...
Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCI. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The C stands for Crazy
...
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Dispirited 76
Imagine this scenario: You've applied for early decision to a favorite college and you get an official email informing you that, yes, you have been accepted, and that means you must, by contract, cancel your application for all the other schools to which you've applied.
Then, a few hours later, after you've excitedly and giddily told all your friends and every family member as far as your great aunts and your cousins once removed, and perhaps already sent those letters to the other colleges, you get an email from the same college saying, effectively, "Whoops, you weren't supposed to get that because we in fact have rejected your application."
That's what happened with seventy-six-applicants to Vassar College.
Now the question is what to do about it. So far, Vassar has seen it fit just to offer little more than a mealy-mouthed apology. To me, instead of telling these students to just suck it up, this is a good chance for the university itself to acknowledge that they, and not those applicants, are the ones who screwed up, and do the right thing. The onus is on Vassar to fix this, not the students who were inadvertently admitted. It's not right to just tell them, as some commenters have, that life sucks and then take no responsibility.
If Vassar is like the University of California, which I attended for my undergrad studies, then it has some sort of minimum eligibility requirements above which applicants are considered to be "qualified" (this is relevant to affirmative action issues, too, but that's another post for another time). All of those seventy-six who do meet the minimum eligibility requirements should have their acceptance honored.
Those among the seventy-six who do not meet the minimum eligibility requirements should still have their acceptance honored, but they should be sat down with counselors and university officials and have their individually analyzed prospects for success at Vassar explained in great detail (and perhaps this should be done with those who did meet the minimum eligibility). But the final decision whether to matriculate should be up to the prospective student.
An important part of this idea is that all of the seventy-six should be given the option of going to another school with Vassar paying their first semester's tuition at that other school, though no such payment should be made if they choose to go to Vassar instead.
In the end, seventy-six students is merely thirteen percent of the 2012 freshman class: Vassar can turn this liability into a unique opportunity. It will be interesting to see how these seventy-six fare over the next four to five years. In fact, it would be an interesting experiment to test how good Vassar's admissions process is at predicting student success.
The subsequent report could be called "The Spirit of the Seventy-Six." No, I am not joking about any of this. Vassar, go and do the right thing.
[This whole adventure is a pleasant reminder that some American students still have that fervor for higher education that dominates in South Korea but seems painfully lacking as a major driver of behavior in the United States.]
...
Then, a few hours later, after you've excitedly and giddily told all your friends and every family member as far as your great aunts and your cousins once removed, and perhaps already sent those letters to the other colleges, you get an email from the same college saying, effectively, "Whoops, you weren't supposed to get that because we in fact have rejected your application."
That's what happened with seventy-six-applicants to Vassar College.
Now the question is what to do about it. So far, Vassar has seen it fit just to offer little more than a mealy-mouthed apology. To me, instead of telling these students to just suck it up, this is a good chance for the university itself to acknowledge that they, and not those applicants, are the ones who screwed up, and do the right thing. The onus is on Vassar to fix this, not the students who were inadvertently admitted. It's not right to just tell them, as some commenters have, that life sucks and then take no responsibility.
 |
| Vassar College models its buildings after those at Korea University. |
If Vassar is like the University of California, which I attended for my undergrad studies, then it has some sort of minimum eligibility requirements above which applicants are considered to be "qualified" (this is relevant to affirmative action issues, too, but that's another post for another time). All of those seventy-six who do meet the minimum eligibility requirements should have their acceptance honored.
Those among the seventy-six who do not meet the minimum eligibility requirements should still have their acceptance honored, but they should be sat down with counselors and university officials and have their individually analyzed prospects for success at Vassar explained in great detail (and perhaps this should be done with those who did meet the minimum eligibility). But the final decision whether to matriculate should be up to the prospective student.
An important part of this idea is that all of the seventy-six should be given the option of going to another school with Vassar paying their first semester's tuition at that other school, though no such payment should be made if they choose to go to Vassar instead.
In the end, seventy-six students is merely thirteen percent of the 2012 freshman class: Vassar can turn this liability into a unique opportunity. It will be interesting to see how these seventy-six fare over the next four to five years. In fact, it would be an interesting experiment to test how good Vassar's admissions process is at predicting student success.
