Best higher & continuing education books according to redditors

We found 218 Reddit comments discussing the best higher & continuing education books. We ranked the 123 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Subcategories:

College guides
Graduate school guides
Business school guides books
Law school guides
Medical school guides
Adult & continuing education books
College & university financial aid books
Vocational education books
Higher education administration books
Higher education test preparation books

Top Reddit comments about Higher & Continuing Education:

u/therealprotonk · 416 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

I'm very distrustful of such claims. What is considered a "jobless degree" today was a perfectly reasonable degree 30 years ago. We crack jokes about philosophy majors or english majors or history majors but there is nothing inherently bad about those majors.

We compare them to hard science majors or engineering majors without examining what exactly distinguishes them. Consensus on reddit appears to be that engineering majors are hard and liberal arts majors are easy. This is probably empirically valid in most US colleges but it wasn't always the case. We used to have a serious liberal arts program in this country and you could expect to devote a considerable amount of effort into getting a history degree or a philosophy degree (or any of the humanities). The idea was "liberal arts" meant rigorous preparation for life in general--critical faculties, writing skills, etc.

A few things happened on the way to the forum. In the late 20th century college ceased to be the limited preserve of the rich and dedicated. Rather for the first time a significant percentage of Americans would attend college--partially due to the GI bill but also due to the spread of secondary education. Go have a look at the percentage of americans with high school diplomas pre WWII. It's pretty amazing. This rise in enrollment coincided with a much less fortuitous change--the ascendance of the business school. Expanded from an original mission to produce (at the undergraduate level) book-keepers and (at the graduate level) managers, the business school has fashioned itself as a generalist trade school with a more expensive tuition. In doing so it has produced a much higher percentage of wealthy alumni (arguably the true goal of a university) who have in turn spent a great deal of money on the schools. Because of this cycle, the goal of business schools has metastasized to other departments--college must be considered a training ground for future employment.

The first thing to suffer in the training ground mentality is the humanities. Who needs to know about shakespeare or Weber (or Webster!) in order to manage a factory. Here we get to the last unfortunate coincidence.

At the time when liberal arts departments should have been mounting a concerted argument in their defense, they were engaged in internecine strife over cultural politics. The 60s (and really the 70s) marked a watershed in the humanities and social sciences. Colleges which had been segregating student bodies (yes, even into the 60s and even big, important colleges) now faced a huge backlash from students and faculty and opened departments devoted to post-colonial study, feminist and black/latino issues. don't get me wrong. All of those departments needed to be opened up. anyone who says that we were learning a complete (or even moderately honest/comprehensive) history when it was all white men is ignorant of the actual goings on. But I digress. These professors and students didn't just devote themselves to teaching black/latino/NA/feminist history. They relished in their victory and focused on the meta-issues like historiography and feminist/marxist/nationalist social theory. The snake began to eat its own tail and outside observers could see it. By the time the humanities awoke from their post-watershed slumber it was too late. The funding and students had gone, along with the expectation that liberal arts meant a strong and rigorous education rather than a simple "rounding out" of a business or engineering student.

There are some other factors at work here. Rising cost and student mobility (compare the average distance traveled for a student in 1960 w/ 1990 from high school to college) have given rise to an entitlement in the student body which the faculty isn't all that quick to disabuse. One way it has been phrased is that students don't really like homework and professors don't like it either, so they both agree to an equilibrium with less of it (that's from an omnibus study on grade inflation--I can find the cite but it may take me a while). "Good" degrees may just be those in fields which due to their own cultural leanings haven't succumbed to lowered standards or lack of rigor. In some cases these are art classes (seriously talk to a BFA student at one of the big private art colleges, their workload is insane). In some cases these are math or engineering majors. But in other places they may be philosophy majors or anthropology majors or econ or poly sci.

Whew. Sorry that's probably way long.

tl;dr American education underwent some serious shit in the last 60 years and we haven't got it all figured out yet.

Edit: some sources just to let people see what I am and am not pulling out of my ass:

  • Jerome Karabel's The Chosen isn't about this issue per se but it does give a great window into how restrictive (in terms or race/class) Ivy Leagues were before WWII
  • Journal of Economic Perspectives article on grade inflation
  • There is a great book on the rise of the American MBA program in the 20th century whose name escapes me
  • On the rise of the "hard social sciences" and government funded lab work from the 30s to the 70s you can read Philip Mirowski's Machine Dreams. I didn't really talk about this above either but it is in the mix as well.
u/cuddlebadger · 66 pointsr/TrueReddit

Except the idea of "character" on applications is specifically created to be a black box that magically, we-don't-know-why-it-keeps-doing-that-honestly, chucks out far more Asian applicants than any other race.

The black box used to be directed against Jews, but now it's a truly egalitarian holistic system that just so happens to hate Asians? Bullshit.

"Chastened by their recent experience with the traditional system of admission examinations, which had begun yielding the 'wrong' [Wong lol] students, the leaders of the Big Three devised a new admissions regime that allowed them to accept - and reject - whomever they desired. ... The centerpiece of the new policy would be "character" —a quality thought to be in short supply among Jews but present in abundance among high-status Protestants."

u/hucareshokiesrul · 21 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Fwiw, they do this more for white people than they do for black people. Athletes (most athletes at places like Harvard play sports like squash, not basketball) and legacies make up a large percentage of the student body.

If you're interested, here is a really interesting book talking about the history of admission at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. These places were built by and for prominent male WASPS, and they're still the ones who fund it, so there are all kinds of things built in to ensure that people like them still get in, namely easier admission for legacies and athletes.

A major point of the book is that the idea of merit in this sense is kind of made up. They create a class of the kinds of people they like and say that it's based on merit. They used to basically just use test scores, then those schools started filling up with Jews, so they decided to assess "character" as well, which meant basically meant being WASPy. Now it's kind of the same thing but with Asians. They still rely heavily on "character" and "leadership." The main thing is that it's a balancing act between a ton of different interests, and most of those interests are rich old white dudes.


Edit: Found this:
“Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600 point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage which is 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.”

u/Bunmyaku · 12 pointsr/ELATeachers

This is the book I use. It's a goldmine of strategies.

u/cj814 · 11 pointsr/ABCDesis

What does that have to do with race? You can consider everything you listed in a race neutral manner. You might find it interesting that UCLA, when trying race-neutral admissions a while back to comply with CA's Prop 209, didn't end up with the number of blacks and Latinos they desired. They just ended up with a bunch of poor Asians!

u/Not_in_KS_anymore · 10 pointsr/ELATeachers

I love the text Critical Encounters in High School Critical Encounters in HS English — she has tons of good activities.

One that I’ve used before is to create lists of questions typical of several lenses and have the students do station work as they rotate through. You can do this with a full text, an extract, etc.

u/silly_walks_ · 8 pointsr/AskHistorians

From around the 1880s until as late as the 1940s, the "Ivy League" actually had a terrible reputation for academic rigor, mostly because of its class-based admission practices.

So those schools were, and remain, exceptionally elite. In 1950, for example, 278 students from elite prep schools applied to Harvard and 245 were accepted. The acceptance rate from Exeter and Andover was 94 percent.

Even today Harvard posted its lowest acceptance margins in history -- only 5.9%.


edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted.

u/DWShimoda · 7 pointsr/MGTOW

>Has the concept of the academic institution become inept and obsolete in 2018? Is it now just a place for the children of the upper middle classes to party for four years and learn about art history and men see it as a scam?

