community college?

[icalz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Some people cannot read humor in text (or sarcasm, facetiousness, ect...)

 

[jvesco22]

BTW, you should clarify. . . U of P has long been held by the University of Pennsylvania--you know. . .the one that is considered IVY League.

Also, it is true that online classes to a certain degree are the wave of the future--which is why every stinking school out there here has accredited degree programs by online/distance or they have them in the works.

Guess what? Schools are BIG BUSINESS. Have you ever seen a couple semesters go by and tuition fees are held? I haven't in my lifetime. They ALWAYS go up and up and up. . .

And this is why people are looking into other doable alternatives--to work with their work schedules, etc.

Ultimately the true test of learning says more about the individual learner. The profs touch upon material--basically outline the main areas of focus--and then all the rest is up to the individual learner--REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE OR SHE GOES TO SCHOOL.

😆

 

[jl lin]

Some people cannot read humor in text (or sarcasm, facetiousness, ect...)

"Certified wisecrackers may see their snarky remarks as clever diversions, but because the distinction between a joke and an insult can be nebulous, they can easily damage relationships and careers with their one-liners. . . .
So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

Because humor and hostility often come mixed together, it can be difficult to pinpoint a wisecracker's primary intent. "Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive," Stosny says. "But other times, it's devaluing." Everyone benefits from a wisecracker's comic relief, but if you are the target of regular swipes, it's best to assertively call the joker out. His hilariousness doesn't give him the right to belittle you. "

Anyway, here's the whole piece from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/field-guide-sarcastic-masters


It can be fun at times, but people need to stop hiding behind it and embrace a more respectful approach to various positions.

And with regard to the interwoven, age-old issue mixed into this thread--you know, the one about how CC's are sucky-hoy places to take certain pre-med pre-req's-- well,t's just plain wrong to out and out condemn all sciences courses at all or even many community colleges. Many of them have strong articulating agreements with various four-years and universities; thus they have to be on point with what is covered and depth of the material and what the rubrics are as well.

The blanket bias against so many professors and their courses at CCs is just another brand of the unfair bias that goes on when comparing certain IVY leagues ro private schools to state universities, etc.

Yes there was a time when there was (and perhaps still is to some degree) unfair bias against 4-yr state schools and the like as being markedly less than certain higher priced private institutuions and Ivy League institutions, etc.

When you dig deep, however, many times what you find that actually makes the difference in the educational organization is simply this: smaller class sizes and more individual attention, OR more Ivy league support crew--assistant researcher/teacher assistants and more sources for support, various groups, outreach programs for the students.
Whenever you can give more individual attention or more kinds of support to students, this leads to a greater likelihood of them getting more out of the particular education process within the organization/institution.

Frankly, I fail to see where it is sooooo much better for students to be taughter and led by teacher's assistants at various four-years as opposed to having more of the teaching and support coming DIRECTLY from the professors themselves--as you often see at many good CCs! Of course no one is ever able to fully and fairly answer this question for me.

So I say if it helps you and because post-secondary education is now Soooo incredibly prohibitive in ALL COSTS, people can find some good CCs--ones that have articulations with some good four-years--ones that have direct acceptance of level 100 lab/sciences, etc, and take them there. Take your o-chem and other stuff at the four-years. Unless you are already in an undergrad program that will more readily accomodate you at the four-year, how does it matter. I mean if you have to work to pay your bills and get through school and it is more doable to take the pre-req at a good CC with a good professor, who gives? If this comes up upon med school interview, just address it FOR THE REALITY IT IS--You needed to work and take courses when they were most available, you researched the professor and the curriculum at the CC and found it all good and totally acceptable by way of your four-year AA, and so you got the time slot you needed and saved some serious money--which you indeed need for med school apps and med school itself! Maybe you are NT, and you needed to be near your kids and work and certain times and the CC offerings worked better for your work-school-life balance! Again, you checked out the schools with your AA, you checked out the professor when possible. You made sure it met the rigid science/lab requirements. Then you can show your MCATs. If it shows that you understand those basic core sciences, what the heck are they going to say? No? REally. No that is more likely if you don't have a well-balanced application overall!