The subsequent report could be called "The Spirit of the Seventy-Six." No, I am not joking about any of this. Vassar, go and do the right thing.
[This whole adventure is a pleasant reminder that some American students still have that fervor for higher education that dominates in South Korea but seems painfully lacking as a major driver of behavior in the United States.]
...
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Three-year bachelor's degrees at the University of California
That is one of the proposals being suggested as a cost-saving or revenue-earning mechanism for the financially beleaguered UC system:
By cutting down on the time spent in school — especially if it is because of a curtailment of required classes — some students will get shortchanged when it comes to something like, writing skills, critical thinking, or even exposure to a wide range of subject matter. Frankly, I think every class I took at UCI was valuable and I would have been worse off for not having taken them. (This is one reason I'm opposed to the heavy emphasis on AP tests in lieu of required courses). And that's not even considering whether a twenty-one-year-old is ready for the real world (knowing what I know now, I would be far more inclined to hire a four-year graduate than a three-year graduate, even with the same coursework and performance).
And for those of you who wonder what Korean Immigration would do with three-year degrees from the prestigious University of California, well, they would still be the equivalent of a four-year degree, so I don't think there's much to worry about there.
The University of California on Tuesday began considering dramatic changes in the way it educates its students and raises revenue, including whether to offer three-year bachelor's degrees and enroll more out-of-state undergraduates.When I was there (I graduated from UCI in the 1990s), it was all but impossible to get out in just four years, even if one were to aggressively knock down graduation requirements during summer school. But then again, why would one want to? Sure, you can save money by being in school only four years instead of five, but three years plus summers is about the same cost as four years anyway.
UC's Commission on the Future heard its first set of proposals aimed at making the 10-campus system more efficient while preserving its academic strengths. Some ideas are sure to be controversial as they are discussed over the next few months, officials said.
"Some recommendations you may like a lot. Some you may think are terrible. But that's OK. They are important ideas to put forward," UC Regents Chairman Russell S. Gould said at the commission's meeting at UC San Francisco.
Proposals from the commission's five subcommittees include: encouraging some students to complete bachelor's degrees in three years through extra summer sessions and fewer requirements; doubling the number of out-of-state students, who now make up 5% of undergraduates and pay significantly higher fees; charging more for the most popular campuses, including UC Berkeley and UCLA; and expanding online course offerings.
By cutting down on the time spent in school — especially if it is because of a curtailment of required classes — some students will get shortchanged when it comes to something like, writing skills, critical thinking, or even exposure to a wide range of subject matter. Frankly, I think every class I took at UCI was valuable and I would have been worse off for not having taken them. (This is one reason I'm opposed to the heavy emphasis on AP tests in lieu of required courses). And that's not even considering whether a twenty-one-year-old is ready for the real world (knowing what I know now, I would be far more inclined to hire a four-year graduate than a three-year graduate, even with the same coursework and performance).
And for those of you who wonder what Korean Immigration would do with three-year degrees from the prestigious University of California, well, they would still be the equivalent of a four-year degree, so I don't think there's much to worry about there.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Orange County crime story of the day
This incident has apparently caused a bit of a stir at my undergraduate alma mater, UCI. Eleven UCI and UC Riverside students (not twelve as originally reported) apparently associated with the UCI Muslim Student Union (including its president) were arrested for loudly disrupting a talk given by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Even before the talk, the UCI Muslim Student Union had been vocal in its opposition to the visit.
Below is an Orange County Register video of the highlights of the incident.
Okay, then. The professor losing his cool was Mark Petracca, whose class I took once. Nice guy.
On the one hand, I can understand* the utter frustration of groups opposed to some of Israel's more egregious policies (though not if they're simply opposed to the existence of Israel in general or a large Jewish population in the area), but preventing someone else's talk does not seem to me to be respect for free speech. Protesting outside is a different matter; asking tough but fairly worded questions after the talk would be my preferred way to go.
Then again, I'm not so sure arresting them for raucously interrupting a speech is the right thing either?The OCR says they were "arrested on suspicion of disrupting a speech" (and I wonder if infringement of civil rights could be tacked onto that). What does that accomplish that escorting the disruptive students from the venue wouldn't? Maybe the problem here is that no one really understands or respects free speech.
Ironic, I guess, that the talk was given by UCI's law school and its department of political science.