Ayup -- Cf WORTHLESS

u/YinYang-Mills · 7 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

I am a PhD student now, so I'll share my thoughts that may be relevant for you. I am going to suggest a somewhat aggressive timeline that I personally think optimizes your time while still preparing you to be a good PhD applicant, which basically comes down to: research experience and your physics GRE, more on those below.

If your not redoing a whole degree (which you should not) then you really just need 2 things for a good PhD application: the more or less standard "core" undergrad courses- Modern Physics, Thermodynamics, E&M, and Quantum, and secondly- RESEARCH EXPERIENCE (research spiel in next paragraph). You could really do the core requirements in a year, but that leaves you with a screwy PhD application timeline. So spreading your undergrad courses and research over 2 years is reasonable. Additionally the core course mentioned are primarily what is covered on the physics GRE. I would start familiarizing yourself with the content of the pGRE immediately after modern physics since you are on a compressed timeline. Ok now on to the research spiel.

The purpose of doing a PhD and being a physicist is primarily to do physics research. If you don't like research, then you won't like being a physicist. Luckily you have a programming background, so you could get involved with research pretty quickly (virtually all research involves some sort of programming these days).

There is so much more to say with regards to grad school, but I will refer you to the following book

https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Grad-School-Physics-physical/dp/1499732244

Which will fill in the rest of the details and elaborate on what I've said. I really don't think I could say much more that won't be repeating what is already said in the book.

I will say that physics research involving quantum mechanics directly will be theoretical, and the main areas where researchers eat quantum mechanics for breakfast are: cosmology, particle and nuclear, condensed matter. For experiment you may or may not need to know quantum mechanics very well.

Astronomy is basically experimental astrophysics, and is all about data collection and analysis, with tons and tons of algorithms implemented along the way.

I myself am in theoretical nuclear and particle physics mainly focused on simulation. Hope I have helped you in some way!

u/Esqulax · 7 pointsr/GAMSAT

Take a deep breath.

You are just overwhelming yourself and over-thinking the whole thing.
As you know, GAMSAT is all about 'Reasoning' - So, for section 3, all the answers are there for you to figure out. Any knowledge you have on a subject is there to cut through all the lingo, so you can figure out the relevant information quickly without getting bogged down in long words.

Sounds like you are not too long out of school, so you'd be more revising stuff rather than learning new stuff. Maybe pick up an A-level Chemistry and Organic Chemistry revision book.
Like This or This

Don't focus TOO hard on remembering facts, Your section 3 score is pretty good so it's just a bit of polish.

As for section 1 - It's gonna be.. Just do practice questions. Maybe get a UMAT (or old UKCAT) question book like this as it tests similar critical thinking skills.

As for section 2 - It might be worth considering using some of the 'Marking' resources offered by a few of the online GAMSAT resources.
Sorry to say bud, but the best way to practice is to put pen to paper.
I think once you start reviewing some of the Chem stuff, the train will start rolling, you'll feel like you are making positive steps which will clear your mind a bit and get cracking with those essays.

u/anon338 · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism
u/pigs_have_fl0wn · 6 pointsr/edmproduction

I would check out most of Cal Newport's recent writings. He received his PhD in Computer Science from MIT, and is now teaching at Georgetown.

His main thesis is deliberate practice consists of lots of different facets, most of which aren't necessarily thought about. While his work focuses a lot on improving work in "knowledge fields" it is drawn mostly from creative pursuits. He argues that thinking about your habits for practicing and learning (meta-habits) are just as important as sitting down to practice or learn. For example, knowing how to build a clear path of improvement and success in learning the piano is as important as sitting down and working through the hard parts. Sometimes the hardest part is simply figuring out where it is wisest to invest your time.


His article "The Deliberate Creative" I found to be particularly enlightening, among others. He's also been published in the New York Times, The Economist, and has five bestselling books.

On a side note, I originally found him looking for ways to improve my study habits, which is what he originally wrote about as an undergraduate. Any current high school or college students would benefit GREATLY (IMO) from his blog and first three books. Seriously, the guy has some great stuff.

u/tikael · 5 pointsr/PhysicsStudents

Not likely. Those scores are possibly low enough that many schools wouldn't even look at your application. How is your research? Maybe try a lower ranked school than Boulder, possibly look at a masters program that could transfer into a PhD. Check out this book and look for advice on places like /r/gradadmissions. If a professor at Boulder knows you or is impressed with you then you might have some luck getting past a bad score, the physics GRE is even ignored at many schools, but those general scores should be higher, especially quantitative.

A gap year isn't a terrible thing, I'm in one now and improved my physics gre score from 50th to 80th percentile and got MUCH better at writing the application essays as well as got some more time with research. This also gave me time to apply for fee waivers and really research potential advisors. If you do take a gap year organize a GRE study group at your university, it will help your scores and cannot hurt to have your recommenders see you on campus making improvements. Also check out /r/physicsgre if you go to retake the test.

u/omar954 · 5 pointsr/TrueAskReddit

yes

You're going to have your prioritize and manage your time really well. You can still have of fun in college even you need to get really good grades.I recommend you read this book.

u/mjgtwo · 4 pointsr/RPI

/u/kpop5000 is probably thinking of this book, which references RPI a couple times, https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Faculty-Benjamin-Ginsberg/dp/0199975434

u/scarieb · 4 pointsr/Professors

The companion to this book (https://www.amazon.com/dp/162036316X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_Rl5PBb744QVE4) was published first. It outlines a clear strategy and how to help present metacognition to students. It goes into how to help students recognize their responsibility to the learning process. Its intention is to be presented after one of the first exams, since students often receive lower than expected scores. I use the framework from the book for my class, and I had the privilege of meeting with Dr. MCGuire to discuss my implementation and her insights. I highly recommend diving in if you’d like a clear strategy you can implement.

Overall, I do recommend the student version of this book to my students (but don’t require it), and I’ve also scaffolded many metacognitive activities to help students learn how to learn.

edit: spelling

u/kickstand · 4 pointsr/AskReddit

You forgot to mention the Higher Education Bubble that is ready to burst any day now.

u/SUJALSINTHEHOUSEYEAW · 4 pointsr/6thForm

this one

I found the maths section harder in the book than the real thing though

u/Batman_MGTOW · 4 pointsr/MGTOW

You should buy "Worthless: The indispensible guide to choosing the right major" by Aaron Clarey on Amazon. It is 4.93$ on Kindle (paperback costs 12$) and is going to save you lots of money in student loans by showing you what the best degrees are and which ones you must avoid at all costs. It is thanks to Aaron Clarey that I have gone back to college to major in electrical engineering. I found him through Terrence Popp's youtube channel, he is one of his sponsors. He gives amazing career advice, he is not a MGTOW but he is still very much red pilled though I would put him more in the purple piller category because he believes in NAWALTs but that does not matter for what you are seeking. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B006N0THIM/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

u/Theunforgivingjew · 3 pointsr/IBO

Use medify.co.uk to revise for UKCAT, I used it thoroughly but I panicked during the first section of the test because I am a slow reader. Overall score was 700,

breakdown
Reading- 600
maths-800
non verbal reasoning (the shapes thing)- 840
Verbal reasoning- 560 (i used an old book for this, and they changed the logarithms for the questions that year, so my answers were given incorrect, even though in practice i was scoring the highest in this section)

As for university recommendations, I suggest you look through this forum page which discusses which Uni's to apply to depending on your strengths. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Applying_to_Medical_School_using_your_Strengths

