Diploma mills have been around now for a while. They bill themselves as "alternate" ways to "earn" a college degree without having to go through all the "trouble" that regular colleges put you through to get that degree. Sure, you get a piece of paper that says you have a degree, but what you have is a piece of paper, not the education that such a degree normally signifies.
Yes, there are some employers for whom that piece of paper will be sufficient for hiring purposes, and a whole lot more for whom that piece of paper will remain just that--a piece of paper with ink on it, not a testimonial to an education received.
Last week someone told me about the latest diploma mill out there. Apparently a fairly well known and respected rabbi and his wife have started a program that will give you that sought after college degree. What does it take to get this "degree"? You need to take one course--all the other so called credits are transfers from seminary/yeshiva and possibly life experience. Yup, one course and you have a college degree---no, no, no you will not have a college degree!
More than time to come up with some other name for whatever that piece of paper is supposed to represent, because in no way, shape or form does it represent a college degree. And no, I truly don't like it when people who have purchased that piece of paper believe themselves to be equal to those who went the traditional route and worked and earned that degree. No, their "degree" is not equal to mine and to yours.
So, any suggestions for what we might rename that piece of paper? I was toying around with calling it a PBC--payment-based credential. What might you call it?
Showing posts with label labeling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labeling. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Friday, November 12, 2010
Not the Same People
It's that time in the term when my students have to do a research project--a type of academic trivial pursuit game. A comment made on another blog leads me to mention this now. Absolute care must be taken when presenting material as true that that material is actually true--solid research is key.
Let's see how you do with the piece of information I'm referring to. Francis Scott Key and Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald--are these the names of two separate people or two names for the same person? Go ahead, take a moment.....
Okay, the answer is that the names refer to two different people. Francis Scott Key was the composer of the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner." Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was otherwise known as F. Scott Fitzgerald and is perhaps best remembered as the author of The Great Gatsby. Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 24, 1896, the namesake and second cousin three times removed of the author of the National Anthem.
So what's the problem? F. Scott Fitzgerald was known as a drunkard--the first Francis Scott Key was quite the opposite: a man of solid character, highly religious and not an inbiber of alcohol.
A highly respected Rav apparently made a comment a few decades ago that is remembered by some today. Unclear from the comment on the blog was whether or not the Rav was referring to The Star Spangled Banner or to Hatikvah when he said that it is kefira because its author was a drunkard. If this was said in reference to The Star Spangled Banner I'd like to believe that that Rav, were he living today and were it pointed out to him that he was mixing up two different people, would have retracted his statement. Unfortunately the Rav is not living, but it seems that his words live on after him. If the statement was made referring to The Star Spangled Banner it's time for a correction.
So, lesson of the day: check your sources, and then double check them, or triple check them if need be.
Let's see how you do with the piece of information I'm referring to. Francis Scott Key and Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald--are these the names of two separate people or two names for the same person? Go ahead, take a moment.....
Okay, the answer is that the names refer to two different people. Francis Scott Key was the composer of the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner." Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was otherwise known as F. Scott Fitzgerald and is perhaps best remembered as the author of The Great Gatsby. Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald was born in St. Paul, Minnesota, on September 24, 1896, the namesake and second cousin three times removed of the author of the National Anthem.
So what's the problem? F. Scott Fitzgerald was known as a drunkard--the first Francis Scott Key was quite the opposite: a man of solid character, highly religious and not an inbiber of alcohol.
A highly respected Rav apparently made a comment a few decades ago that is remembered by some today. Unclear from the comment on the blog was whether or not the Rav was referring to The Star Spangled Banner or to Hatikvah when he said that it is kefira because its author was a drunkard. If this was said in reference to The Star Spangled Banner I'd like to believe that that Rav, were he living today and were it pointed out to him that he was mixing up two different people, would have retracted his statement. Unfortunately the Rav is not living, but it seems that his words live on after him. If the statement was made referring to The Star Spangled Banner it's time for a correction.
So, lesson of the day: check your sources, and then double check them, or triple check them if need be.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
What Use the Labels of Klal
In my posting listing the labels that are applied to various segments of the Jewish population, someone asked why I would be gathering the list. Of what use are the various labels? Forthwith some thoughts on that.
