. The only reason that lots of things are illegal is that they happen to be against the law. We can spend more and give up more freedoms for enforcement. Or we can get rid of the law. The 18th Amendment of 1919 prohibited the sale of alcohol. But Prohibition proved too expensive too intrusive and too difficult to enforce. So we helped the President with law enforcement: Prohibition was repealed in 1933. "Law enforcement" has been the key issue in the last few weeks for North Carolina's community colleges. On November 7 the NC Community College System issued a mandate that read in part: "To comply with the State Board's regulation requiring an open-door admission policy to 'all applicants'.. colleges should immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals." What? Why should illegal aliens be able to attend community college? Because that's our policy and Governor Easley has rightly stood by that policy. But we could "help the Governor," just like my old sign says. The problem is not with community college admissions. The problem is the law that makes folks "illegal" in the first place. Political scientists refer to the coalition that kept Prohibition in place as the "the Baptists and the Bootleggers." The Baptists for moral reasons and Bootleggers for economic reasons wanted states to crack down on "illegal" liquor sales. Strange bedfellows. I suppose but Baptists got their morality and the bootleggers got a protected monopoly. Well the Baptist and Bootlegger coalition has come back. Demagogues like Lou Dobbs are playing to a resurgent nativist sentiment widespread in our population. We are all immigrants but the ones who got here first want to pull the ladder up. "I've got mine! You have to stay out!" So they play the moralistic loudmouth role. And the Bootleggers? Well that role has been taken on by the giant agriculture corporations and the meatpackers and other companies that depend on keeping immigration illegal. We don't block immigration; we block legal immigration. That's the way we keep labor costs low to unscrupulous employers. That's the economic part. Employment welfare insurance education crime... all these issues are dumped on the Governor as law enforcement problems. One way to address the problem is to spend more money and divert more resources to a hopeless attempt to enforce a useless law. But the other way the sensible way to solve the problem is to change the law itself. Allowing illegal aliens access to community colleges at out-of-state tuition rates is the right policy but it's a baby step. The real way to help the President and the Governor with law enforcement is to change the law. The solution is complicated but I think it has three parts. Remember as it stands we don't block immigration. Millions of people have crossed our border in the last decade. No we just use paper barriers to prevent people from coming here legally. The first step then would be to gain control of borders giving us confidence that we can keep criminals repeat offenders and terrorists out. Second start a guest worker program. Make it possible for people to be legal and go through a probation period. Law-abiding hard-working immigrants shouldn't be deported. And if we have control of the border deportations of the law-breakers and the chiselers would stick because we can use fingerprints and retinal scans for positive IDs. What you are supposed to say about immigration--what most of the presidential candidates say what the radio talk jocks say--is that you are not against immigration. Not at all. You salute the hard work and noble aspirations of those who are lining up at American consulates around the world. But that is legal immigration. What you oppose is illegal immigration. This formula is not very helpful. We all oppose breaking the law or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be or why. Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all there are lots of laws not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration. And it's barely a debate at all. On the Democratic side the arcane issue of whether illegals should be able to get a driver's license has bitten both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side the candidates take turns accusing one another of committing some act of human decency toward illegals and indignantly denying that they did any such thing. Immigration has long divided both parties with advocates and opponents in each. Among Republicans support for immigration was economic (corporations) while opposition was cultural (nativists). Among Democrats it was the reverse: support for immigration was cultural (ethnic groups) while opposition was economic (unions). Now for whatever reason support for immigration is limited to an eccentric alliance of high-minded Council on Foreign Relations types the mainstream media high-tech entrepreneurs. Latinos the Wall Street Journal editorial page and President George W. Bush. Everyone else it seems is agin. Maybe the aginners are right and immigration is now damaging our country stealing jobs and opportunity ripping off taxpayers fragmenting our culture. I doubt it but maybe so. Certainly it's true that we can't let in everyone who wants