Lastly if you do get accepted for an interview, make sure you use this book for interview prep

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Interviews-Questions-Analysed-Multiple-Mini-Interviews/dp/1905812051

Don't just read the question and think ok this is how I am going to say it, remember you are competing against many other candidates and in order to make yourself shine, your answers must be succinct, personal and original. The most crucial part of any interview is that if you don't know an answer, be humble and say you don't know. Apart from oxbridge, where they want to see your deduction and induction skills. Interviewers only mark what you speak, not what you do and do not know. So if you say that I don't know a question, they will ask another question which you can hopefully respond to. You can also give a semi-knowlegable response. E.g In one of my interviews , I was asked " who do you think is the leader in a surgery ? ", It was a trick question because anyone can be a leader in any given situation depending on the resources and type of surgery. I didn't know this, so at the time I said, "based off my experience I have only seen surgeons lead surgeries, however my empirical observations may not translate into other environments, In the present day where nurses are substituting for surgeons in many smaller cases, there should be no reason why they too cannot lead surgeries. They then followed up with " So, who else can lead a surgery apart from a nurse and a doctor", I just said I didnt know and we moved on.

Additionally, if you haven't already started, please start writing your personal statement, it is very important and pretty much got me my interviews because my igcse grades were relatively subpar.

u/biteyourtongue · 3 pointsr/business

Do you really think the guy writing this has time to explain the methodology of one statistic from one study? The story is already longer than most articles, and the majority of people (excluding curious fellows like yourself) dont care about how the study was conducted.

Go read the book yourself if you want to know more.

u/relativisticmind · 3 pointsr/GetSmarter

Two books to read are Cal Newport's How to Win at College and How to Become a Straight A-Student.

After reading his books, check out his blog, Study Hacks.

u/ColdStainlessNail · 3 pointsr/math

Take some time to read books about learning. There is a new on called Teach Yourself How to Learn. I read Teach Students how to Learn and found it very good. The important thing to keep is mind that you must understand the concepts, not just mimic what the professor does. Also, don't be afraid to reach out for help if you're struggling with algebra or trig. They take persistence and if you don't have them mastered, Calculus can be tricky.

u/0105512 · 3 pointsr/GenZ

listen to me. if you're going for English or art don't go. It'll be a huge waste of time and money. Read this book and follow aaron clarey on youtube, he saved my life. https://www.amazon.com/Worthless-Aaron-Clarey-ebook/dp/B006N0THIM

u/Lionsault · 2 pointsr/college

http://amzn.com/0767922719

http://amzn.com/0767917871

Here's a quick synopsis of the first book, although I recommend reading the whole thing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18512444/How-to-Become-a-StraightA-Student

u/Donk_Quixote · 2 pointsr/AskTrumpSupporters

I don't think there's anything Trump or anyone else can do, at least if you're talking about a traditional brick and mortar 4 year university. The reason for this is well meaning progressive policies. They said "college is a good thing, lets make it easier for them to go". They offered cheap and easy money. When more money is introduced to a market than would be there otherwise prices go up. They answered by throwing more money in the forms of cheap loans, grants, scholarships, GI bills, ect. Prices go up even more. This cycle has been continuing for 70 years. You are about to go to college at a time when it's never been more expensive to do so and the value of most degrees have been so low. No politician can fix that, it's going to take a huge bubble burst and market correction.

I would recommend not going. There areonline degrees now that are fully accredited, here's an example. If I had to do it over again I would join the National Guard, and while your serving you can take these CLEP tests, which if you pass count as a college credit. Most colleges accept some of these credits, there are 3 that will give you a degree almost exclusively based on CLEP credits. And they are free for active serving armed forces (something like $200 a test otherwise). Google and Facebook and other tech companies sponsor something called nanodegrees, worth looking into. Trade school is looked down upon but today it's the more economically sound option.

Whatever you do I recommend the book Worthless by Aaron Clarey. I wish I read it when I was your age.

Sorry for not really answering your question, but good luck to ya.

u/CaptainRedbeardish · 2 pointsr/startups
u/living_sense · 2 pointsr/ELATeachers

I use Critical Encounters in High School English in my classroom, and I love it. It provides excellent lesson ideas, explanations of theories, and in-depth chapters of some theories and how to introduce them. http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Encounters-High-School-English/dp/0807748927

Edit: Oh, and I also teach all levels of juniors.

u/SmellsLikeDogBuns · 2 pointsr/college

If you know what you are interested in, look for schools that offer that major. Talk with a teacher or coach who you're close to, or your guidance counselor. They can give you some specific options because they know you and your academic record better.

There are plenty of guidebooks out there. My school is in this one. All the schools in there are great and you might find something that clicks. Your guidance counselor or library will probably have a bunch of books like these for you to browse.

Think about what kind of school you want: big/small, urban/rural, east/west/midwest, strong on-campus community/most people live off-campus. Is cost a concern? Try going to a community college first.

What kind of clubs are available to join? Sports? Greek life? Does overall student support seem nice?

Have the dorms been recently renovated or do most people live off-campus? Is it in a safe area?

How easy is it to declare/change a major and minor?

Do students have good relationships with professors? Is there a career center, a tutoring and learning disability center? Are there people that can help you find internships and funding, set up job-shadowing?

Are you ok with Teaching Assistants running most of your classes? Does being in a room with 200 students terrify you? How about a room with 4 students?

Make a list of your likes and dislikes of the colleges you've already visited. Did school A have too much of a "party" atmosphere for you? Was B too big or too small? Was school C too far away or too close? Find what you like, and look for colleges that have a few or more of those qualities. Not everyone has an "a-ha!" moment when they find the perfect college for them. You might have to transfer to find a good place for you. Good luck!

u/itwasninjas · 2 pointsr/Economics

Glenn Reynolds wrote a book last year on this topic: The Higher Education Bubble

u/Ishmael22 · 2 pointsr/AskAcademia

I work at a community college, and we definitely have a significant number of students who are people of color and/or live in economic precarity. So, it sounds like we are interested in working with similar populations of students. Here are a few resources I've found helpful:

Reading on critical pedagogy for a theoretical framework. Freire and Giroux are where I'd start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedagogy

The idea of backward design for semester-length planing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_design

I'm having trouble finding a good resource to link to quickly, but the idea of transparency in lesson design seems important to me.

"How Learning Works" and "What the Best College Teachers Do" for more day to day things:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Learning-Works-Research-Based-Principles/dp/0470484101

https://www.amazon.com/What-Best-College-Teachers-Do/dp/0674013255/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=F2A8M8CSVQKDBS14P2QC



"In The Middle" for a good outline of a workshop approach to teaching writing

https://www.heinemann.com/inthemiddle/

I haven't found a good single book that talks about teaching active reading, but there are a lot of resources online, and I've found teaching it explicitly and modeling it for my students as part of a whole class discussion to work pretty well.

As far as the critical theory aspect of reading (which I do think should be taught early on and even to people who are just beginning to read at the college level) I like "Texts and Contexts" and "Critical Encounters"

https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Encounters-High-School-English/dp/0807748927

https://www.amazon.com/Texts-Contexts-Writing-Literature-Critical/dp/0205716741

Hope that's helpful! Good luck to you!

u/FRedington · 2 pointsr/asktrp

> ... Cyber Security at the local community college.

You are starting at the wrong place in the curriculum. You should start at the beginning or you will be hopelessly lost when they start talking about a SYN attack. You will have zero clue what they are talking about.

