<p>hey hey now! The announcer gots to be neutral!</p>
<p>It could be Don_k and porcupyne as the peoples champs against the ragged oppression from college elites and thier table of ranks, _42, nspeds, and hnbui.</p>
<p>Well that side should be called common sense. With that being said, I am a community college transfer student that would have fallen into the aforementioned "category #3". I came out of high school with a 3.3gpa and in essence had to take the CC route due to my lackluster high school performance.</p>
<p>With that being said...</p>
<p>I am not ashamed that I attend a community college; it is merely a means to an end. Nor am I ashamed of the education I have received while attending a CC. But I would be deceiving myself if I tried to say that the education one can get from a CC is comparable to one you can get from a top-flight university.</p>
<p>You guys, start with principles and precedents which you do not doub't and base all your foundations on. You want to know how stuff works, how hard is it to find out yourself and go have your own labs and experiments, all it takes is motivation and a yearning for learning.</p>
<p>Education is not always a commodity which can be bought with money at a top university. I feel, that no matter where you go for your education, its going to be upto you on WHAT you're going to learn.</p>
<p>_42: true enough, but how does that relate to the question i was asking? why can't a compton cc philosophy professor analyze and interpret kant?</p>
<p>hnbui: you made a sweeping genralization (rather negative one at that)about cc students. all i am saying is that some classes taught in a cc are the same as a university. is the linear algebra, physics, or biology any different from school to school? the fact is the subject matter in those classes are the same regardless of the school you attend. community colleges do not make those subjects any easier.</p>
<p>nspeds: i can easily argue on behalf of a community college professor. i don't not know the extent of their education on the subject they teach. for all i know, the cc professor may very well be an authority on kant. on the other hand, you can't assume anything about said professor's education either. just because a teacher teaches at a cc or some urban high school doesn't automatically mean they've recieved a second rate education. as for interpretation, well you're proving my point. "in your eyes", professors have ruined their reputation through misreadings. others may think that said professor was dead-on in their interpretation.</p>
<p>maybe i should clarify myself. cc education is the same as a university up to a point. people transfer school because a university offers an education that is way beyond the scope of what a cc can offer. if both systems of education were equal on all levels, there would be no point in transferring.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hnbui: you made a sweeping genralization (rather negative one at that)about cc students. all i am saying is that some classes taught in a cc are the same as a university. is the linear algebra, physics, or biology any different from school to school? the fact is the subject matter in those classes are the same regardless of the school you attend. community colleges do not make those subjects any easier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm sorry that my statement has been interperted in a negative way; it ofcourse was not intended to be so.</p>
<p>Yes the linear algebra, physics, and the many other science courses do differ. It's foolish to say that they are consistent in every which way. I dare not say that the linear algebra or physics courses you are taught at Caltech or MIT is comparable to that taught at a local community college.</p>
<p>I would think that community college makes these classes easier.</p>
<p>The overall subject, the basics are the same regardless of place.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i can easily argue on behalf of a community college professor. i don't not know the extent of their education on the subject they teach. for all i know, the cc professor may very well be an authority on kant. on the other hand, you can't assume anything about said professor's education either. just because a teacher teaches at a cc or some urban high school doesn't automatically mean they've recieved a second rate education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you can presuppose that a professor from Harvard, Yale, Rice, and so forth will necessarily be better in terms of providing better analysis and interpretation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
as for interpretation, well you're proving my point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I am not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"in your eyes", professors have ruined their reputation through misreadings. others may think that said professor was dead-on in their interpretation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, the absurd relativism surfaces; there are good and bad interpretations; any professor who argues that the Transcendental Idealism is some sort of normative system clearly needs to re-educate themselves in Kantianism. Any student who agrees with such a professor needs to do their homework. And if you wish to argue that all interpretations are justified because of this relativism, you really need to work on your philosophical framework. </p>
<p>To suppose that all interpretations are relative is to argue that statement P is true, but at the same time, not true, because there is no "true" interpretation. However, this violates the law of contradiction.</p>
<p>By the way, I would re-educate myself in the technical significance of a "sweeping generalization" if I were you.</p>
<p>42_, who goes to where does not suggest the quality of an institution. and I failed to see how it's self-evident that CC is worse, when the same class is taught by the same professor from UC Berkeley, except the class is 50 times smaller than the UCB class.</p>
<p>I don't really give a **** about which school is easier really, if I ended up getting into Stanford, and saved about 80,000 USD of tuition, I win.</p>
<p>another point, there are a fair amount of students who attend community college because of social injustice, such as unavailablity from bright immigrant students (I must confess that I once looked down on CC students as well, but fate made me one of them)</p>
<p>they work just as hard as any dedicated students in the so called "top ten" schools. </p>
<p>last point, school ranking is largely determined by research, not quality of instruction. You can have a really bad teacher (but good researcher), or a really good teacher.</p>
<p>Given the fact that most "top ten" faculties may need to devote time in research, i think it's prudent to say that CC professors have more time to prepare for their class.</p>
<p>nspeds, take your kant argument. Let's say you have a scholar who absolutely knows everything about kant, but what if he is a lousy teacher? (chance is most researchers aren't great teachers to begin with). I would rather walk away with actual knowledge about kant, then to listen to a lecturer who cannot get his point across.</p>
<p>who goes directly suggusts <em>the ease of the school</em>. the curve is better if your compitition isnt as focused or qualified.</p>
<p>blackdream, well you did and that is what I am responding to:
"first, how can you prove community college are easier than universities? this is a common misconception." </p>
<p>I know that some ccs have really good professors from top universities but that is not true about many ccs and we are talking about ccs in general.</p>
<p>Research makes professors better, the best ive had are those that are doing research, they really care about the subject. it's not like these teachers dont have time management skills to balance the two.</p>
<p>btw, you always seem really angry blackdream, here and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Well, with the increase in knowledge there isn't necessarily an increase in communication, or not that I know of anyways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
nspeds, take your kant argument. Let's say you have a scholar who absolutely knows everything about kant, but what if he is a lousy teacher? (chance is most researchers aren't great teachers to begin with). I would rather walk away with actual knowledge about kant, then to listen to a lecturer who cannot get his point across.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) It is better to have an atrocious professor than one who inculcates you in potentially incorrect information.
