Slashdot Mirror
Do Online Schools Provide A Quality Education?
"After the dot com 'boom' settled down a bit, and I was no longer required to work 80 hrs a week, I decided that after ten years of being absent I would go back to school and finish up that elusive CS degree. Well, after shopping around a bit I found a very good, well known, University that was offering the degree, online.
'Cool,' I thought, no classes, all on my schedule, save gas, and I could work at 2 am if I wanted. I thought I had found the perfect way to learn.
BUT, after just one semester, I am starting to have my doubts. I am sure this is the way to go in the future, but I'm not so sure that the schools has got all the kinks worked out and I am beginning to believe that the professors, and possible even the schools, see this as a way for them to teach a class with a minimal amount of effort and cost.
You basically have a public conference area (a web based discussion group for comments) that you, the other students, and the professors participate in. This works very well because your assignments are given out on a weekly basis and you have a whole week to post comments and complete your assignments. You are required to participate in the discussions and then post your answers to quizzes in a private portfolio where it is graded by the professor and then returned to you.
Most of the professors participate in the conference like you are in a real classroom; with student asking questions and the professor responding, though, it is not real time.
But some of the professors only want you to post to the public discussion groups and never have you post to the private portfolio, basically this means they don't have to do anything accept scan the conferences and give out more assignments. They don't have to look over your work and give you any feedback. I bet it takes less than an hour a week to do this. Also, this allows other students to see the answers and just repost them.
The only thing this person seems to be doing is sitting on his butt all week; telling the students to just follow the syllabus for reading; and occasionally surfing the discussions groups to see who is there. That sounds like a very good deal for them, but I am not getting much out of this.
I also feel that ALL of the professors are very behind-the-times when it comes to IT. Just today I had a professor tell me she would not allow me to post a PDF file to my portfolio because she was worried about getting a virus when she read it?!
A few questions come to mind: Is this a quality education? Should the professors be required to show what they have done because they don't have a real classroom to attend? How much effort should a professor put forth for an online class? This has always been an issue in a real classroom, but now we have a whole new twist. Shouldn't professors be required to be a little more techno savvy before they give a course like this? Shouldn't the schools be reevaluating the 'new teaching style' and making some adjustments?
I am so angry with the way the school has set this up I will probably return to a normal class environment here at a local college, at least I know the guy is going to show up!
Has anybody else been to an online college? What were your experiences?"
"...I think some of the classes are laid out rediculously." Yeah you're a good person to be commenting on education.
Yes. At most institutions I've had contact with, distance/online education is done as a cost-cutting measure. It is forced by administrators with little regard for proper implementation or academic soundness. The implementation is done by instructors who aren't necessarily sure it's a good idea in the first place and don't have the resources to do it right.
It sure is cheap to do, though. No buildings to maintain; pay the instructors a fraction of a regular course and charge the students the same (plus a "resources fee" in some cases).
If so, you are more likely to have your son circumcised according to various studies. Circumcision is the removal of prepuce in the male which has the same function and origin as the clitoral hood in women.
:-)
The foreskin and clitoral hood at one point were the same in the embryo. The reason for circumcision's "cleanliness" benefit would also apply to women BUT notice that women ARE smart enough to disallow this proceedure on themselves, instead forcing it on their helpless sons.
Doctors say removing the prepuce in the male IS acceptable on religious or personal reasons BUT in the female circumcision statement they say NO circumcision is allowed EVEN though the foreskin and the clitoral hood ARE biologically the same and BOTH have smegma if not cleaned like a normal decent person would do. In some Muslim and Iraeli communities they do perform a type of circumcision called a Sunna that is EQUIVELANT to male circumcision, AND WHY ISN'T THERE A SIMILAR OUTCRY and legislation against male circumcision?
The "health benefits" are highly suspicious especially the AIDs research in Africa stating that circumcision prevents aids. The authors in those studies FAILED to take into account sexual behaviour because those circumcised are Muslims and therefore sexual promiscuity is punishable by DEATH and therefore AIDs does NOT spread. The United States has the highest AIDs rate in the industrialized world, and one of the highest circumcision rates. The Europeans rarely circumcise their children and they have a lower AIDs rates. New studies should be commissined by EXPERTS who will take into account sexual behaviour.
UTIs are another common excuse to do male circumcisions but the compilcations of male circumcision is HIGHER than the UTI rate. Infections, and even loss of penis occures in 1/1000 circumcisions. Just look at the Gomco clamp incident where they were defective and injuring boys recently. UTIs are even more common in girls, should we circumcise them? Of course NOT.
The worst thing about circumcision is the fact that you lose the ability to fuck and masturbate as nature intended. Uncircumcised men DO NOT use lubrication, but instead glide the foreskin over the glans. A similar function is evident in sexual intercourse by allowing the penis to glide in its own sheath making intercourse more pleasurable for both the man and the woman. It also prevents soreness in the female.
The United States has a 25 percent rate of erectile disfunction according to the maker of Viagra. This is astouningly high when compared to europe's 10 percent ED rate. Circumcision may very well be the cause because of decreased sensitivity do to the lack of protection to the glans. Also during circumcision the main blood vessels are cut and left to die by the crushing force of a gomco or plastibell.
Most likely your reaction will be to reject this information. That is normal because victims of sexual mutilation most often deny the loss. In Africa women are the ones who continue to force circumcision on other young girls AND deny the fact that it is harmful even though they experienced the trauma themselves during childhood. Find the strength and the wisdom and please stop this shameful cycle of abuse and ignorance. Don't circumcise your son and the world will be a better place for you and your child.
Thank you for listening.