to come. There is some number of immigrants that is too many. I don't believe we're past that point but maybe we are. In any event a democracy has the right to decide that it has reached such a point. There is no obligation to be fair to foreigners. But let's not kid ourselves that all we care about is obeying the law and all we are asking illegals to do is go home and get in line like everybody else. We know perfectly well that the line is too long and we are basically telling people to go home and not come back. Let's not kid ourselves either about who we are telling this to. To characterize illegal immigrants as queue-jumping lawbreaking scum is seriously unjust. The motives of illegal immigrants--which can be summarized as "a better life"--are identical to those of legal immigrants. In fact they are largely identical to the motives of our own parents grandparents and great-grandparents when they immigrated. And not just that. Ask yourself of these three groups--today's legal and illegal immigrants and the immigrants of generations ago--which one has proven most dramatically its appreciation of our country? Which one has shown the most gumption the most willingness to risk all to get to the U. S and the most willingness to work hard once here? Well everyone's story is unique. But who loves the U. S most? On average probably the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction getting thrown out and returning again and again.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/12/two-perspective.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

There is an old metal sign on my office wall. It's dated 1928 and says. "Help the President with Law Enforcement. Repeal the 18th Amendment. For Prosperity." The sign had hung on a barn wall in eastern North Carolina for more than 75 years. I bought it at an auction and had it framed. The sign is old but the message is timeless. The only reason that lots of things are illegal is that they happen to be against the law. We can spend more and give up more freedoms for enforcement. Or we can get rid of the law. The 18th Amendment of 1919 prohibited the sale of alcohol. But Prohibition proved too expensive too intrusive and too difficult to enforce. So we helped the President with law enforcement: Prohibition was repealed in 1933. "Law enforcement" has been the key issue in the last few weeks for North Carolina's community colleges. On November 7 the NC Community College System issued a mandate that read in part: "To comply with the State Board's regulation requiring an open-door admission policy to 'all applicants'.. colleges should immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals." What? Why should illegal aliens be able to attend community college? Because that's our policy and Governor Easley has rightly stood by that policy. But we could "help the Governor," just like my old sign says. The problem is not with community college admissions. The problem is the law that makes folks "illegal" in the first place. Political scientists refer to the coalition that kept Prohibition in place as the "the Baptists and the Bootleggers." The Baptists for moral reasons and Bootleggers for economic reasons wanted states to crack down on "illegal" liquor sales. Strange bedfellows. I suppose but Baptists got their morality and the bootleggers got a protected monopoly. Well the Baptist and Bootlegger coalition has come back. Demagogues like Lou Dobbs are playing to a resurgent nativist sentiment widespread in our population. We are all immigrants but the ones who got here first want to pull the ladder up. "I've got mine! You have to stay out!" So they play the moralistic loudmouth role. And the Bootleggers? Well that role has been taken on by the giant agriculture corporations and the meatpackers and other companies that depend on keeping immigration illegal. We don't block immigration; we block legal immigration. That's the way we keep labor costs low to unscrupulous employers. That's the economic part. Employment welfare insurance education crime... all these issues are dumped on the Governor as law enforcement problems. One way to address the problem is to spend more money and divert more resources to a hopeless attempt to enforce a useless law. But the other way the sensible way to solve the problem is to change the law itself. Allowing illegal aliens access to community colleges at out-of-state tuition rates is the right policy but it's a baby step. The real way to help the President and the Governor with law enforcement is to change the law. The solution is complicated but I think it has three parts. Remember as it stands we don't block immigration. Millions of people have crossed our border in the last decade. No we just use paper barriers to prevent people from coming here legally. The first step then would be to gain control of borders giving us confidence that we can keep criminals repeat offenders and terrorists out. Second start a guest worker program. Make it possible for people to be legal and go through a probation period. Law-abiding hard-working immigrants shouldn't be deported. And if we have control of the border deportations of the law-breakers and the chiselers would stick because we can use fingerprints and retinal scans for positive IDs. What you are supposed to say about immigration--what most of the presidential candidates say what the radio talk jocks say--is that you are not against immigration. Not at all. You salute the hard work and noble aspirations of those who are lining up at American consulates around the world. But that is legal immigration. What you oppose is illegal immigration. This formula is not very helpful. We all oppose breaking the law or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be or why. Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all there are lots of laws not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration. And it's barely a debate at all. On the Democratic side the arcane issue of whether illegals should be able to get a driver's license has bitten both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. On the Republican side the candidates take turns accusing one another of committing some act of human decency toward illegals and indignantly denying that they did any such thing. Immigration has long divided both parties with advocates and opponents in each. Among Republicans support for immigration was economic (corporations) while opposition was cultural (nativists). Among Democrats it was the reverse: support for immigration was cultural (ethnic groups) while opposition was economic (unions). Now for whatever reason support for immigration is limited to an eccentric alliance of high-minded Council on Foreign Relations types the mainstream media high-tech entrepreneurs. Latinos the Wall Street Journal editorial page and President George W. Bush. Everyone else it seems is agin. Maybe the aginners are right and immigration is now damaging our country stealing jobs and opportunity ripping off taxpayers fragmenting our culture. I doubt it but maybe so. Certainly it's true that we can't let in everyone who wants to come. There is some number of immigrants that is too many. I don't believe we're past that point but maybe we are. In any event a democracy has the right to decide that it has reached such a point. There is no obligation to be fair to foreigners. But let's not kid ourselves that all we care about is obeying the law and all we are asking illegals to do is go home and get in line like everybody else. We know perfectly well that the line is too long and we are basically telling people to go home and not come back. Let's not kid ourselves either about who we are telling this to. To characterize illegal immigrants as queue-jumping lawbreaking scum is seriously unjust. The motives of illegal immigrants--which can be summarized as "a better life"--are identical to those of legal immigrants. In fact they are largely identical to the motives of our own parents grandparents and great-grandparents when they immigrated. And not just that. Ask yourself of these three groups--today's legal and illegal immigrants and the immigrants of generations ago--which one has proven most dramatically its appreciation of our country? Which one has shown the most gumption the most willingness to risk all to get to the U. S and the most willingness to work hard once here? Well everyone's story is unique. But who loves the U. S most? On average probably the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction getting thrown out and returning again and again.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blog.pmarca.com/2007/12/two-perspective.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

It’s finals week and I’ve got half a dozen stacks of color books move about my office. If every one of my students takes a final. I ordain undergo 339 exams to read through by next Tuesday. I ordain undergo 339 final grades to assign. At PCC as at most California community colleges we aren’t permitted to use “+” and “-” modifiers on final grades. Leaving aside the tiny percentage of incompletes and the equally tiny number of students who take a course “ascribe/No-Credit” all of my students will receive an A,B,C. D or F. That leaves me only three real passing grades (D is technically passing but I give few Ds) from which to decide. What’s maddening is of course that students don’t go neatly into three discrete categories. This is especially true. I note of the B students. (I furnish slightly more Cs than Bs and far fewer As.) The student who just barely missed an A gets the identical evaluate as a student who just barely avoided a C. Because I can’t furnish a “B+” and a “B-” two students who did very different bring home the bacon each end up receiving the exact same mark; each receives a 3.0 on the standard American 4.0 grade measure. And the problem is true with other grades as come up; the student who just barely gets an A receives the same 4.0 as the rare gem of a student who did flawless bring home the bacon of the “A+” variety. Starting in the mid-1990s the express began to permit the community colleges to appoint “+” and “-” grades. The college had to end as a whole to offer the option to all of its instructors. The University of California system has offered the modifiers for decades and I was thrilled when we heard we would have a shot at the option. To my