People really need to get off the bogus nonsense that all CC's teach shyte for the same core science/lab courses--or even some folks that try to say the level100 bios etc are less than for nursing programs. That' s totally bogus too, unless you went to some far out east gippup school of nursing or went to nursing school 30 or 50 years ago. See for professional nursing you are required to take at the minimum general bios 100, anatomy and physio 2 (since prereqs require the bio first) semesters w/ labs, microbiology (prereq bios also required for this course), and in many programs pathophysiology and pharmacology, which also necessitates general chem as prereq. You also need statistics and application to health bio-statistics, which requires algebra as a prereq.

I don't mind people having their own particular position on things, but I believe those positions should at least be based in a balance review of all the facts and not merely supposition or things perpetuated by way of various biases--which do run rampant even throughout the glorious educational system.

If you feel that all CCs and the courses they all offer are for total crap, at least say so and stand behind it. Please don't hide behind sarcasm or some supposed wit.




And really people are genuinely getting increasingly angry about the way schools exploit students and rape them with non-stop rises in tuition, books, all kind of endless add-on fees. And the truth is that people have the right to be mad about it! The schools are addicted to jack-ups in tuition, and they couldn't care less about how this is ultimately affecting people--so long as they make their money and/or get their various perks and compensations, etc.

I'm sensitive about this issue, b/c I am tired of seeing people with a genuine interest in education and their parents and families getting raped by the merciless exorbitant tuitions and fees and books.

At the CC I teach, four-year students are practically parking on top of other cars in rows. CCs in my area have seen a major boon in students taking whatever they can and transferring the credits back into their four-year schools--b/c of the economy and BECAUSE TUITION AND OTHER FEES ARE JUST TOO EXPENSIVE--beyond expensive. At least many of the numerous and very good four-years around here allow students to do this in order to save them some money. If the courses were somehow less or inferior, they wouldn't allow them to transfer into the programs in which these students are matriculated.

This is a serious issue to me. So, I say, if the curriculum content and level of depth and rubrics are basically the same, and students score well on their MCATs, really, who gives a rat's behind!

Do you realize they were saying the same thing in terms of academic snobbery not too long ago regarding the state four-years schools compared to IVY Leagues and certain snobby, private insitutuions and most people could NEVER afford--scholarships or not? And I am sorry to say this, but sadly, if you are not a minority, your ability to pursue IVY League even with competitive grades can be even less. I don't want to get into that argument, b/c honestly I can really see both sides--but ultimately there should be more balance not progressively less in terms of how this is applied. You've got plenty of very good middle class students that will never get the benefits that either the very rich or even some minorities have. I'm not taking a position against minority acceptance standards, accept to say that overall balance in substance should be a reasonable guide at some point of the process. At the same time, getting into an Ivy League will not necessarily make you a better person, scholar, or physician, or whatever. Personally I say if you can't learn from anything--even an supposed lowly worm, beetle, or honey bee, you have to ask yourself exactly what kind of learner you really are. That is, are you a truly inquisitive learner able to learn and be humble to make all things your teacher? So to me, learning has more to do with the individual learner than anything else. Yes, this is my bias, but I believe it has merit, and I believe there are many examples of people, like Edison, that support this biased position of mine.

Also, I've worked with all kinds of physicians, and I've never seen a physician or say a surgeon that was better than another simply b/c he or she attended IVY League schools. It really doesn't work that way.

But just carry on and find out for yourself.

People fixate on the wrong things IMHO.

Finally don't take anything I say personally. I am responding to your message and it's tone, in more than one post from you in this this thread. I could be wrong in terms of where you stand on these points I've made. If so I fully apologize. But I am also sick to death of this same old ridiculous argument. And overall I am more sick to death of the outrageous costs of higher education in this country.

 

[icalz]

"Certified wisecrackers may see their snarky remarks as clever diversions, but because the distinction between a joke and an insult can be nebulous, they can easily damage relationships and careers with their one-liners. . . .
So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

Because humor and hostility often come mixed together, it can be difficult to pinpoint a wisecracker's primary intent. "Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive," Stosny says. "But other times, it's devaluing." Everyone benefits from a wisecracker's comic relief, but if you are the target of regular swipes, it's best to assertively call the joker out. His hilariousness doesn't give him the right to belittle you. "

Anyway, here's the whole piece from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/field-guide-sarcastic-masters


It can be fun at times, but people need to stop hiding behind it and embrace a more respectful approach to various positions.