About that BA in Political Science and a BA in Economics. Worthless.
see: Clarey, "Worthless"
http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-Young-Persons-Indispensable-Choosing/dp/B00DJAP32S

What's done is done. Let it go.
What to do now?
Back to school, CC is fine. But get some career counseling now that is actually worth something. With the BA degrees, you probably have all the credits you need for a STEM field degree. At CC take the maths and a track through an IT specific something that actually pays well with just a BS.

  • Programming, software engineering
  • Database management
  • Systems Administration
  • IT Facilities Management
  • Date Enginnering
  • Data Security, intrusion detection and prevention, ...

    Good luck.
u/avengingturnip · 2 pointsr/Catholicism

This is a good guide.

u/ewiggle · 2 pointsr/getdisciplined

Since you can't put more hours into the day, one of those items is going to have to give if you expect to give the friend more time on that day.

You could fit the friend into the same time slots that you do those items, you could just flat out reduce how much time you give those items, or you could get more efficient in doing items.

I've already posted my initial thoughts on squeezing the friend into your time slots (phone calls, study together, eat one of your meals like breakfast/lunch/dinner together) without changing them, and thoughts on reducing the time for the others (exercise, morning routine) that seem like they can be reduced.

So the last thing I can advise is getting more efficient with your studying since that seems to be sucking up a lot of time. And for that, I'll share this book (especially chapter 2) and this book by Cal Newport.

u/james3563 · 2 pointsr/politics

It seems like Rolling Stone is taking their cue from the conservative commentariat. This is the Bennet hypothesis of 25 years ago, plus Glenn Reynolds and Charles Murray.Here's Bennet: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/02/18/opinion/our-greedy-colleges.html
Here's Reynolds:http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Education-Bubble-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594036659/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376749391&sr=1-2&keywords=glenn+reynolds
Here's Murray:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8GN8g0Si7Q

u/MegMartinson · 2 pointsr/AgainstAtheismPlus

I'm sure the folks at A+ are just joyful at Aaron Clarey's "Worthless". That book perfectly defines "You want fries wid dat?"

http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-ebook/dp/B006N0THIM

My comment to the A+ ers it to tell 'em if you don't like the joke, then don't tell it. If you don't want to hear it, put your fingers in your ears and sing La La La La while I'm telling it.

u/jabby88 · 2 pointsr/pics

>Or were you personally, thoroughly, manually evaluated on your skills?

Yes, as close to this as you could realistically get. I went to a a small private college with class sizes of as little as 2-3 people in some departments.

Even teachers teaching the same class had different tests and assignments tailored to the needs of the students. So if you want to stick to your standardized comment, it was standardized at the specific class (not even course) level.

The average class size for the entire college was 13 students.

Edit:

I'll also add that because of the very small class sizes, students were for the most part personally, manually evaluated. Sure, they got grades on tests, but often, usually if in the student's benefit, grades were adjusted based on personal evaluation. When you have 5 students, you can do things like that.

On an off-topic note: Small class sizes also allowed some classes to just be listed as TBD on the schedule when signing up, so the professor could just pick a time that worked for everyone afterwards. And you get to do things live have class in a garden on campus, or even the cafeteria. It was an all-around amazing experience, but unfortunately not one that I will likely be able to afford for my own kids.

If anyone is interested in a college with an environment like this, check out Colleges That Change Lives. Luckily, my dad read it before we started looking at colleges, which got me looking in that direction.

u/Meloman0001 · 2 pointsr/AskReddit

If I could give my 17 year old self advice about college, I would say read these books:

Book 1
Book 2

Key to college is knowing what you want to take (not what your parents tell you you should major in) and working smart (i.e. avoid cramming, unnecessary hard-work)

u/WillieMaize · 2 pointsr/MensRights

My knowledge is a bit out of date, but in my time you had to avoid UC Santa Cruz. That was probably the worst of the UC's. Also avoid SF State and USF if you want to avoid political correctness. UCLA was in the news not too long ago because they were looking at everything as a microaggression. UCSD was in the news because they hired a diversity officer for $250k, to go along with the other diversity officers. They also got clobbered in a recent state court case where the judge overturned their decision in a sexual harassment case on the grounds that the student wasn't given due process. UCSB is the place where one of the feminist profs tore an anti abortion sign out of a student's hands and the provost then blamed the student. The prof was later charged and convicted in criminal court. The State U in Monterey is reportedly very politically correct. All of the public universities have to follow the affirmative consent requirements.

As for Santa Clara U, their website tells people to call 911 to report bias related incidents. USC is supposedly a rich kids school.

St. Mary's in Moraga might be a reasonable choice. If you're a conservative Catholic try Thomas Aquinas in Ojai. I haven't heard of any real problems at U of San Diego. San Diego State reportedly had some good departments as of a few years ago. As for the Claremont Colleges the least politically correct ones used to be Claremont McKenna and Harvey Mudd. I'm not sure of the situation there now.

Then there's also Boise State. (AKA U of California at Boise.)

This book might help It's called Choosing the Right College. This one is for the 2014-15 edition. I haven't seen the 2016 edition
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610170776/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/157-4511056-0280002?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=AXFAQ0ZNMRCEHF33AA58&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687702&pf_rd_i=1610170059

Also if you go someplace other than Thomas Aquinas, try to find yourself a "rabbi"--a faculty member or adminstrator who is in tune with your beliefs and can help guide you through the maze. If someone is a member of the National Association of Scholars, that's some indication that he's likely to be sympathetic to your beliefs.

u/tavius02 · 2 pointsr/happy

Is the 600 questions book you've got this one? If so, brilliant, the questions in there are harder than the actual questions you'll get, so it's perfect to practice with, but don't get discouraged by it. I got that book and was horrified at how difficult some of the questions were.

With the resit stuff, honestly it's more the marks that matter and their contribution to next year than the actual grades you got, so a remark to push a subject to an A isn't necessarily all that worth it. Some of the other medics I knew who got low A's in biol and chem decided to retake anyway just to push up their chances of an A overall for the A level. I can't talk for other subjects, but with chemistry the retake didn't actually take much extra effort, since a lot of the second year stuff (we were doing OCR salters chemistry) built off the first year stuff, so by the time I did the retake I could have got the marks I needed on it in my sleep. I imagine it's probably the same for most subjects.

How much guidance are your college giving you with the personal statement? I found what they wanted and what I'd initially thought I'd do were completely different. At first I'd thought I should avoid going down the whole generic "I want to help people" route, since it's basically a given, and I thought it'd just be dull, but apparently that's totally wrong - the more generic it seems, the better (I actually ended up using a thesaurus to find more ways of saying "help"). The way we were advised to stand out is how we talked about our work experience and volunteering. If you can sound like you really understand what being a doctor is like by reference to what you've actually seen then they really love it. If you'd like (and promise not to copy, of course) I can show you my one as an example - it got me four interviews, so I must've done something right (can't help a little boast, I was so pleased with myself over that :D)

The actual workload doesn't get much worse, except for some of the coursework is a bit of a pain, it's that what you learn becomes harder to understand right off the bat. That said, it does depend on what subjects you've got - my view of things is pretty heavily skewed by further maths, which just got crazy hard in the second year. The actual biol and chem don't get that much worse (chem a little worse than biol though, at least for me), it's more memory with those two.