amazement my colleagues in the Academic Senate here at Pasadena City College voted overwhelmingly to evaluate the plus/minus option. They complained — as Jessica Valenti would say. “I shit you not” –that taking on the plus/minus option would change magnitude faculty work-loads! The Senate was also lobbied by our student government who worried that the modifiers would be more likely to reduce student GPAs than to raise them. Our student body president at the measure said with extraordinary chutzpah. “A lot of my As were barely As. If I had A- grades instead of straight A grades. I’d have a lower GPA.” (On the 4.0 system an A- would be a 3.7 a B+ a 3.3 a B a 3.0 a B- a 2.7 a C+ a 2.3 etcetera.) I protested that I might consider giving an A- to a student to whom I would otherwise give a B largely because I didn’t evaluate they’d done A level bring home the bacon but might be deserving of a modified A. And the number of B+ grades given would also back up fit out student GPAs. In learn student GPAs wouldn’t change at all — they would simply be more reliable indicators of achievement as faculty would have greater precision. Alas faculty laziness and resistance to dress — combined with intense lobbying from a small group of students worried about the spectre of the A-minus evaluate — served to block the implementation of the modifier option at PCC. It’s made my job much harder and my final grades much less bring together. Because I have so few final grade options and because my students move in such a wide range of work. A “B” from me frankly means a wide be of things and describes a be of abilities. And that’s not right. At my educate (a large four-year college) we don’t undergo plusses or minuses either. Our dean (or some other honcho) reportedly told the faculty that he won’t evaluate any grading system that includes a C-. I take it the air is that most courses require a C to count for your degree and a C- throws a wrench into that? (It seems weird to me. I evaluate of a C- as a variety of C.) As a student. I undergo mixed feelings. I would work harder if there were plusses to be had. But I don’t mind not working harder exactly. My university recently implemented this system however with one (in my opinion) fault. Receiving an A+ still grants the same 4.0 points as an A. From my perspective this means that I will now undergo to bring home the bacon harder to keep my 4.0 GPA. For receiving 1 A. 1 A- and 3 A+ grades. I ordain undergo less than a 4.0 GPA despite the fact that I produced exceptional work in the majority of my classes in a particular semester. Naturally I can see this would undergo disadvantages: a student could act a very easy categorise in request to get an A+ to counteract an A- (or displace naturally) in a harder class. The solution I would propose (I like to label it the System of Unattainable Perfection because to achieve all A+ grades would be nearly impossible) is that an A+ would be 4.0 an A 3.75. A- 3.5. B+ 3.25. B 3.0. B- 2.75 and so on. This stratifies the assort of students at the highest end; in the current system all students who bring home the bacon a 4.0 while they undergo the same advance may undergo different levels of actual ability and achievement. Of course this system wouldn’t exactly be compatible with a “standard” 4.0 scale as the same achievement level would have a lower advance and at first look look worse. So my challenge for you: could you please share your thoughts on this situation? Just a note: I cognise that the majority of populate are not faced with this situation and that my asking reveals the privilege I undergo in that I am actually taking the measure to ask about the (poor struggling) top few percent of students. If I truly had to struggle to get B’s or A’s. I imagine this would not be nearly as important to me. At Berkeley the A+ evaluate could be on your transcript but without anything beyond the 4.0 offered for the straight A. THe idea was that it was a “feather in the cap” and a rare one but with only intangible benefit. As for the C- it would be easy to bar its use and still have the other modifiers in place. It’s just absurd to have only three degrees of passing work when it would be infinitely more accurate and fair to have say ten or more. At Madison we had AB and BC as the in between option. The AB being a 3.5 and the BC being a 2.5. Is was nice in that you did undergo something in the middle but there was no distinction between the A- and the B+ (which I suppose would make grading less of a hassle). It does back up to undergo a cushion so borderline doesn’t drop you all the way to a 3.0. No one ever got an A+ though. I thought in college such a thing didn’t exist. For all its flaws the US system in all its guises is surely to be preferred to the incomprehensible British marking system. But it’s certainly true that the B is the most ambiguous of grades. On a teaching discussion enumerate I used to subscribe to there was an argument about this question. Most of the populate on the enumerate (who tended toward the radical/lefty even for college professors) were against using +/- grades. (Well most of them wanted to abolish grading altogether but disappear that option they’d take unadorned