And with regard to the interwoven, age-old issue mixed into this thread--you know, the one about how CC's are sucky-hoy places to take certain pre-med pre-req's-- well,t's just plain wrong to out and out condemn all sciences courses at all or even many community colleges. Many of them have strong articulating agreements with various four-years and universities; thus they have to be on point with what is covered and depth of the material and what the rubrics are as well.

The blanket bias against so many professors and their courses at CCs is just another brand of the unfair bias that goes on when comparing certain IVY leagues ro private schools to state universities, etc.

Yes there was a time when there was (and perhaps still is to some degree) unfair bias against 4-yr state schools and the like as being markedly less than certain higher priced private institutuions and Ivy League institutions, etc.

When you dig deep, however, many times what you find that actually makes the difference in the educational organization is simply this: smaller class sizes and more individual attention, OR more Ivy league support crew--assistant researcher/teacher assistants and more sources for support, various groups, outreach programs for the students.
Whenever you can give more individual attention or more kinds of support to students, this leads to a greater likelihood of them getting more out of the particular education process within the organization/institution.

Frankly, I fail to see where it is sooooo much better for students to be taughter and led by teacher's assistants at various four-years as opposed to having more of the teaching and support coming DIRECTLY from the professors themselves--as you often see at many good CCs! Of course no one is ever able to fully and fairly answer this question for me.

So I say if it helps you and because post-secondary education is now Soooo incredibly prohibitive in ALL COSTS, people can find some good CCs--ones that have articulations with some good four-years--ones that have direct acceptance of level 100 lab/sciences, etc, and take them there. Take your o-chem and other stuff at the four-years. Unless you are already in an undergrad program that will more readily accomodate you at the four-year, how does it matter. I mean if you have to work to pay your bills and get through school and it is more doable to take the pre-req at a good CC with a good professor, who gives? If this comes up upon med school interview, just address it FOR THE REALITY IT IS--You needed to work and take courses when they were most available, you researched the professor and the curriculum at the CC and found it all good and totally acceptable by way of your four-year AA, and so you got the time slot you needed and saved some serious money--which you indeed need for med school apps and med school itself! Maybe you are NT, and you needed to be near your kids and work and certain times and the CC offerings worked better for your work-school-life balance! Again, you checked out the schools with your AA, you checked out the professor when possible. You made sure it met the rigid science/lab requirements. Then you can show your MCATs. If it shows that you understand those basic core sciences, what the heck are they going to say? No? REally. No that is more likely if you don't have a well-balanced application overall!




People really need to get off the bogus nonsense that all CC's teach shyte for the same core science/lab courses--or even some folks that try to say the level100 bios etc are less than for nursing programs. That' s totally bogus too, unless you went to some far out east gippup school of nursing or went to nursing school 30 or 50 years ago. See for professional nursing you are required to take at the minimum general bios 100, anatomy and physio 2 (since prereqs require the bio first) semesters w/ labs, microbiology (prereq bios also required for this course), and in many programs pathophysiology and pharmacology, which also necessitates general chem as prereq. You also need statistics and application to health bio-statistics, which requires algebra as a prereq.

I don't mind people having their own particular position on things, but I believe those positions should at least be based in a balance review of all the facts and not merely supposition or things perpetuated by way of various biases--which do run rampant even throughout the glorious educational system.

If you feel that all CCs and the courses they all offer are for total crap, at least say so and stand behind it. Please don't hide behind sarcasm or some supposed wit.




And really people are genuinely getting increasingly angry about the way schools exploit students and rape them with non-stop rises in tuition, books, all kind of endless add-on fees. And the truth is that people have the right to be mad about it! The schools are addicted to jack-ups in tuition, and they couldn't care less about how this is ultimately affecting people--so long as they make their money and/or get their various perks and compensations, etc.

I'm sensitive about this issue, b/c I am tired of seeing people with a genuine interest in education and their parents and families getting raped by the merciless exorbitant tuitions and fees and books.

At the CC I teach, four-year students are practically parking on top of other cars in rows. CCs in my area have seen a major boon in students taking whatever they can and transferring the credits back into their four-year schools--b/c of the economy and BECAUSE TUITION AND OTHER FEES ARE JUST TOO EXPENSIVE--beyond expensive. At least many of the numerous and very good four-years around here allow students to do this in order to save them some money. If the courses were somehow less or inferior, they wouldn't allow them to transfer into the programs in which these students are matriculated.