* In Hawaii there is a vehemently anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian group, but rather than run by mostly Muslim students, it is largely made up of Nordic Christians from one of the more liberal sects (we Christians love sects, and we have lots of sects), whose mailing list I inadvertently ended up on, where I got to see the passion they have for a group of people they see as dying a slow and painful death at the hands of a cruel oppressor with no moral code. Their opposition is not anti-Jewish, it would seem, as a lot of their own members or supporters, not to mention journalists and writers they cite, are Jews or Israelis themselves.
Below is an Orange County Register video of the highlights of the incident.
Okay, then. The professor losing his cool was Mark Petracca, whose class I took once. Nice guy.
On the one hand, I can understand* the utter frustration of groups opposed to some of Israel's more egregious policies (though not if they're simply opposed to the existence of Israel in general or a large Jewish population in the area), but preventing someone else's talk does not seem to me to be respect for free speech. Protesting outside is a different matter; asking tough but fairly worded questions after the talk would be my preferred way to go.
Then again, I'm not so sure arresting them for raucously interrupting a speech is the right thing either?The OCR says they were "arrested on suspicion of disrupting a speech" (and I wonder if infringement of civil rights could be tacked onto that). What does that accomplish that escorting the disruptive students from the venue wouldn't? Maybe the problem here is that no one really understands or respects free speech.
Ironic, I guess, that the talk was given by UCI's law school and its department of political science.
* In Hawaii there is a vehemently anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian group, but rather than run by mostly Muslim students, it is largely made up of Nordic Christians from one of the more liberal sects (we Christians love sects, and we have lots of sects), whose mailing list I inadvertently ended up on, where I got to see the passion they have for a group of people they see as dying a slow and painful death at the hands of a cruel oppressor with no moral code. Their opposition is not anti-Jewish, it would seem, as a lot of their own members or supporters, not to mention journalists and writers they cite, are Jews or Israelis themselves.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Oh, is that tomorrow?
Inspired by Ask A Korean, I've written the following post. First, his suggestion:
After the NFL left Orange County (the Rams) and Los Angeles (the Raiders), there has been little point in watching professional football. Sure, we have the Chargers in neighboring San Diego County, but they're all the way down there.
Simply put, for me the Superbowl is only exciting in that clever new television commercials will be available, and Golden Palace dim sum restaurant will be a little less crowded. I literally had to look it up on Wikipedia to verify that the Superbowl is in fact tomorrow. [Just for sh¡ts and g¡ggles, I tried to alter the Superbowl 2010 entry to say that the game had been postponed until the 14th due to heavy rains in Southern California — I'm not making that part up — but you have to sign in to make edits, and ever since Google's problems in China, Wikipedia has hired some real mean thugs to enforce their rules.]
I must admit that I've gotten into college football since coming to Hawaii. The University of Hawaii has a pretty decent team, the Warriors (the only undefeated team in the regular season back in 2007), and since it's the closest thing the good people of the Aloha State have to a pro ball team, everybody follows them. Game day at Aloha Stadium is packed with a bunch of people who themselves have no direct affiliation with UH except that their taxes help subsidize the place.
I myself went to a game, and explained how football works to two Japanese friends who had fun even though they'd never seen football in their life. Then we proceeded to get on the wrong freeway and ended up on the other side of the island, which is why I now own a GPS unit.
I never got into college football while at UCI because UCI has no football team. The running gag is the t-shirts that say "UCI football — undefeated since 1965." Why ruin that?
[above: Currently, we UCI students and alumni are able to enjoy the presence of these young women only at basketball games, where the Anteaters have a decent, but inconsistent team. We tend to beat UCLA and UNLV about, oh, half the time, which isn't bad. Zot!]
Anyway, I think The Korean makes a very good point about promoting "American football" (미식축구, mishik ch'ukku) in East Asia to plant the seed of interest in the sport. Folks like Hines Ward (and now Scott Fujita, I guess) can and will bring more and more attention to the sport in Korea and Japan, and a couple of really big Chinese guys could become the Yao Mings of professional football.
The quasi-NFL team here in Hawaii brings in talent from the Pacific Islands, particularly Samoa, and many of them go onto the NFL, which sparks even more interest. The same could work in Asia, much as Major League Baseball and FIFA soccer have done.