letter grades.) The argument they made — which never made much comprehend to me — was that because grading is so subjective having more categories implied a false level of precision. I think the fuzziness of grading makes it *more* important to have more categories — the difference between an A and a B is too momentus a decision to make if you’re uncertain about a borderline case but the difference between an A- and a B+ is less so. I do evaluate forcing me to use letters only would prove in an increase in my students’ GPAs because I would tend to err on the side of giving too high a grade when someone was hard to end on. I’m just a softy desire that. … and just as I hit “affix,” I realized that the lack of +/- options could also prove in unjust sorts of bias in addition to mere inaccuracy. While I may be a softy in general. I can’t count out the possibility that my instinct would displace me toward mercy more when I desire a certain student for whatever reason (such as they come from a similar categorise/race/cultural/ideological accent to exploit). Indeed. Stentor. One of the things I notice is that I be to be very zealous about guarding the “sanctity of the A”. There’s no higher grade that can be given so to bestow it on anyone who isn’t genuinely deserving spoils the work of those who really did earn it. On the other transfer. I’m a much easier B and C. If I could furnish B+s and A-s I would and students who otherwise get straight Bs would undergo a significant GPA boost. At that granular a level probably not. But since no one really cares about individual grades so much as the GPA who cares? A student who consistently does A+ bring home the bacon ordain get his 4.0 average while the student who just barely ekes out an A in your class is bound to just barely desire it in another. At my original alma mater an A+ was worth 4.33 points an A- worth 3.67 and so on. I thought it was a good system. It’s a good system for the hypercompetitive to distinguish themselves and fight over. Instead of a mere A there’s the coveted A+. Hell why not add A++? I’m not really getting why an A is different than a B in terms of width. Isn’t a C average. B above add up and A excellent? Where I went to school…only a handful of people graduate with 4.0’s (2 for one year for example with 3000ish in the college). If you compare my GPA against someone who went to a school with evaluate inflation it doesn’t be so good. But I’m proud of it because you had to fight for good grades. We did undergo -’s and +’s though. Mythago it’s funny how the B ends up being the widest category. I have a stronger comprehend of what a C is and what an A is whereas the B compartment just seems so much more flexible. I evaluate psychologically there’s a sense that a “C” is in some comprehend a “disappointing evaluate” and an “A” rewards genuine excellence. It’s a sign of grade inflation that B has change state so broad a category no disbelieve. My college has recently adopted the full +/- system. Before there had been minus grades no pluses and an A was simply an A. It was rather confusing. The faculty and administration were pretty unanimous about this decision but the student government fought tooth and attach about it. They used the same “it will make our grades lower” argument and invoked the GPA requirement for the state scholarship that a large number of the students were there on. I was reading all this and was a little embarrassed for two reasons. First as with the student you mentioned it really means that students perceive this change as having to bring home the bacon harder to receive the grades they’re already getting. It’s the wish to get more while doing less at any cost that bothers me. Second all the arguments I read in the cover did not worry about the A being divided between A- and A. It was about the B- becoming a C+. breathe. It’s funny because the day they announced in the paper that the system had been passed was the day before Thanksgiving break while half the school had already left. Sneaky. Maybe now that the “A” is going to be more sacred it will be that much more rewarding when I get one :-) UW has the opposite problem. Every GPA tenth from.7 (D-) to 4.0 is a possible evaluate. So while you’ve been lamenting the lack of precision. I’ve been staring at papers thinking “I’m pretty sure this deserves a B+ but is it a 3.2. 3.3 or 3.4?” I now teach at a educate with plusses and minuses and I think that’s the right amount of precision. And Tam what a bizarre objection your Dean had. It’s easy just say C is lowest grade to count toward ascribe in majors and for requirements. Plenty of schools undergo that rule (UW set the cut-off at 2.0 so technically a 1.9 while a C couldn’t count toward study ascribe). Two grades I never gave on that system were 1.9 and 3.9. The former I considered a C so I just called it a 2.0. The latter I figured at every other school this student gets a 4.0 and “an A is an A” of something like that. I evaluate psychologically there’s a comprehend that a “C” is in some sense a “disappointing grade” and an “A” rewards genuine excellence. Which is the real problem not the lack of pluses or minuses; with that mentality the B is comfort a very wide category since a C+ is just “disappointing but you made the exta effort”. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> -->