And don't worry about it, I'm really happy to help.

u/zaphod4prez · 2 pointsr/GetStudying

/u/tuckermalc and /u/pizzzahero both have great comments. I'll add a bit. Go to /r/stoicism, read [William Irvine's book] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195374614?keywords=william%20irvine&qid=1456992251&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1), then read [Epictetus's Enchiridion] (http://www.amazon.com/Enchiridion-Dover-Thrift-Editions-Epictetus/dp/0486433595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456992275&sr=8-1&keywords=enchiridion). follow their guidelines. Also check out /r/theXeffect. The most important thing is controlling your habits. If you're in the habit of eating healthy, getting enough sleep, going to the gym, etc. then you're set.

Now for stuff that's harder to do. Go see a therapist. Or a psychiatrist. Try to find a [therapist who can do EMDR] (http://www.emdr.com/find-a-clinician/) with you, it's a very effective technique (I saw a clinician who uses EMDR for two years, and it changed my life-- and, importantly, it's supported by strong scientific evidence, it's not quackery stuff like homeopathy or acupuncture). If you decide to go to a psychiatrist, tell them you don't want SSRIs. Look at other drugs: Wellbutrin, tricyclics, SNRIs, etc (check out selegiline in patch form, called EMSAM, as well). Seriously, go see a professional and talk to them. I have no doubt that you're wrestling with mental illness. I have been there. For me, it just felt normal. I didn't understand that other people didn't feel like I did...so it took me a long time to go get help. But it's so important to just start working through these things and getting support. That's really the most important thing you can do. It will make your life so much better. If you aren't able to get to a therapist, do Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) on yourself! [This is a brilliant program] (https://moodgym.anu.edu.au) that's widely respected. Do it over and over. Also read [Feeling Good by David Burns] (http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380810336/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456992639&sr=8-1&keywords=feeling+good+david+burns). It's a book on CBT, and can help you get started. There are lots of other resources out there, but you have to begin by realizing that something is wrong.

Finally, I'll talk about college. Don't try to go to fricking Harvard or MIT. You won't get in, and those aren't even the right schools for you. There are many excellent schools out there that aren't the super super famous Ivies. Look at reputable state schools, like UMich, UMinnesota, the UC system, etc. get ["Colleges that Change Lives"] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143122304?keywords=colleges%20that%20change%20lives&qid=1456992746&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1), the [Fiske Guide to Colleges] (http://www.amazon.com/Fiske-Guide-Colleges-2016-Edward/dp/1402260660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456992768&sr=8-1&keywords=fiske+guide), and [Debt-Free U] (http://www.amazon.com/Debt-Free-Outstanding-Education-Scholarships-Mooching/dp/1591842980/ref=pd_sim_14_15?ie=UTF8&dpID=515MwKBIpzL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR104%2C160_&refRID=1VC3C23RJP6ZMXGG5QBA). One thing I realized after college was that I would've been happy at any of the school I looked at. People are fed such a line of BS about school, like you have to go to the top Ivies or something. No way. Find a good place at which you can function, learn as much as possible, and have a good social life. Like another person said, also look at going to a community college for a year and then transferring-- my relative did this and ended up at Harvard for grad school in the end.

u/NotTara · 2 pointsr/Professors

One of my students just gave this book a glowing review after receiving it as part of a campus workshop: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620367564

(I know, I know - I’m as surprised as anyone that they actually read parts of it already and voluntarily! I’ve heard the faculty companion book is great too, though admittedly I’ve yet to crack open my copy...)

u/ceomentor · 1 pointr/startups

> http://www.amazon.com/Costs-Higher-Education-Colleges-Universities/dp/0875894852

Was that book written in 1980? I'd imagine the landscape has changed a bit since then.

u/horseslol · 1 pointr/chicago

The admit rate reflects a national trend at nearly all selective colleges and has little to do with Zimmer running the show. There are several liberal arts colleges that have seen similar dips in admit rates during this same period. College rankings by newspapers are mostly just advertising and can't be taken too seriously. U of C's prestige has been unaffected throughout this period, as far as I can tell.

This guy is totally overpaid. Top CEOs in the US are even worse. U of C has seen bigger increases in revenue in past decades, and administrators were paid a lot less back then. The article in the OP gives specific examples that show he's doing a terrible job (debt downgrade, poor communication with faculty, deficits, etc.). U of C simply has not been immune to the national shift toward running universities more like businesses (as demonstrated by Benjamin Ginsberg (U of C alum) in The Fall of the Faculty) that led to absurd salaries for top administrators, more cheap adjuncts, higher tuition, etc.

u/YesusDelivers · 1 pointr/college
u/cdrootrmdashrfstar · 1 pointr/learnprogramming

This may not be for you since you're too far gone, but you should give this to your kids. Actually, any "kid" (college-aged person) reading this should buy this.

SUMMARY: DON'T MAJOR IN THE LIBERAL ARTS.

Dear Stupid Students, America Can't Afford Your Stupidity

***

>1) Teaching

It's doubtful that you truly need a degree in English to teach basic and useable English to people in foreign countries. There's a great number of people who teach English without English degrees (again, still a total under-utilization of your abilities (assuming you're above ~100 IQ).

>2) Happiness is of value to me

You're able to achieve happiness in ways that

  1. don't involve wasting four years of your life (and TENS OF THOUSANDS of yours or someone else's money) receiving a useless piece of paper saying you studied your native, first language,

  2. doesn't require wasting taxpayer money for four years (similar but different to #1),

  3. can actually contribute to society/help people in other countries,

  4. isn't contributing into the scam of modern education

    >It's taken me around the world (literally)

    Wow, that's surely unique from all the other real degrees that certainly don't offer opportunities to move around the world for work.

    >I make about 3K a month writing and self-publishing on Amazon

    Here's one list of extremely famous writers who didn't go get a degree in English.

    Here's some more.

    If you have the passion for writing, go write. DO NOT get a worthless degree in English.

    >That might not be brogrammer money, but it's a life that's been a lot more interesting and rewarding than just staring into a monitor 60 hours a week.

    This seems bitter? Are you suggesting that I'm a "brogrammer?" What, because I espouse for people to avoid useless degrees who don't actually produce or contribute anything of actual value to society?

    >The only way you could possibly think that anything other than STEM = parasite is if you had about zero actual life experience. I'm guessing you went from your parents basement to college to some tech job and don't know jack about what else happens in the world.

    Even more bitter? Apparently. I feel like it is a lack of understanding of the world to get that worthless, piece-of-shit degree rather than a STEM degree. Why not do something that people actually care about and that *actually contributes to the society that safely coddled you while you wasted your potential getting a useless degree.

    "I just wanna be happy, maaaaaaan."

    Here's a list of majors you should go back and get:

u/rorschach555 · 1 pointr/dietetics

I really struggled academically until I had a professor teach me to learn by active recall. Basically, you need to be able to explain your notes without looking at them. I would write down questions from my notes for thirty minutes, then spend fifteen trying to answer them, marking any that I didn't know. Then I would take a break. I would try and do several of these study blocks each day. You can't procrastinate with this method, but I went from a C/B student to a straight A student in one semester. Remember to focus on content you don't know.

Find an activity to get involved in. I was overly involved because I was a tour guide, worked in a research lab, volunteered with Meals on Wheels, was a resident assistant, was in an honor society, nutrition club, volunteered as English as a second language conversation partner, and did meal planning/grocery shopping at my cooperative house. I kind of burned myself out and would recommend just joining one or two activities, but being really involved.