This is a serious issue to me. So, I say, if the curriculum content and level of depth and rubrics are basically the same, and students score well on their MCATs, really, who gives a rat's behind!

Do you realize they were saying the same thing in terms of academic snobbery not too long ago regarding the state four-years schools compared to IVY Leagues and certain snobby, private insitutuions and most people could NEVER afford--scholarships or not? And I am sorry to say this, but sadly, if you are not a minority, your ability to pursue IVY League even with competitive grades can be even less. I don't want to get into that argument, b/c honestly I can really see both sides--but ultimately there should be more balance not progressively less in terms of how this is applied. You've got plenty of very good middle class students that will never get the benefits that either the very rich or even some minorities have. I'm not taking a position against minority acceptance standards, accept to say that overall balance in substance should be a reasonable guide at some point of the process. At the same time, getting into an Ivy League will not necessarily make you a better person, scholar, or physician, or whatever. Personally I say if you can't learn from anything--even an supposed lowly worm, beetle, or honey bee, you have to ask yourself exactly what kind of learner you really are. That is, are you a truly inquisitive learner able to learn and be humble to make all things your teacher? So to me, learning has more to do with the individual learner than anything else. Yes, this is my bias, but I believe it has merit, and I believe there are many examples of people, like Edison, that support this biased position of mine.

Also, I've worked with all kinds of physicians, and I've never seen a physician or say a surgeon that was better than another simply b/c he or she attended IVY League schools. It really doesn't work that way.

But just carry on and find out for yourself.

People fixate on the wrong things IMHO.

Finally don't take anything I say personally. I am responding to your message and it's tone, in more than one post from you in this this thread. I could be wrong in terms of where you stand on these points I've made. If so I fully apologize. But I am also sick to death of this same old ridiculous argument. And overall I am more sick to death of the outrageous costs of higher education in this country.

You really typed all that? I apologize, I didn't even finish the first sentence so I have no idea what it says. I can't figure out what has you so hot and bothered...one minute there's a light hearted convo about these new University of Phoenix and Kaplan Colleges popping up, and then the next minute I'm blind-sided by a serious and very wordy argument for something (still don't know what)....come on, lighten up. Life is too stressful to be so serious all the time.

 

[icalz]

Is it the rising cost of tuition? Is that what caused your spontaneous combustion? Please answer in less than 50 words (please?).

 

[jvesco22]

"Certified wisecrackers may see their snarky remarks as clever diversions, but because the distinction between a joke and an insult can be nebulous, they can easily damage relationships and careers with their one-liners. . . .
So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

Because humor and hostility often come mixed together, it can be difficult to pinpoint a wisecracker's primary intent. "Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive," Stosny says. "But other times, it's devaluing." Everyone benefits from a wisecracker's comic relief, but if you are the target of regular swipes, it's best to assertively call the joker out. His hilariousness doesn't give him the right to belittle you. "

Anyway, here's the whole piece from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/field-guide-sarcastic-masters


It can be fun at times, but people need to stop hiding behind it and embrace a more respectful approach to various positions.

And with regard to the interwoven, age-old issue mixed into this thread--you know, the one about how CC's are sucky-hoy places to take certain pre-med pre-req's-- well,t's just plain wrong to out and out condemn all sciences courses at all or even many community colleges. Many of them have strong articulating agreements with various four-years and universities; thus they have to be on point with what is covered and depth of the material and what the rubrics are as well.

The blanket bias against so many professors and their courses at CCs is just another brand of the unfair bias that goes on when comparing certain IVY leagues ro private schools to state universities, etc.

Yes there was a time when there was (and perhaps still is to some degree) unfair bias against 4-yr state schools and the like as being markedly less than certain higher priced private institutuions and Ivy League institutions, etc.

When you dig deep, however, many times what you find that actually makes the difference in the educational organization is simply this: smaller class sizes and more individual attention, OR more Ivy league support crew--assistant researcher/teacher assistants and more sources for support, various groups, outreach programs for the students.
Whenever you can give more individual attention or more kinds of support to students, this leads to a greater likelihood of them getting more out of the particular education process within the organization/institution.

Frankly, I fail to see where it is sooooo much better for students to be taughter and led by teacher's assistants at various four-years as opposed to having more of the teaching and support coming DIRECTLY from the professors themselves--as you often see at many good CCs! Of course no one is ever able to fully and fairly answer this question for me.