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/13/a-b-can-mean-many-things-lamenting-the-absence-of-the-plusminus-grading-option/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Contra Costa community college leaders have decided to ignore a communicate from Cal express East Bay to offer lower division courses at their Concord Campus unless CSUEB can show them proof that their plan won't hurt the 3 community colleges in the county. The leaders believe that if the college offers the lower division courses it'll act students away from the community colleges in the area which ordain also bring about to less funding from the express. This doesn't really surprise me. DVC is probably taking a hit in enrollment with their recent grade scandal and the last thing they need is competition from a 4 year college. Hey maybe CSUEB could find a student at DVC and give him some money to try and persuade the board members to vote in favor of their request? Just an idea! Hey thats a great idea.. contradict more educational choices in Contra Costa county.. Lets keep our students dumb!I sure wish that's not their cerebrate.. If it is then our leaders are pretty pathetic. There better be another reason for being denied other than it would furnish students a choice of schools AND/OR courses. One of my roommates in college took some of her undergrad courses at a local community college. Quite simply it was cheaper for her. Community college (I evaluate) is comfort cheaper per unit than the CSU or UC systems. Taking your undergrad requirements at a community college makes no difference as far as I can express except to deliver some money.. so I'm thinking there will always be a demand for a community college option for both those who want to graduate from community college and from those who are trying to save a few bucks and attending CSU/UC at the same time. The approval from the Community College Board is only necessary beacuse CSUEB is a grow campus. If it were a main campus say "CSU agree" then they would not be required to solict approval from the Community Colleges. I'm sure the Community Colleges would still fight it but their approval would not be necessary. I say carry it on. I transferred to San Jose State after two years at a community college. I would not have been able to have had I not been able to act some freshman sophomore classes as prerequisites to upper-level classes that I needed in request to have. If anything. I would evaluate that having a local four year college might actually draw more students to our local community colleges because they would be able to conceive of more easily achieving a Bachelor's degree. More students would be inspired to go for the degree and they would go away with the less expensive community colleges. I say rename the campus to CSU Concord or CSU Mt. Diablo. Time to give Contra Costa it's very own CSU campus and move it to the North Concord BART station and label the media department after me! The original supporters who wanted to get CSU to create a real campus must be turning over in their graves including Dean Lesher! CLAYCORD com is all about speak and satire. The content that is published contains rumors speculation assumptions opinions and factual information. Postings may contain erroneous or inaccurate information. The owner of this site does not insure the accurateness of any content presented on CLAYCORD com. I'm sure things I say will egest you off sooner or later but keep reading because you know you like it! Oh and one more thing don't post racist comments.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://claycord.blogspot.com/2007/12/ccccd-hates-csueb-omg-lol-wtf.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

In a world where an honest search for solutions drives policy-- the government would prioritize access to education as one of the most important policy issues along with health housing economy and security. I be at the government spending now active (federal/express and city budgets) and passive (tax cuts) and I see priorities aligned with a problem based policy world. Solution based policy -is dynamic. It is crafted when a variety of stakeholders identify goals and objectives based on what works in populate's lives. Solution based policies back up the general welfare in new ways to meet new needs rather than keep established systems. To eliminate poverty government calculate priorities can designate more commitment to solutions human and sustainable development. We can grade based on people's real needs and not preconceived notions of what is best for them. Dillonna Lewis. Co-Director calls it. "intelectuallizing poverty." Education from pre-school through higher education is a policy category that requires and benefits from government spending. In turn fully funded education benefits every aspect of human life: security social political and cultural. If ever there is a source of solution it is education. Yet here in New York for example a new inform shows that college enrollment has stagnated generally and adults accessing higher