I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-College-Surprising-Countrys/dp/0767917871

u/Medfiend · 1 pointr/medicalschooluk

I studied using this book. I spent approximately 1 month just practicing the questions and trying to understand their reasoning for the answers. Did well enough to apply anywhere.

Hope this helps.

u/brdth · 1 pointr/college

It's really all about practice and persistence really...I had to learn how to study in middle school, which is why I didn't need my mom asking me "did you do your homework/did you study" everyday. Unless you were directed under those terms, it's kind of difficult to ask you of that kind of diligence and self-dependence when you've never been raised under that environment or put it into practice.

This is a good book that I read over the summer last year, and it really helped a TON before returning to college; even for someone like me that has been putting these practices into play for awhile.

u/Stephanstewart101 · 1 pointr/medicalschool

THis book changed everything for me.


. teaching students how to learn.

u/Bbaily · 1 pointr/DebateReligion

> Could you point me towards some peer reviewed literature which supports the position of this large group?

I'm sorry for the tardy reply but life happened... There's a plethora of resources that have tallied up evidence against stale evolution science, if that's what you want to call it.

Even Engineering undergrads like Bill Nye have been quoted as saying that science has to be constantly checked against itself or it's not science. That's the point of science. Scientists are still looking at the theory of relativity, string theory, even gravity to see if they can explore new understandings that will advance knowledge. Once you stop looking not only is it not science, it's ignorance.

"Peer reviewed", ipso facto is not evidence of established and proven or validated science, far from it in fact. Science today is all to often manufactured or paid for agenda driven team consensus.

There are SO many articles on this topic - look them up.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-peer-fraught-problems.html
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html
However, if that is your understanding of how science establishes fact?

Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:

• Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

• Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

• Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

• Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

• William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

• Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

• Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

• Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

• Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

• Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

• Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

• Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

• David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

• Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

• Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

• Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

• Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

• A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

• Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

• Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).


Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review. Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, “Mention ‘peer review’ and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory.” Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as “Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers,” and in fact “Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize.”

Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, “peer-review” is increasingly used as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints.
University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi has explained the alarming rise of what he calls “advocacy science,” which defends itself not by citing data but by advocating the myth of infallible peer-review...

(1) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs’s letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.

(2) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.

(3) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.

When Stephen Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.

I have read from his colleagues of his that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what many people personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called ‘unitarity’ would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected.”

I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it does... however the list above is not the complete list, there is more, a lot more should you truly be interested in truth.

>Denying evolution will get you laughed out of every biology department of every good university in the world unless you put up with some evidence. Funnily enough nobody ever presents any...

And they laughed when they said the earth was round. (Oddly, there's lots of strange talk these days about it being flat again.)

There's a really interesting book you might like to read, if you like reading...

It's called "Slaughter of the Dissidents." written by Dr. Jerry Bergman. It's only about 500 pages give or take. Bergman provides detailed accounts of 17 of the over 300 scientists and educators he has interviewed, all of whom have advanced degrees. Though their views range from creation science to intelligent design to evolution, all of them expressed some doubt regarding neo-Darwinism, observing that selection of mutations is not creating life's diversity. And all of them have received some form of discrimination.

Dr. Bergman observed that evolutionary elitists incorrectly lump all "Darwin Doubters" into one group, "creationists," who are then categorically ridiculed. Though highly qualified, these scientists and educators are verbally and physically threatened, lose privileges, lose opportunities for promotion, and lose jobs and whole careers, just for expressing some measure of doubt about the standard evolutionary story.

His book provides ample evidence and citations that "Darwin fundamentalists," are determined to punish others who do not agree with their beliefs. That's probably one reason for all the laughing, close mindedness hardly scientific...

I'd also submit that "good colleges" are not good colleges because they happen to "agree" with individual opinions be they the majority or not...

Is there something specific you can use to qualify Evolution?

u/MetaMemeticMagician · 1 pointr/TheNewRight

HBD

Darwin’s Enemies on the Left and Right Part 1, Part 2 (Blog Post)*

The History and Geography of Human Genes (Abridged edition) – Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza
The 10,000 Year Explosion – Gregory Cochrane
Race, Evolution, and Behavior – Rushton
Why Race Matters – Michael Levin

****

Intelligence and Mind

The Bell Curve – Charles Murray
The Global Bell Curve – Richard Lynn
Human Intelligence – Earl Hunt
Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence – Robert Sternberg
A Conflict of Visions – Thomas Sowell
The Moral Animal – Robert Wright
The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature – Murray Rothbard (essay)

****

Education

Real Education – Charles Murray
Inside American Education – Thomas Sowell
Illiberal Education – Dinesh D’Sousa
God and Man at Yale – William Buckley
Weapons of Mass Instruction – John Taylor Gatto
The Higher Education Bubble – Glenn Reynolds

****

​

u/spammelots · 1 pointr/PoliticalDiscussion

Evidence is a prerequisite for faith. Faith requires evidence.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Christians, and thus the Church, are to have an answer for every question asked. Infinite critical thinking.

1 Peter 3:15 and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you

Public schools are about memorization and standardized testing, not questioning and critical thinking.

Academic skill level generally refers to reading, writing, and math but certainly, more than ever, it also includes critical thinking and application of knowledge. Current students readily acknowledge that they have mastered memorization skills while in high school but they are often inexperienced with what it means to think critically, independently, and apply what they know. The issue is not that they cannot learn these skills. The issue is that too many have never had the opportunity to learn and to demonstrate the skills. A question to be answered is why they have not had to learn and apply these skills during their high school careers.

And what starts in public high school continues on in college

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses

Everyone is born recognizing that homosexuals are unnatural. No one is born without a mother and a father. Biology 101. The homosexual agenda is indoctrination, discouraging the asking of questions, which at Vanderbilt is banning Christian groups, censoring the opposition. Why discourage asking question and censor the opposition? Because the indoctrination is only successful so long as those indoctrinated are not exposed to critical thinking, which helps to explain the lack of critical thinking in public education.

u/theinsanity · 1 pointr/asianamerican

You realize that the US college admissions system is an anti-Semitic invention, right?

Source

u/wallywoodo · 1 pointr/bestof

You have failed to understand systemic issues. Something you may have learned if you had studied the social sciences.

Most students do not seek out employers, read the qualifications, and then apply for degrees that meet those qualifications. That simply isn't how college selection is made by the vast majority of students. Universities have marketing departments, do they not? Universities charge tuition do they not? Tuition is far higher today per capita than it was 30 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Student-Loan-Scam-Oppressive/dp/0807042315

http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Education-Bubble-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594036659/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0XPTQD1ST85331XVC7SQ

u/-HelloMyNameIs- · 1 pointr/college

Book of Majors 2018 (College Board Book of Majors) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1457309238/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_B2p-BbY8B8QEM

u/GlaxoJohnSmith · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

You're right, in that they are dumb.^(http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/?page=1)

But mostly, you're wrong. It's not a "dumb tax." It's "pay to play."

Legacy admissions are not a "dumb tax;" it's there to keep poor kids out. It's not about meritocracy, it's about exclusion.

And money isn't the only criteria; race is also a factor.

Docket systems (geographic quotas) are to keep out Jews (mostly from NY & NJ)--& favor certain private schools. Extra-cirricular requirements, especially those that emphasize students be "well-rounded," are there to keep out Asians. Affirmative action is there to get African-Americans and Latinos in.

This system is unlikely to change, because (1) universities, like most things, need money to run, (2) they also want prestige, and (3) a lot of very influential people are going to raise a ruckus over their progeny couldn't get in.