So I say if it helps you and because post-secondary education is now Soooo incredibly prohibitive in ALL COSTS, people can find some good CCs--ones that have articulations with some good four-years--ones that have direct acceptance of level 100 lab/sciences, etc, and take them there. Take your o-chem and other stuff at the four-years. Unless you are already in an undergrad program that will more readily accomodate you at the four-year, how does it matter. I mean if you have to work to pay your bills and get through school and it is more doable to take the pre-req at a good CC with a good professor, who gives? If this comes up upon med school interview, just address it FOR THE REALITY IT IS--You needed to work and take courses when they were most available, you researched the professor and the curriculum at the CC and found it all good and totally acceptable by way of your four-year AA, and so you got the time slot you needed and saved some serious money--which you indeed need for med school apps and med school itself! Maybe you are NT, and you needed to be near your kids and work and certain times and the CC offerings worked better for your work-school-life balance! Again, you checked out the schools with your AA, you checked out the professor when possible. You made sure it met the rigid science/lab requirements. Then you can show your MCATs. If it shows that you understand those basic core sciences, what the heck are they going to say? No? REally. No that is more likely if you don't have a well-balanced application overall!




People really need to get off the bogus nonsense that all CC's teach shyte for the same core science/lab courses--or even some folks that try to say the level100 bios etc are less than for nursing programs. That' s totally bogus too, unless you went to some far out east gippup school of nursing or went to nursing school 30 or 50 years ago. See for professional nursing you are required to take at the minimum general bios 100, anatomy and physio 2 (since prereqs require the bio first) semesters w/ labs, microbiology (prereq bios also required for this course), and in many programs pathophysiology and pharmacology, which also necessitates general chem as prereq. You also need statistics and application to health bio-statistics, which requires algebra as a prereq.

I don't mind people having their own particular position on things, but I believe those positions should at least be based in a balance review of all the facts and not merely supposition or things perpetuated by way of various biases--which do run rampant even throughout the glorious educational system.

If you feel that all CCs and the courses they all offer are for total crap, at least say so and stand behind it. Please don't hide behind sarcasm or some supposed wit.




And really people are genuinely getting increasingly angry about the way schools exploit students and rape them with non-stop rises in tuition, books, all kind of endless add-on fees. And the truth is that people have the right to be mad about it! The schools are addicted to jack-ups in tuition, and they couldn't care less about how this is ultimately affecting people--so long as they make their money and/or get their various perks and compensations, etc.

I'm sensitive about this issue, b/c I am tired of seeing people with a genuine interest in education and their parents and families getting raped by the merciless exorbitant tuitions and fees and books.

At the CC I teach, four-year students are practically parking on top of other cars in rows. CCs in my area have seen a major boon in students taking whatever they can and transferring the credits back into their four-year schools--b/c of the economy and BECAUSE TUITION AND OTHER FEES ARE JUST TOO EXPENSIVE--beyond expensive. At least many of the numerous and very good four-years around here allow students to do this in order to save them some money. If the courses were somehow less or inferior, they wouldn't allow them to transfer into the programs in which these students are matriculated.

This is a serious issue to me. So, I say, if the curriculum content and level of depth and rubrics are basically the same, and students score well on their MCATs, really, who gives a rat's behind!

Do you realize they were saying the same thing in terms of academic snobbery not too long ago regarding the state four-years schools compared to IVY Leagues and certain snobby, private insitutuions and most people could NEVER afford--scholarships or not? And I am sorry to say this, but sadly, if you are not a minority, your ability to pursue IVY League even with competitive grades can be even less. I don't want to get into that argument, b/c honestly I can really see both sides--but ultimately there should be more balance not progressively less in terms of how this is applied. You've got plenty of very good middle class students that will never get the benefits that either the very rich or even some minorities have. I'm not taking a position against minority acceptance standards, accept to say that overall balance in substance should be a reasonable guide at some point of the process. At the same time, getting into an Ivy League will not necessarily make you a better person, scholar, or physician, or whatever. Personally I say if you can't learn from anything--even an supposed lowly worm, beetle, or honey bee, you have to ask yourself exactly what kind of learner you really are. That is, are you a truly inquisitive learner able to learn and be humble to make all things your teacher? So to me, learning has more to do with the individual learner than anything else. Yes, this is my bias, but I believe it has merit, and I believe there are many examples of people, like Edison, that support this biased position of mine.

Also, I've worked with all kinds of physicians, and I've never seen a physician or say a surgeon that was better than another simply b/c he or she attended IVY League schools. It really doesn't work that way.

But just carry on and find out for yourself.

People fixate on the wrong things IMHO.

Finally don't take anything I say personally. I am responding to your message and it's tone, in more than one post from you in this this thread. I could be wrong in terms of where you stand on these points I've made. If so I fully apologize. But I am also sick to death of this same old ridiculous argument. And overall I am more sick to death of the outrageous costs of higher education in this country.

 

[artx2008]

"Certified wisecrackers may see their snarky remarks as clever diversions, but because the distinction between a joke and an insult can be nebulous, they can easily damage relationships and careers with their one-liners. . . .
So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

Because humor and hostility often come mixed together, it can be difficult to pinpoint a wisecracker's primary intent. "Sometimes sarcasm is humor—purely a Don Rickles kind of joking—and sometimes it's just innocently insensitive," Stosny says. "But other times, it's devaluing." Everyone benefits from a wisecracker's comic relief, but if you are the target of regular swipes, it's best to assertively call the joker out. His hilariousness doesn't give him the right to belittle you. "

Anyway, here's the whole piece from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/field-guide-sarcastic-masters


It can be fun at times, but people need to stop hiding behind it and embrace a more respectful approach to various positions.

And with regard to the interwoven, age-old issue mixed into this thread--you know, the one about how CC's are sucky-hoy places to take certain pre-med pre-req's-- well,t's just plain wrong to out and out condemn all sciences courses at all or even many community colleges. Many of them have strong articulating agreements with various four-years and universities; thus they have to be on point with what is covered and depth of the material and what the rubrics are as well.

The blanket bias against so many professors and their courses at CCs is just another brand of the unfair bias that goes on when comparing certain IVY leagues ro private schools to state universities, etc.

Yes there was a time when there was (and perhaps still is to some degree) unfair bias against 4-yr state schools and the like as being markedly less than certain higher priced private institutuions and Ivy League institutions, etc.

When you dig deep, however, many times what you find that actually makes the difference in the educational organization is simply this: smaller class sizes and more individual attention, OR more Ivy league support crew--assistant researcher/teacher assistants and more sources for support, various groups, outreach programs for the students.
Whenever you can give more individual attention or more kinds of support to students, this leads to a greater likelihood of them getting more out of the particular education process within the organization/institution.

Frankly, I fail to see where it is sooooo much better for students to be taughter and led by teacher's assistants at various four-years as opposed to having more of the teaching and support coming DIRECTLY from the professors themselves--as you often see at many good CCs! Of course no one is ever able to fully and fairly answer this question for me.

So I say if it helps you and because post-secondary education is now Soooo incredibly prohibitive in ALL COSTS, people can find some good CCs--ones that have articulations with some good four-years--ones that have direct acceptance of level 100 lab/sciences, etc, and take them there. Take your o-chem and other stuff at the four-years. Unless you are already in an undergrad program that will more readily accomodate you at the four-year, how does it matter. I mean if you have to work to pay your bills and get through school and it is more doable to take the pre-req at a good CC with a good professor, who gives? If this comes up upon med school interview, just address it FOR THE REALITY IT IS--You needed to work and take courses when they were most available, you researched the professor and the curriculum at the CC and found it all good and totally acceptable by way of your four-year AA, and so you got the time slot you needed and saved some serious money--which you indeed need for med school apps and med school itself! Maybe you are NT, and you needed to be near your kids and work and certain times and the CC offerings worked better for your work-school-life balance! Again, you checked out the schools with your AA, you checked out the professor when possible. You made sure it met the rigid science/lab requirements. Then you can show your MCATs. If it shows that you understand those basic core sciences, what the heck are they going to say? No? REally. No that is more likely if you don't have a well-balanced application overall!




People really need to get off the bogus nonsense that all CC's teach shyte for the same core science/lab courses--or even some folks that try to say the level100 bios etc are less than for nursing programs. That' s totally bogus too, unless you went to some far out east gippup school of nursing or went to nursing school 30 or 50 years ago. See for professional nursing you are required to take at the minimum general bios 100, anatomy and physio 2 (since prereqs require the bio first) semesters w/ labs, microbiology (prereq bios also required for this course), and in many programs pathophysiology and pharmacology, which also necessitates general chem as prereq. You also need statistics and application to health bio-statistics, which requires algebra as a prereq.