education are in a fateful decline. Just measure month the. Upstate from the report "about adult (ages 25-49) college students in New York: Adults represented one-third of all undergraduate students in 1995 and just more than one-fifth in 2005. Tuition and fees at New York's community colleges are more than 50 percent above the national average the sixth- highest in the nation. Tuition and fees books housing transportation and other expenses can be between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. Those costs range from $17,000 to $19,000 at four-year public schools and from $20,000 to $50,000 at private schools. Almost half of all full-time adult community college students also work full time compared with one-third of full-time community college students in other states. States do better economically and populate do better in every way when find to education is available promoted encouraged and open. There are those who say that not everyone should/could or needs to be educated and they support public policies that feature watch to that idea. In welfare ameliorate discussions many policy evaluate tanks advocates and electeds put their money where there mouth was in keeping populate receiving welfare from accessing education. Federal welfare law is a testament to policy that restricts find to education. As Professor. ”Welfare Reform.. allocated $1.5 billion in federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the federal welfare law) funds for a change set of rigidly defined "marriage promotion" programs while cutting almost all support for educational programs." In New York we saw a staggering number of students disappoint to act education because of welfare regulations. Here at CUNY we lost over 20,000 students receiving public assistance from 1995 to 2005. As the Schuyler report shows that correlates to the drastic loss of adults in higher education in New York during the same measure close in. Policies undergo consequences and welfare policy clearly has consequences for NY beyond its scope to adjust. We be to insure that this election cycle elected officials newly elected and those who are already in office are clear about our priorities. Governor Spitzer and the New York State Legislature can make education for all a budget priority this year. express government kicks up in January. We want to see budgets that undergo a lot more money for higher education tuition assistance training programs and that show a long-term commitment to community and other colleges in New York. In addition to the resources we want to see consistent regulation and agency directives throughout the express that promote people accessing the education they need and be. All comments ideas and thoughts on DMI Blog are property of their authors. Reasonable excerpts are permitted on other sites and blogs; otherwise reproduction without the compose's permission is strictly prohibited. All opinions expressed on the DMI Blog website are solely those of their authors and do not necessarily designate those of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. DMI BLOG is powered by.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/09/post_12.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Maricopa Community CollegesStudent Public Policy Forum Preparing students for lifelong civic participationthrough education awareness and involvement. Information Session at PVCCTuesday. Sept. 11th3:30 p m room M 125 Program InformationThe Maricopa Community Colleges Student Public Policy Forum (SPPF) is a program designed to provide an engaging learning environment which will prepare students to become educated and involved citizens. From October to walk students acquire a variety of educational experiences at both local and national levels including interaction with policy makers. Learning takes place through specialized workshops guest speakers leadership development handle trips reflective journaling networking opportunities and ultimately engagement in the public policy affect. In February students attend the National Legislative arrive at for Community Colleges in Washington. D. C with more than 800 community college trustees presidents chancellors and higher education officials to cater with key officials in the federal administration and to advocate the National community colleges’ legislative priorities among U. S congressional representatives on Capitol forge. Coordinated by the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) Office of Student Development and Community Affairs the Directors of Student Life and Leadership and Office of Government Relations and External Affairs the Forum fosters a animate of collaboration partnering with the District’s Center for Civic Participation. Business Services Office as well as community organizations to give students with a network of resources and information. For more information regarding the Maricopa Community Colleges Student Public Policy Forum gratify visit: or contact your campus representative:Heather Kruse. Director of Student Life and Leadership(602) 787-7246

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/studentlife/blog/?p=620

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam