Here's why I might ask.
anonymous
Graduate education is an enormous investment of public funds into training researchers to conduct inquiry and scholarship. It is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
If someone begins a doctoral programme in their mid or late 50s, I presume (given usual completion times) that they will graduate in their mid 60s. That is late to begin a second career. I don't think it's an unfair question to ask whether the public investment in a graduate education will yield a public benefit in terms of a career spent in scholarly research.
Before you shout 'ageist!', by the way, I have the exact same feeling about those in their 20s or 30s who undertake Ph.Ds for the challenge, the personal accomplishment, because it's on their life-list, etc. etc. The term I like is 'vanity Ph.D.'
Some nontraditional students will pursue serious, important scholarly work after graduating, even in their 60s. Some young students will do bupkis with their costly training. So it's not purely an age thing... but age can have a bearing.
So, in answer to your question, 'why do you ask', I ask because I want to know how you are planning to make use of your set of credentials, paid for with the support of the public purse.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Letters of Recommendation
I asked a professor of English at the University of Arizona whom I had earned an A from in an Honors Class if he would write a letter of recommendation for me. He declined, explaining that I would be taking up a seat that would be better used by a young person who had their whole lives ahead of them.
Why Do You Ask?
I'm often asked why I am going to graduate school at my age, and I used to go into great detail in my response. Now when someone asks, I ask them: Why do you ask? They have a harder time explaining their answer than I do.
What are the Odds?.
What do you think the odds are of a 57 year old Caucasian male getting accepted into a doctoral degree program at Pepperdine University?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Distance Education
I have ten deliverables due within a five day period in my Foundations of Educational Law class. This is a good class with an active instructor, but he's obviously trying to cram the syllabus from a longer semester into our short format. This is what I'm talking about. Distance learners need classes that have been specifically designed for the online environment.
Distance Education
I've been attending traditional classroom courses for the past four years and decided to complete my masters in a mostly on-line environment. I've completed two inline courses so far, and am presently enrolled in my third.
My experience so far has been good, with the exception of one class. For the most part the online courses are well organized, and specific in their requirements. It is nice to follow an organized course of achievement, and I like this aspect of distance learning.
The one course that did not meet my expectations could probably be used in a case study of what not to do in designing an online course. It appears that the instructor attempted to force a fit between a class designed for on campus, and the online format. There were numerous inconsistencies, mass confusion, poorly designed assessments. Worst of all, the instructor became frustrated by all the questions he was receiving and basically held himself incommunicado for the last half of the class.
My experience so far has been good, with the exception of one class. For the most part the online courses are well organized, and specific in their requirements. It is nice to follow an organized course of achievement, and I like this aspect of distance learning.
The one course that did not meet my expectations could probably be used in a case study of what not to do in designing an online course. It appears that the instructor attempted to force a fit between a class designed for on campus, and the online format. There were numerous inconsistencies, mass confusion, poorly designed assessments. Worst of all, the instructor became frustrated by all the questions he was receiving and basically held himself incommunicado for the last half of the class.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Ethics in Educational Law
I decided to pick up the challenge of learning how we enact education laws in the state of Arizona. I bounced around the links that I located on the subject reading whatever I could find to get a good grasp on the subject. I was in fact, able to identify the processes involved that take an education related matter from bill to law. There is a lot of bouncing back and forth between steps of the process, but it is well defined and comprehensible.
I then decided that it would be interesting to find and follow a bill in the State Legislature to see first hand how the process is completed. In searching for subject matter, I visited the Arizona State Board of Education website. On the homepage “Current Events” window, I noticed an announcement that read, “06-12-2009: Superintendent Tom Horne Announces Bill To Be Introduced To Prohibit Ethnic Studies.” Well, this looks interesting, I thought, 2009 and we have a state Superintendent of Education against Ethnic studies. After doing some research, I was able to identify the bill as Senate Bill 1069, before the Arizona State Legislature. I went to their web site and entered the bill number in their search window, but I kept getting a hit on a matter identified as having to do with Justice Court Fees. I could not comprehend a relationship between prohibiting ethnic studies in school and raising justice court fees. That is when I learned about a sneaky little devise used to camouflage controversial legislative issues in order to move them along the legislative process without drawing too much attention. This legislative devise is called a “Strike Everything Amendment.”
Senate Bill 1069 began its life on 01/12/09, when State Senator Paton introduced it under the title, “Justice Court Fees.” The bill had its second reading on 06/04/09 when it was presented to the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee who then voted on the measure. The Rules Committee found on 06/18/09 that the matter was “proper for consideration,” and the Judiciary Committee passed the bill after a vote of 4/3 with the notation “DPA/SE,” which translates to: “do pass amended/strike-everything.” That was the first I heard of a strike everything amendment. I would just like to note that it does not appear that this bill was every considered by the Education Committee even though it certainly deals with education, or at least the denial of it. This is perhaps another benefit of this back door political devise.
I continued my research and found the first version of the bill. There was no mention of the Superintendents plan at all. I then located a document filed by the Arizona State Senate Research Staff, under the name of Christina Estes-Werther addressed to the members of the senate judiciary committee dated 06/12/09. This is the strike everything amendment and it details the plan for the prohibition of teaching ethnic studies in Arizona public schools. The next document in the file is the approved amendment. The Senate Committee adopted the amendment as noted above on 06/18/09. The bill must now go back to the house, and if approved to the governor before it becomes law. Now that it has become public at this late stage, opposition to the bill is growing and interested parties are speaking out against it.
I’ll keep my opinions on the issue to myself, but what I did learn about the legislative process in the State of Arizona leads me to believe that as an educational leader one must consider all resources available when advocating for change. The politics involved in our legislative processes are a reality. I think that this case illustrates the point succinctly. I am not a lawyer, but I would venture to guess that the maneuvering involved in introducing a bill as a “Strike Everything Amendment,” is perfectly legitimate according to the standards of our legal system. However, educational leaders and administrators subscribe to professional standards as well. Standard five deals with fairness and ethics. My own moral compass tells me that what has transpired in regards to Arizona Senate Bill 1069 is neither ethical, nor fair.
I then decided that it would be interesting to find and follow a bill in the State Legislature to see first hand how the process is completed. In searching for subject matter, I visited the Arizona State Board of Education website. On the homepage “Current Events” window, I noticed an announcement that read, “06-12-2009: Superintendent Tom Horne Announces Bill To Be Introduced To Prohibit Ethnic Studies.” Well, this looks interesting, I thought, 2009 and we have a state Superintendent of Education against Ethnic studies. After doing some research, I was able to identify the bill as Senate Bill 1069, before the Arizona State Legislature. I went to their web site and entered the bill number in their search window, but I kept getting a hit on a matter identified as having to do with Justice Court Fees. I could not comprehend a relationship between prohibiting ethnic studies in school and raising justice court fees. That is when I learned about a sneaky little devise used to camouflage controversial legislative issues in order to move them along the legislative process without drawing too much attention. This legislative devise is called a “Strike Everything Amendment.”
Senate Bill 1069 began its life on 01/12/09, when State Senator Paton introduced it under the title, “Justice Court Fees.” The bill had its second reading on 06/04/09 when it was presented to the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee who then voted on the measure. The Rules Committee found on 06/18/09 that the matter was “proper for consideration,” and the Judiciary Committee passed the bill after a vote of 4/3 with the notation “DPA/SE,” which translates to: “do pass amended/strike-everything.” That was the first I heard of a strike everything amendment. I would just like to note that it does not appear that this bill was every considered by the Education Committee even though it certainly deals with education, or at least the denial of it. This is perhaps another benefit of this back door political devise.
I continued my research and found the first version of the bill. There was no mention of the Superintendents plan at all. I then located a document filed by the Arizona State Senate Research Staff, under the name of Christina Estes-Werther addressed to the members of the senate judiciary committee dated 06/12/09. This is the strike everything amendment and it details the plan for the prohibition of teaching ethnic studies in Arizona public schools. The next document in the file is the approved amendment. The Senate Committee adopted the amendment as noted above on 06/18/09. The bill must now go back to the house, and if approved to the governor before it becomes law. Now that it has become public at this late stage, opposition to the bill is growing and interested parties are speaking out against it.
I’ll keep my opinions on the issue to myself, but what I did learn about the legislative process in the State of Arizona leads me to believe that as an educational leader one must consider all resources available when advocating for change. The politics involved in our legislative processes are a reality. I think that this case illustrates the point succinctly. I am not a lawyer, but I would venture to guess that the maneuvering involved in introducing a bill as a “Strike Everything Amendment,” is perfectly legitimate according to the standards of our legal system. However, educational leaders and administrators subscribe to professional standards as well. Standard five deals with fairness and ethics. My own moral compass tells me that what has transpired in regards to Arizona Senate Bill 1069 is neither ethical, nor fair.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Goals or Unrealistic Expectations?
Goals 2000: The Educate America Act in 1994
I believe that goal setting is essential to achievement and progress, and that goals should be set high to encourage excellence. This is particularly important in education where the futures of our children are concerned. However, goals must be realistic and attainable in order to be effective, or negative consequences will flow from good intentions. Setting unrealistic goals leads to inevitable failure, which when repeated with frequency results in disillusionment, diminished self-efficacy and esteem.
After researching the Educate America Act of 1994, I have concluded that many, if not all, of the goals specified were unrealistic and that the act resembles a “wish list” more than it does a legitimate and attainable statement of goals. For example, goal number one states, “All children in America will start school ready to learn.” By use of the superlative “All,” the writers of the goal have established a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Concepts such as 100%, total quality, and the like are rhetorical devices that originated in business, industry and advertising, and politics. Other goals in the act that are based on superlatives are goals: three; four; five; and six. Goal number two is slightly less exuberant, demanding a graduation rate of only ninety percent. It is still unrealistic however, because of the multitude of socio-economic economic issues besides education that are related to the problem and not addressed in the act. Goal number seven appears to be the most realistic on the surface; teachers everywhere should be able to access programs of improvement of their professional skills. Having access does not imply utilization. Nevertheless, the goal is realistic in nature because its attainment is at least possible.
In conclusion, I would say that it is no wonder that the act fell far short of meeting its goals by the year 2000, because they were unrealistic and unattainable in the first place. Initiatives based on nationalistic principals seldom achieve their goals.
I believe that goal setting is essential to achievement and progress, and that goals should be set high to encourage excellence. This is particularly important in education where the futures of our children are concerned. However, goals must be realistic and attainable in order to be effective, or negative consequences will flow from good intentions. Setting unrealistic goals leads to inevitable failure, which when repeated with frequency results in disillusionment, diminished self-efficacy and esteem.
After researching the Educate America Act of 1994, I have concluded that many, if not all, of the goals specified were unrealistic and that the act resembles a “wish list” more than it does a legitimate and attainable statement of goals. For example, goal number one states, “All children in America will start school ready to learn.” By use of the superlative “All,” the writers of the goal have established a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Concepts such as 100%, total quality, and the like are rhetorical devices that originated in business, industry and advertising, and politics. Other goals in the act that are based on superlatives are goals: three; four; five; and six. Goal number two is slightly less exuberant, demanding a graduation rate of only ninety percent. It is still unrealistic however, because of the multitude of socio-economic economic issues besides education that are related to the problem and not addressed in the act. Goal number seven appears to be the most realistic on the surface; teachers everywhere should be able to access programs of improvement of their professional skills. Having access does not imply utilization. Nevertheless, the goal is realistic in nature because its attainment is at least possible.
In conclusion, I would say that it is no wonder that the act fell far short of meeting its goals by the year 2000, because they were unrealistic and unattainable in the first place. Initiatives based on nationalistic principals seldom achieve their goals.
Technology in the Classroom
Had a great class last night with Sean Mendoza of NAU. There are only nine students in the class and we did presentations on "Smart Technology." We had some interesting discussions about how technology permeates just about every level of our existence these days. We never did resolve whether or not it's a good thing. We did agree that technology in the classroom is here to stay, and that teachers need to be proficient in that technology in order to gain the most from it.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Random Quotations From books
The national government had effectively overturned the Wheeler-Howard Act and had reverted to assimilationist policies of the previous century.
Grab the nearest book to you, turn to page 56 and go the 5th sentence. Post that sentence!Sunny Lybarger Rocks!
I finished a class called Native Americans in Film at the University of Arizona last week and I really enjoyed it. The instructor for the class was Sunny Lybarger. Sunny is a Native American, and she is a doctoral student in American Indian Studies. This was one of the best classes I had at the university, and it was because of Sunny. She really knows her stuff, and she made the class both interesting and challenging. I would highly recommend taking a class with her if you get the chance.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
My Summer of 2009
This has been a terrific and productive summer for me so far. In May I graduated with my class at the University of Arizona and three of my four grown children came all the way from New Jersey and Colorado to see me graduate. It was a wonderful experience that affected my children positively. My youngest son Kevin, who graduated from high school last year decided to enroll in Pima Community College. I couldn't be more thrilled!
On the productive side, I completed two upper level undergraduate courses to satisfy my second bachelors requirements, as well as my first two graduate courses and it's only the first week of July. I am presently enrolled in two graduate classes, one online and one in person, and will complete them on August 4th.
So how's that? 18 credits in three months!
I'll be off from August 4th to the 24th, and I plan on taking a trip with my youngest son up to see my other children, and their children in Colorado Springs.
Life These Days is Very Good for the Non-Traditional Student!
To all you other Baby Boomers out there thinking about going back to college--Don't think about it, just do it!
On the productive side, I completed two upper level undergraduate courses to satisfy my second bachelors requirements, as well as my first two graduate courses and it's only the first week of July. I am presently enrolled in two graduate classes, one online and one in person, and will complete them on August 4th.
So how's that? 18 credits in three months!
I'll be off from August 4th to the 24th, and I plan on taking a trip with my youngest son up to see my other children, and their children in Colorado Springs.
Life These Days is Very Good for the Non-Traditional Student!
To all you other Baby Boomers out there thinking about going back to college--Don't think about it, just do it!
Introduction
My name is Marty and I am a 57 year old graduate student at Northern Arizona University pursuing a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership. I graduated from the University of Arizona in May 2009, with Bachelor's Degrees in English Literature and Creative Writing. I received my Associates Degree in May 2007 from Pima Community College in Tucson, Arizona.
With the exception of 15 credits that I earned in 1970, my entire college career has been spent as a Non-traditional student. In other words, I'm old.
I will be blogging about my experiences as a older student, past, present & future.
With the exception of 15 credits that I earned in 1970, my entire college career has been spent as a Non-traditional student. In other words, I'm old.
I will be blogging about my experiences as a older student, past, present & future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)