I don't mind people having their own particular position on things, but I believe those positions should at least be based in a balance review of all the facts and not merely supposition or things perpetuated by way of various biases--which do run rampant even throughout the glorious educational system.

If you feel that all CCs and the courses they all offer are for total crap, at least say so and stand behind it. Please don't hide behind sarcasm or some supposed wit.




And really people are genuinely getting increasingly angry about the way schools exploit students and rape them with non-stop rises in tuition, books, all kind of endless add-on fees. And the truth is that people have the right to be mad about it! The schools are addicted to jack-ups in tuition, and they couldn't care less about how this is ultimately affecting people--so long as they make their money and/or get their various perks and compensations, etc.

I'm sensitive about this issue, b/c I am tired of seeing people with a genuine interest in education and their parents and families getting raped by the merciless exorbitant tuitions and fees and books.

At the CC I teach, four-year students are practically parking on top of other cars in rows. CCs in my area have seen a major boon in students taking whatever they can and transferring the credits back into their four-year schools--b/c of the economy and BECAUSE TUITION AND OTHER FEES ARE JUST TOO EXPENSIVE--beyond expensive. At least many of the numerous and very good four-years around here allow students to do this in order to save them some money. If the courses were somehow less or inferior, they wouldn't allow them to transfer into the programs in which these students are matriculated.

This is a serious issue to me. So, I say, if the curriculum content and level of depth and rubrics are basically the same, and students score well on their MCATs, really, who gives a rat's behind!

Do you realize they were saying the same thing in terms of academic snobbery not too long ago regarding the state four-years schools compared to IVY Leagues and certain snobby, private insitutuions and most people could NEVER afford--scholarships or not? And I am sorry to say this, but sadly, if you are not a minority, your ability to pursue IVY League even with competitive grades can be even less. I don't want to get into that argument, b/c honestly I can really see both sides--but ultimately there should be more balance not progressively less in terms of how this is applied. You've got plenty of very good middle class students that will never get the benefits that either the very rich or even some minorities have. I'm not taking a position against minority acceptance standards, accept to say that overall balance in substance should be a reasonable guide at some point of the process. At the same time, getting into an Ivy League will not necessarily make you a better person, scholar, or physician, or whatever. Personally I say if you can't learn from anything--even an supposed lowly worm, beetle, or honey bee, you have to ask yourself exactly what kind of learner you really are. That is, are you a truly inquisitive learner able to learn and be humble to make all things your teacher? So to me, learning has more to do with the individual learner than anything else. Yes, this is my bias, but I believe it has merit, and I believe there are many examples of people, like Edison, that support this biased position of mine.

Also, I've worked with all kinds of physicians, and I've never seen a physician or say a surgeon that was better than another simply b/c he or she attended IVY League schools. It really doesn't work that way.

But just carry on and find out for yourself.

People fixate on the wrong things IMHO.

Finally don't take anything I say personally. I am responding to your message and it's tone, in more than one post from you in this this thread. I could be wrong in terms of where you stand on these points I've made. If so I fully apologize. But I am also sick to death of this same old ridiculous argument. And overall I am more sick to death of the outrageous costs of higher education in this country.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[icalz]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, right? I think she was really mad.

 

[jl lin]

I will not lose sleep on whether you read it or not. It is clearly impossible to discuss something when people aren't willing to engage in active listening and true understanding, so to speak.

Just don't waste time with a silly response of "I don't know what you said, blah, blah, blah." It's emotionally dishonest. What's more, it is completely illogical. But it does show one thing. The fact that you replied that you don't know what was said (You didn't read or seek to understand.) verifies, at least in part, what I was getting from your overall tone and so called "benign" sarcasm to begin with.

Bottom line. You don't want to discuss something logically. You just want to gratify yourself with silly, meaningless comments.

BTW, lol, getting angry on a MB is an incredible waste of energy. What is sad, however, is a person that seeks to be "educated," yet is so clearly careless in her/his ability to reaon.

I suppose that unenlightened bias feels somehow reassuring to you.
You are a paragon of reasoning skills and communication.
How's that for sarcasm? 😉

 

[jvesco22]

I will not lose sleep on whether you read it or not. It is clearly impossible to discuss something when people aren't willing to engage in active listening and true understanding, so to speak.