[above: I kid you not when I say that this was the top image available when I googled "미식축구." So who am I to argue?]
Do you want to spread football to other countries? Then bring a goddamn franchise to Los Angeles.To which I respond, in my typical segue-prone manner...
After the NFL left Orange County (the Rams) and Los Angeles (the Raiders), there has been little point in watching professional football. Sure, we have the Chargers in neighboring San Diego County, but they're all the way down there.
Simply put, for me the Superbowl is only exciting in that clever new television commercials will be available, and Golden Palace dim sum restaurant will be a little less crowded. I literally had to look it up on Wikipedia to verify that the Superbowl is in fact tomorrow. [Just for sh¡ts and g¡ggles, I tried to alter the Superbowl 2010 entry to say that the game had been postponed until the 14th due to heavy rains in Southern California — I'm not making that part up — but you have to sign in to make edits, and ever since Google's problems in China, Wikipedia has hired some real mean thugs to enforce their rules.]
I must admit that I've gotten into college football since coming to Hawaii. The University of Hawaii has a pretty decent team, the Warriors (the only undefeated team in the regular season back in 2007), and since it's the closest thing the good people of the Aloha State have to a pro ball team, everybody follows them. Game day at Aloha Stadium is packed with a bunch of people who themselves have no direct affiliation with UH except that their taxes help subsidize the place.
I myself went to a game, and explained how football works to two Japanese friends who had fun even though they'd never seen football in their life. Then we proceeded to get on the wrong freeway and ended up on the other side of the island, which is why I now own a GPS unit.
I never got into college football while at UCI because UCI has no football team. The running gag is the t-shirts that say "UCI football — undefeated since 1965." Why ruin that?
Anyway, I think The Korean makes a very good point about promoting "American football" (미식축구, mishik ch'ukku) in East Asia to plant the seed of interest in the sport. Folks like Hines Ward (and now Scott Fujita, I guess) can and will bring more and more attention to the sport in Korea and Japan, and a couple of really big Chinese guys could become the Yao Mings of professional football.
The quasi-NFL team here in Hawaii brings in talent from the Pacific Islands, particularly Samoa, and many of them go onto the NFL, which sparks even more interest. The same could work in Asia, much as Major League Baseball and FIFA soccer have done.
Friday, November 20, 2009
UCI and AES
We've already seen a connection between the anti-AES movement and Irvine, where Andrea Vandom and ATEK sought to use Korea's vulnerability to "shame politics," in part by trying to get the mayor or Irvine involved with their effort to remove objectionable material from the Anti-English Spectrum site — solely because he's Korean-American.
I really wish they hadn't done that. What little opportunity for good to come out of that tactic is overshadowed by how badly it can blow up in a lot of people's faces: the Korean-American mayor for getting distracted with an issue that has nothing to do with his constituents but everything to do with him being a Korean-American, and Ms Vandom and ATEK themselves for making veiled threats in public that if the Naver thing doesn't go their way they will try to use that to tarnish Korea's image. People tend to not like things like that. Big resentment-builder and a bad way to win people to your cause.
Especially when you've failed to first go through proper channels anyway.
Anyway, the newspaper at my undergraduate alma mater, UC Irvine (Go Anteaters! Zot!) has written up a piece. It turns out Ms Vandom and I are alumni of the same school, which is why, it appears, she brought this to the attention of New University, the school paper. I'm going to fisk this later, after a project is over, but for now here's the link.
(HT to Popular Gusts)
I really wish they hadn't done that. What little opportunity for good to come out of that tactic is overshadowed by how badly it can blow up in a lot of people's faces: the Korean-American mayor for getting distracted with an issue that has nothing to do with his constituents but everything to do with him being a Korean-American, and Ms Vandom and ATEK themselves for making veiled threats in public that if the Naver thing doesn't go their way they will try to use that to tarnish Korea's image. People tend to not like things like that. Big resentment-builder and a bad way to win people to your cause.
Especially when you've failed to first go through proper channels anyway.
Anyway, the newspaper at my undergraduate alma mater, UC Irvine (Go Anteaters! Zot!) has written up a piece. It turns out Ms Vandom and I are alumni of the same school, which is why, it appears, she brought this to the attention of New University, the school paper. I'm going to fisk this later, after a project is over, but for now here's the link.
(HT to Popular Gusts)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)