By the way, there is one caveat: It is in a university's interest to attract people who would are mostly likely to go into well-paying jobs, which means Wall Street or big law firms--and extracurricular activities in high school is one way to identify people who gravitate towards those careers. Kids who excel in academics and go into academia tend not have a lot of moolah to donate.

TL;DR: Elite schools are mostly schools for the elites. If you want to join them, apply to the Ivy Leagues. If you want to be judged purely on academic merit, check out places like Berkeley or CalTech (which, coincidentally, happen to be white minority establishments).

If you're interested in this subject, you might want to check out The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton by Jerome Karabel.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Chosen-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/0618574581

Berkeley enrollment data:

http://opa.berkeley.edu/uc-berkeley-fall-enrollment-data

CalTech enrollment data:

http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/statistics.htm

u/Ericbadmon · 1 pointr/LosAngeles

that's what I thought too.

but here's some food for thought: https://www.amazon.com/Cheating-Insiders-Report-Race-Admissions/dp/1457528290

This UCLA stats professor wrote a book on how the admissions process at UCLA favors POCs while making it significantly harder for Asians, despite laws that prohibit the UCs from doing so. I get that it's only one guy but given that he risked his entire career to write a book on this, and considering the fact that he most likely had an insider's perspective, I think it's plausible at the very least.

u/ColdEiric · 1 pointr/INTP

Not if you're studying something valuable in STEM. There's too many bullshitters selling bullshit courses on campuses.

Why do you want tenure? I'm sure you have good reasons, but couldn't morally be tenured, if I wasn't 100% sure that I was teaching something valuable. If I didn't feel that what I am teaching, that is something people actually need and want despite my tenure. Just like if I were a drug dealer or a slaver, then my success would be dependent on people suffering from it.

What are you studying?

The books I am paraphrasing from are Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Worthless, by Aaron Clarey.

u/misplaced_my_pants · 1 pointr/Physics

Unpaid internships are essentially slave labor, or at least indentured servitude. That's a terrible idea.

I'm not sure what you would describe as your dreams, so I'll give you a possible alternative track for a possible set of goals that may or may not coincide with yours.

Let's say your goal is to get a well paying job and have a reasonably deep understanding of physics. Perhaps you'd also like that job to be intellectually stimulating. Here's a rough outline of what you could do to accomplish that:

-------------------------------------------
Before college

You're in 7th grade. First step, use this collection of links on efficient study habits to destroy and master your school work (check out Anki, too). At minimum, treat school like a day job. (Hopefully you'll have great teachers that teach you a love of learning and a value for a well-rounded educational base that includes the sciences, arts, and humanities.) Do all the exercises from Khan Academy from the beginning to fill any gaps in your knowledge and use sites like PatrickJMT, Paul's Online Math Notes, BetterExplained, and MIT OCW Scholar to supplement school and KA. Also, read these two books.

Once you've got school under control and are getting the most of what's available to you through that avenue, use the Art of Problem Solving Books to get a vastly deeper understanding of precollege mathematics. I'd say it should be a higher priority than learning calculus early in terms of ROI, but you can learn it if you want to.

See if you can find a group near you to train for a Math Olympiad or similar competition (like the ones listed on AoPS). Aim for the gold, but realize that it's unlikely and the real prize is how the training will bring up your mathematical maturity so you can tackle evermore challenging problems, concepts, and subjects.

Also, use sites like Coursera, edx, and Udacity to teach yourself programming. Once you've got a reasonable handle on programming, check out a site like Topcoder and maybe try to compete in the Coding Olympiad. Also, mess around with a Raspberry Pi.

You could also check out any big research universities or even decent state schools in your area. They often have youth outreach like summer camps for kids who love math to come and learn things not usually taught in schools. You could also see if there are any researchers willing to take on a hard working and science-loving high school student for a research project (this is how most of the winners of Intel science competitions get their start).

------------------------------------------------------
College (Undergrad)

If you've done the first paragraph of the previous section alone, you should be able to get into any top 20 program in the country without any trouble. Chances are you'll be competitive for most Ivies and top 10 programs. Do any of the stuff beyond the first paragraph, and you'll be a shoe-in with a huge advantage over the overwhelming majority of college applicants in the country. The link about scholarships in my earlier comment will guarantee that you get a free ride. Also, read this book.

So now you want job security and financial security. Any sort of engineering would do, but I think you'd be more interested in computer science so let's say you do that and double major in physics.

Every summer you do paid internships for CS at various software firms for work experience. This will be the best way to make sure you are extremely hireable after graduation for lucrative positions with interesting work as a software engineer. That's Plan B.

For physics, you find a lab that does interesting work and start doing undergraduate research. You might change labs a few times to find a better fit. You might stick with the first one until graduation. Doesn't really matter as long as you gain real research experience.

You also study your ass of for the Physics GRE from your first semester. A few hours per week you do problems from old tests from subjects as you learn them. As in, do mechanics problems your first semester, do mechanics and E&M problems your second semester, do mechanics and E&M and thermo and optics problems your third semester, etc. (This may be different depending on how your school organizes its physics curriculum.)

You talk to your advisors and grad students and fellow students and professors about applying to grants and graduate school. They'll be able to give you actual advice tailored to your situation.

Either in the spring of your junior year or the fall of your senior year, you take the GREs and apply to graduate programs in areas that interest you and apply to grants to fund you and wait for the offers to return. Assuming you've followed my advice, at least some of them will contain acceptance letters with details of stipends. More than likely all the acceptance letters will include stipends you can live off of.

If you just get rejected, you'll at least have a BS-worth of physics knowledge and have experienced real research and can go off and enjoy your well-paid life solving interesting problems as a software engineer.

Or you can try and get a job at a national lab somewhere putting your physics background and programming chops to work and just apply again another year while saving up more money.

And all of this was debt free because you had the forsight in high school to apply to hundreds of scholarships.

------------------------------

Also, read this thread on what it takes to kick ass at MIT. The post and the ensuing discussion should drive home what you could train yourself to become. (I think the reply by the twin is particularly enlightening.)

You can either shoot for the stars and hit the moon, or you can read magazine articles about gravity on the moon.

u/jumpjock92 · 1 pointr/UCL

You are right in that you only get one shot at UCL but you only need one. I did an EPQ and talked about it quite a lot. Mine was something like "do the benefits of stem cell research exceed the ethical complications" or something like that. It's something I'm really passionate about and I'm sure you won't struggle to keep talking about it. If your's is something you are interested in try an steer the conversation that way early. I don't know whether it was just by the time I did my UCL interview I was getting better at them or the nature of the interview but I felt like I controlled the direction of the conversation and lead it the way I wanted it to go, if you can try and do the same, if you can go in with a few points that you want to make and lead the conversation that way you will do well. Don't worry about silly questions, I'm afraid I'm from a preposterously privileged background and had enough interview practice to get someone in who had been lobotomised but I know most people are in your situation. Some of my friends who are much better people than I am are involved in a thing called target medicine, they go to schools like yours and do practice interviews and BMAT prep, it's worth finding out if they are at your school. I would say the main questions to be ready for are: why medicine, why UCL, possibly a tell me about yourself (I always hate that as it's almost impossible to tread the line of not underselling and not seeming arrogant.), Work experience (I had a few things and people I saw that had an impact on me and tried to talk about that rather than general things as it seemed more personal). Then obviously anything on your personal statement, go back through it and see what you would ask about or get someone else to do that for you, if want I can send you my email and I'll do it for you but you might find it more useful to do it with a teacher or someone else who knows you. Once you've done that just drill answers in your head, don't go through them entirely because it will sound scripted but have the phrases you want in your head and the ideas you want to express and know them like you would know material for an exam. I used this which was quite helpful and it's reassuring when you hear a question that you've already thought through. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Interviews-Questions-Analysed-Multiple-Mini-Interviews/dp/1905812051/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421325700&sr=1-1&keywords=medical+school+interviews.