2) Thus far, all the Kantian scholars I have encountered or have heard of are/were brilliant professors:</p>
<p><a href="http://philosophy.rice.edu/faculty.cfm?doc_id=837%5B/url%5D">http://philosophy.rice.edu/faculty.cfm?doc_id=837</a>
<a href="http://hcs.harvard.edu/%7Ehrp/issues/2003/Korsgaard.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hrp/issues/2003/Korsgaard.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ekorsgaar/%5B/url%5D">http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/</a></p>
<p>I actually had the pleasure of meeting both the first and last individuals on that list and they are brilliant individuals. I heard one of them lecture and was enthralled by their talent and lucidity of their instruction.</p>
<p>"1) It is better to have an atrocious professor than one who inculcates you in potentially incorrect information."</p>
<p>I don't see the difference in what you recieve from them, when they both aren't helpful in the first place.</p>
<p>"2) Thus far, all the Kantian scholars I have encountered or have heard of are/were brilliant professors"</p>
<p>I don't really get what you're conveying, unless you just want to let us know you met some brilliant guys or you want to say that you have never heard of a Kantian scholar who wasn't brilliant.</p>
<p>42_, your argument is based on "the curve is better if your compitition isnt as focused or qualified."</p>
<p>Well, appearently you've never attended a CC.</p>
<p>First, courses for transfer are drastically different the usual courses for stoners/party goer/people with career need. </p>
<p>It's self evident that a wanna-be auto technican does not need organic chem or philosphy, and that is indeed the case.</p>
<p>Therefore, the very classes we (in here we means transfer-oriented CC students) put us in the same boat, same arena, which we must compete against each other.</p>
<p>Therefore, the pool of students that we are competing against are highly competive. Why? Because everyone NEEDs a good GPA. </p>
<p>Not everyone in four year school NEED a good GPA. if they want to stay in, they just need to keep themselve away from that 1.8 or 2.0 GPA, which is easy. therefore, you can always find students in four years schools that are merely striking for a B or C. THEY ARE THE BUFFER TO YOUR CURVE.</p>
<p>In CC however, GPA is very important (for the obvious reason of transfer), therefore everyone in higher level classes are trying their best, putting out more than 80 hours a week to study, to compete against their peers in CC, who are also studying their ass of trying to get a good GPA.</p>
<p>We don;'t have the buffer from those people who just want a B (everyone in upper classes want an A for transfer GPA), therefore, the competition is EXTREMELY cruel.</p>
<p>Last of all, one Stanford student actually choose to attend De Anza's engineering physics class. She told me that the competiveness in that class will prepare her for the even more advanced classes at Stanford.</p>
<p>nspeds: i can presuppose that the compton cc professor used to teach at harvard, etc.</p>
<p>you proved my point when you said "in your eyes". your eyes are not mine nor anyone elses. your thoughts are not mine as mine are not some other person's thoughts. as long as that is the case, there will be different interpretations. no matter how wrong you think they may be.</p>
<p>
if that is not a sweeping generalization of cc students, what is?</p>
<p>Also, I hope you are not Iceberg_Silm from the other board.</p>
<p>also, read my post above, which DISPROVED one of the generalization for CC students. bright students in CC tend to all go in to the same boat and compete for one or two positions in the transfer ship.</p>
<p>Just a question nspeds, have you ever been to Compton community college and listen to its professor's lecture about Kant?</p>
<p>You can't possibly suppose a professor is bad unless you listened to him first hand.</p>
<p>1) are you asking if i am iceberg_slim, as cool as that name is i am not him</p>
<p>2) perhaps de anza does have some competative classes, i dont know. But we are considering all ccs and I can say that most ccs are not feeders for big universities (I got the idea that de anza might be that) and most ccs are comprized of students that are not trying to transfer into colleges. All ccs students are not trying to get the 4.0 and I dont see why the few that need it to transfer cant all be in the top of their class.</p>
<p>3) how can you say that ccs are cuttrough, you seem to want to say that ccs are harder than hs but hs has the same compition for colleges, if not more so. stanford wouldnt let in 20 students from the same hs or 20 from the same cc.</p>
<p>why are you trying to transfer blackdream, if the cc professors are just as good as the college ones?</p>