the1v Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anybody notice that Utah is also highly > represented in the list...
Weber, Dixie, and UVU. That caught my attention too. I have known excellent students from all of those schools. I just found it interesting that they accept virtually everyone who applies.
Some of the school's charters mandate everybody that meets certain admissions criteria can get in. So, they're 'easy to get into' in the same way, in some regards, that community colleges in other states are.
This is mostly the result of Utah trying to avoid having a bifurcated community college system and a separate 4-year college system (California, for example, has its California State University, University of California, and California community college systems, all of which have their own separate bureaucracies).
This has served Utah pretty well, in my opinion; by not being selective, it's guaranteed that a student that wants to go to college can do so..
Alpiner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some of the school's charters mandate everybody > that meets certain admissions criteria can get in.
> > This has served Utah pretty well, in my opinion; > by not being selective, it's guaranteed that a > student that wants to go to college can do so..
I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are many benefits to the students and society from having schools with such charters. The quality of the education is often excellent and if a student applies her- or himself will be indistinguishable from a graduate from any other university.
There are three or four posters here who routinely denigrate getting a university education because they are chronically unemployed or in their minds under-employed. Getting in and getting a degree at a lower tier Utah school may not be all that desirable for someone who is going to be a poor performer in the field where they get their degree. There needs to be some realistic counseling for students once they get in. Often times Universities expect that if someone gets chronic poor grades they will get the hint, but this is often not the case. I taught at a University where my job was to teach a class that weeded out pre-med majors - not fun letting kids know they were just not going to cut it. The real poor performers never get good counseling and often resent it when they do.
It's interesting that your institution had a specific course designed for the purpose of culling pre-med students. The program itself will usually weed out insufficient candidates (as well as some who very well might have been quite sufficient) due to the demanding course work of a pre-med major and the difficulty getting into a good MD program because of the stiff competition. I can see letting someone down gently before the person invests too much time and $ in an unrealistic endeavor, though.
The profession I've observed that is more in need of some sort of a gate-keeper system is teaching. My wife taught before law school, and we all think we're education experts anyway based on all of us having been to school. My non-expert status notwithstanding, there really isn't much to cull out poor matches to the teaching profession. A couple of tests will stop those who lack the most rudimentary academic qualifications, and there are interview processes designed to weed out those who cannot speak standard English, though I haven't heard of a single person who has failed one. There are student-teaching practicums in place, but, from what I've heard, even people who perform poorly in the intern setting technically "pass" these practicums. There aren't enough really demanding classes, particularly for a multiple-subject credential candidate, that keep a marginal applicant (or worse) from completing a program and entering the field.
Teaching is an incredibly demanding job, and good teachers deserve far more than what they are presently paid. The problem that most people see is that there are mediocre or worse teachers out there, and there isn't a fair way to distribute the increased pay without doing so straight across the board. The public is reluctant to do this. (Furthermore, there really isn't the money in our present system as funds are currently allocated to accomplish this.) Every person knows at least one lousy teacher, and we're all loathe to see this person get rich at a job for which he or she is already being overpaid.
Probably the only way the system can ever significantly improve is for teacher compensation to be such that strong candidates are willing to compete for the positions in teacher education programs, such as presently happens with medical school slots.
I don't see making four-year educations too accessible as the answer. I feel that community colleges should be available to anyone, but university-level education should be for academically qualified applicants. Most universities now offer remedial studies. My opinion may place me in a distinct minority, but I don't feel that this is appropriate. Students should seek needed remediation before reaching the university level of study. I understand that we have many factors contributing to this issue, not the least of which is college athletics, and that it is a complicated sociological study in and of itself, but I still don't see allowing under-qualified students into a four-year college/university system as much of an answer to anything.
Anon for this Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are three or four posters here who routinely > denigrate getting a university education because > they are chronically unemployed or in their minds > under-employed. Getting in and getting a degree at > a lower tier Utah school may not be all that > desirable for someone who is going to be a poor > performer in the field where they get their > degree. There needs to be some realistic > counseling for students once they get in. Often > times Universities expect that if someone gets > chronic poor grades they will get the hint, but > this is often not the case. I taught at a > University where my job was to teach a class that > weeded out pre-med majors - not fun letting kids > know they were just not going to cut it. The real > poor performers never get good counseling and > often resent it when they do.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2015 01:39PM by scmd.
My job was to teach the chemistry class. The Chemistry weeded out the students. The course was designed to give 1/3 of the students a C grade, that would stop their participation in the pre-med program. I got to inform some the poor kids they were not cut out for the kind of skills it takes to pass higher level classes that they would need in med school (especially since some of them were convinced they were the smartest kids in their high school etc.) This was a class that was made up entirely of pre-selected Pre-med students who were destined to med school at a large and well known university and very sought after med school.
I agree with your comments about teaching. My wife has taught at the High School, Community College, and University level, and is now working with special ed kids in High School. Your comments are spot on.
Anon for this Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My job was to teach the chemistry class. The > Chemistry weeded out the students. The course was > designed to give 1/3 of the students a C grade
I was with you all the way, including "limiting" university acceptance to already academically qualified students.
At least, I was until you mentioned a course *designed* to give 1/3 of the students a C. 'Cause that's just silly.
Get a class full of absolute geniuses in any semester, and toss out 1/3 of them by design. Get another class in another semester of entirely mediocre kids, and pass 2/3rds of them with A and B grades by design. Kids far less able than the 1/3rd you tossed out the other semester.
Whomever came up with "grading on a curve" should be flogged with a statistics book. :)
Does exactly this with the nursing program. For a small school that lets anyone in, the nursing program is excellent and they don't want to waste the resources on students who will simply slide by. You have to go through your general ed before they'll even accept you and I think the number is something only 75 students a year for the nursing program. Pretty much all the nursing graduates have job right in town. Same thing with those who choose to go into the energy field here. Small college with relaxed admissions doesn't necessarily equal a shitty education or job prospects.
If I had it in me, I would be in the nursing program, but I'm not sure I have the right stuff for it. I really admire those that do.
I just shared with my daughter who recently attended a recruiting presentation for church schools. She was surprised and responded, "That's not what they told us. Did they lie to us?"
My wife just walked into the room, so I informed her of BYU-I's 99.6 acceptance rate. Her response was similar to my daughter's - "That's not what they said to us."
Sounds like BYU-I is trying to appear like a selective school when in actuality it's main criteria is that you can fog up a mirror.
what's harder is to get into a specific college within the university, ya anyone can get into "harrison high" (weber) but are they accepted into nursing school?