I also read ths but it wasn't as helful. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Medical-Ethics-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192802828/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1QZ21GB5NZE9YRJE84PN

That's about all I can think of at the moment but keep asking questions if you have any and I'll keep thinking about stuff. On the day try and keep relaxed as best as possible if you don't know what sort of person you are when you are afraid yet but you will know soon but most quiet people get chatty and chatty people go quiet. Some people will talk about all this stuff they've done, I don't know whether they do it to get into people's heads or to reassure themselves but ignore it. I met some really lovely people on my interview at UCL but there are a lot of arseclowns too, just let their crap wash over you and keep your head in as relaxed as space as possible and think about what you want to say. One last point is script links between your ideas, if you can go from why UCL or why medicine into other things like work experience or your job there make your last sentence leading. Don't think of it as them asking you questions, you can influence the questions they ask you. Of course you won't get 20 minutes perfectly moving from one thing to another under your control but doing it a bit will help your rhythm but don't fall into the trap of saying what you wanted to say next instead of answering their question. If they do blindside you don't say the first thing in your head, wait a few seconds, under that kind of pressure you think at a million miles an hour 3 seconds will feel like forever in your head because you are thinking so fast but you can use that time to think it through and say something sensible. I guess most of my advice is really on mentality largely because it's probably what I do best as you might guess from my username I'm a jump jockey in another life so I'm quite used to being in high pressure situations crapping myself with fear, so I have routines to put it to one side and relax which makes all the difference in the world. I can talk about that stuff if you are interested but I've always found it a very personal thing and what works for me may well not help you and it takes time to do well which you might find better spent on other things. Good luck with it all and remember that even the people the other-side of the table where in your position once and just see them as no different from you just further down the line. If it doesn't happen this year almost everyone else will consider you next year so don't build it up into a do or die thing in your head and good luck.

u/DaffUCF · 1 pointr/ucf

Watch this video series, it will teach you good student habits and techniques: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqPtvG80ufOPH3OUoMpM4OThBpIRkrw-I

If you're putting that much time in but having poor results, then it's not procrastination that's hurting you. It's how you study. Cal Newport wrote a very helpful book on the subject, read it during your next break: http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-College-Surprising-Countrys/dp/0767917871/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

u/Anicha1 · 1 pointr/offmychest

I read it all.

The answer is, stop looking for a job in CS. The energy you put it is of misery and I'm sure that's why you haven't received job offers. I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to hire someone who went to an Ivy League.

Next step is for you to go to your local library and pull out the majors book.
https://www.amazon.com/Book-Majors-2018-College-Board/dp/1457309238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521721322&sr=8-1&keywords=book+of+majors&dpID=51Rq1I5wMGL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

Think about what class you have enjoyed in middle school, high school, or even college. Go to that section of the book and I'm sure you'll find something. That's how I found my major.

Don't give up.

u/playhimoffcat · 0 pointsr/Christianity

I've downvoted this post. Why? Because even if the site didn't agree with the way the movie handled the information, the information is still clearly there.

The whole premise of the movie is that teachers who wished to question Darwinsim were persecuted. This is WELL-ESTABLISHED. While the movie has only underlined 6 teachers who experienced this, there are many more documented in other books. (Slaughter of the Dissidents is part 1 of a 3-volume series that underscores cases where this has happened.) In Guillermo Gonzalez's case, an ID organization has obtained internal emails from that school which specifically state why they denied him tenure-and the school has been sued. Anyone who rejects that this stuff has happened are doing so completely uninformed.

Secondly, I downvoted this post because it is not concerning Christianity. Christianity is the following of Jesus and his relevance to life. Many in the ID movement are not Christian (including Ben Stein), and they are outspokenly opposed to being linked to Christianity or Creationism.

If you repost to another topic, I will consider upvoting you.



u/justiceape · 0 pointsr/pics

This is what I'm talking about. With all due respect, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Earth is the center of the solar system, the universe, or anything else. There are verses that refer to the Earth as "fixed," which could be taken in any number of ways, least of all if I run into the Earth, it doesn't seem to move. We can't have an argument if you have, like I've said before, no idea what you're talking about. It was considered the best cosmological theory of the day, which was adopted by the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church by no means was the only institution or government that thought that. It was a theory traced back to the Greeks. I can't believe I have to cite Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model.

And yes, the Catholic Church got mad at Galileo when he said, no, this isn't true. But again, to say this makes religion bad or whatever is again conflating two separate things, which is the Bible, and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which is aimed at being consistent with the Bible, but isn't in fact the Bible.

Overall the comments people leave over and over without being able to see why they are confused simply feeds into the recognition that the vast majority of people have no ability to really think critically, and only instead regurgitate some fashionable opinion they've internalized as their own.

http://www.amazon.com/Academically-Adrift-Limited-Learning-Campuses/dp/0226028550

u/[deleted] · 0 pointsr/literature

Come now, I'm trying to engage you. Like this entire time.

ALL I SAID WAS HAVE SKILLS THAT CAN MAKE YOU STABLE AND HELP YOU HAVE A DAYJOB SO YOU CAN WORK ON YOUR DREAMS IN STABILITY.

Like I said that four times or something like that.

Over and over again.

Have skills people will pay for. Make sure you don't hate those skills but you don't have to have a passion for it. Work on your fun thing. It's unlikely to be the next Beatles because there's not enough brain space, but if it makes you happy, hobbies are great!

Somehow that came out

>NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE HAPPY. ALL ARE SLAVES!

Or something. I'm not sure how I could be more clear.

Anyone I know I haven't cited much here's an info dumb

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Stagnation-Low-Hanging-ebook/dp/B004H0M8QS Tyler Cowen is one of the World's best most sober economists. You should fall in love with him (even if he sounds autistic)

http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-The-Machine-ebook/dp/B005WTR4ZI

Machines might be becoming substitutes instead of completments. This could cause problems even if we were socialists. We have no idea how to handle that

http://lesswrong.com/lw/4su/how_to_be_happy/ All the best happiness research in one post

http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-ebook/dp/B006N0THIM/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1334194677&sr=1-1 A good book about the economics of college degrees

http://www.amazon.com/The-Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-ebook/dp/B003E749TE/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1334194701&sr=1-1-spell

Jonathan Haidt is sexy and cool and also a psychologist.

http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html How to do what you love only also be practical and not ruin your life.

http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html How to get fuck you money if you can identify a good start up and work that hard. (also finance

http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Improbable-ebook/dp/B00139XTG4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1334194849&sr=1-1 Why all the advantages of artists go to a few while most are forgotten because they have trouble finding a fanbase

http://www.amazon.com/The-Consolations-Philosophy-Alain-Botton/dp/0679779175/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334194919&sr=1-3 How Ethical Philosophy can help with not having your favorite external circumstances.

Why modern therapy owes much of it's usefully to ideas generated by old greeks

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Cognitive-Behavioural-Therapy-Psychotherapy-ebook/dp/B005TQU5KA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334194962&sr=1-1

So yea, I hope that made up for claims you find spurious.