Just don't waste time with a silly response of "I don't know what you said, blah, blah, blah." It's emotionally dishonest. What's more, it is completely illogical. But it does show one thing. The fact that you replied that you don't know what was said (You didn't read or seek to understand.) verifies, at least in part, what I was getting from your overall tone and so called "benign" sarcasm to begin with.

Bottom line. You don't want to discuss something logically. You just want to gratify yourself with silly, meaningless comments.

BTW, lol, getting angry on a MB is an incredible waste of energy. What is sad, however, is a person that seeks to be "educated," yet is so clearly careless in her/his ability to reaon.

I suppose that unenlightened bias feels somehow reassuring to you.
You are a paragon of reasoning skills and communication.
How's that for sarcasm? 😉

 

[icalz]

I will not lose sleep on whether you read it or not. It is clearly impossible to discuss something when people aren't willing to engage in active listening and true understanding, so to speak.

Just don't waste time with a silly response of "I don't know what you said, blah, blah, blah." It's emotionally dishonest. What's more, it is completely illogical. But it does show one thing. The fact that you replied that you don't know what was said (You didn't read or seek to understand.) verifies, at least in part, what I was getting from your overall tone and so called "benign" sarcasm to begin with.

Bottom line. You don't want to discuss something logically. You just want to gratify yourself with silly, meaningless comments.

BTW, lol, getting angry on a MB is an incredible waste of energy. What is sad, however, is a person that seeks to be "educated," yet is so clearly careless in her/his ability to reaon.

I suppose that unenlightened bias feels somehow reassuring to you.
You are a paragon of reasoning skills and communication.
How's that for sarcasm? 😉

Thank you! Thats the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on SDN. I am even blushing a bit....I do take pride in my reasoning skills and communication, but a paragon? You're being too kind 🙂

 

[jl lin]

Thank you! Thats the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on SDN. I am even blushing a bit....I do take pride in my reasoning skills and communication, but a paragon? You're being too kind 🙂

So do ya now? Pride? 😱


Sadly, somehow how I find that easy to believe.

 

[7starmantis]

 

[jl lin]

😀😀

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

WOW! Your CC is huge. What community college are you talking about?

montgomery college has 3 campus's and roughtly.. 60,000+ students
the science department here is harder then the 4year college... i had a friend go to umaryland and ace general chem 2 while bearly getting a B in chem 1

but yah..
the reason why there are so many that go into the cc is because umaryland requires a 3.8 gpa + 1300 sat..
and there are only like 4 public schools in maryland , frostburg( worse then most cc's), st.mary's, umbc and university of maryland..
and a few privates.. jhu and loyola
and maryland is a state with roughtly 80% of the pop being below 30...
so thats why we have big ass community colleges =3

 

[icalz]

Jl Lin: you're violent and argumentative....I think I like you 🙂

 

[jl lin]

Jl Lin: you're violent and argumentative....I think I like you 🙂

Thanks.

Text me.




😉

 

[icalz]

😍

 

[riverjib]

I know it seems like this question has been asked a numerous amount of times, but here it goes again. I'm just finishing up my first semester of college. I was not able to take any premed classes because of a low math placement and I won't be able to start next semester either. If I take gen chem semesters 1 and 2 over the summer at a local community college, would medical schools look down upon that? Especially since the grade that I earn will not show up on my transcript. I will still be taking organic chemistry as well as the other premed classes at my school and if I do well this should prove I am still capable of doing well in medical school. I am an out of state student so community college is cheaper.

Search "community college" here and you'll get tons of opinions. I finished my A.S. at a CC because I was told that despite my high GPA years ago, med school would want to see my course work completed within a few years of applying. While general bio was easier, the rest of my classes were on par with anything I encountered at a prestigious engineering school nearly ten years earlier. I transferred to finish my bachelor's, and I still believe my coursework at said CC matches anything at my current school.

That, and I have quite a few former classmates from that CC who are currently studying medicine at excellent schools. One is at Hopkins, another just graduated from Georgetown, and quite a few others are at NY state schools and Temple, Drexel, and NYU. Your overall package is what matters, not where you took a few pre-med classes. Just make sure you prove that in upper-level classes and/or your MCAT, if you're doing a post-bacc.

 

[jl lin]

😍

lol