In a most basic sense, we use labeling as an organizing tool. Let's take fruit as an example. A general labeling would give us apples, bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, oranges, watermelons, pears etc.. The labels help us to identify fruits that are sufficiently uniquely different one from the other that they cannot be substituted one for the other in most cases. Try baking an apple pie substituting bananas or watermelon for the apples--it can't be done. The unique quality of apples is not present in the other fruits and viceversa. There is a good reason for applying the labels to the fruits. The labels show us distinct, unique differences between one fruit and another.
We also use labels within labeled categories. Use the fruit example again. Let's take apples, the general label. Within that label are many varieties of apples--world-wide there are 7500 varieties of apples grown; in the US 2500 varieties of apples are grown. You could eat a different apple every day for more than 19 years, and never eat the same kind twice. Yet, with all the different varieties grown and available, the "Delicious" apple variety is the most widely grown variety in the United States. And even here we have to add more labels--not all Delicious apples are exactly identical; there are some 50 cultivars of this type. In some cases the differences are only skin deep--the outside peel is of different colors or color combinations while the inside is basically the same, both taste and texture. In other cases the outside peel may look the same but the inside taste and texture differs,--some sweet, some sour, some mealier some juicier. In some cases the size of the mature fruit is different--some huge, some large, some medium sized, some small. But for all their differences, both in the Delicious family and the other apple families, consumers know they are all apples. There is no variety that we can objectively call a better variety of apple or the best variety of apple because it is all a matter of personal taste and what we have become accustomed to. And, in truth, if we are looking to buy apples in the store, and there are only red Delicious apples available, most of us will buy them. If only gala apples were available when we needed apples, we'd buy them. If you are looking to make apple juice any juice apple will do, not just one out of those 7500 varieties.
Now let's look at those labels we apply to Klal. The list in the posting is hardly all inclusive. And, as was pointed out by a commenter, there are other labels that are applied to members of Klal living in places outside of the US, labels that aren't exactly equivalent to Jews living in the US. But for some--many--who use those labels for Klal, they would benefit from looking at those fruit labels.
First, all members of Klal are "fruits." There is a general shared characteristic that puts us all in this category. Second, there are different varieties of fruits, and they can't all be used for the same purpose, nor do they taste identically. Okay so far. Now is when things start to break down. For arguments sake let's call those of Reformed Judaism grapes, those who are of Conservative Judaism oranges and those of Religious/Orthodox Judaism apples. All three are fruits, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they don't have real differences.
Now let's look at those "Orthodox" apples. Here is where the labeling we apply to Klal gets sticky. Yes, there are some differences among Orthodox groups--some are juicier, some are mealier, some are sweeter, some are more sour, some are larger, some are smaller in size. Some have different colored peels, ranging from a red so deep it looks black to a yellow so pale it looks white. But in the end most of these differences are a matter of personal taste, not real category distinctions. They may not like it, but they are all apples. In too many cases those labels have no meaning of importance outside of marketing and market positioning. Is a Washington State Red Delicious apple really any different from a New York State Red Delicious apple? Those trying to sell apples to the public would have you believe they are different, but scientific analysis would show you there is no real difference between them, except for their labels.
Yes, granted, there are some apples that are better for baking than other apples, and some apples that are better for making applesauce than other apples, and some apples that are better for juicing than other apples. But what unites these types of apples is greater and of more importance than what divides them--they are all apples.
Let me end off with this. Too many of the labels that are applied to Klal are attempting to market the groups so labeled as uniquely different fruits rather than just garden varieties of the same fruit. You have a personal preference? Fine, but don't kid yourself into thinking that those varieties of apples are anything other than just that--varieties of apples. They aren't cantaloupes, they aren't carambolas, they aren't persimmons--they're apples.
In a most basic sense, we use labeling as an organizing tool. Let's take fruit as an example. A general labeling would give us apples, bananas, cantaloupes, grapes, oranges, watermelons, pears etc.. The labels help us to identify fruits that are sufficiently uniquely different one from the other that they cannot be substituted one for the other in most cases. Try baking an apple pie substituting bananas or watermelon for the apples--it can't be done. The unique quality of apples is not present in the other fruits and viceversa. There is a good reason for applying the labels to the fruits. The labels show us distinct, unique differences between one fruit and another.
We also use labels within labeled categories. Use the fruit example again. Let's take apples, the general label. Within that label are many varieties of apples--world-wide there are 7500 varieties of apples grown; in the US 2500 varieties of apples are grown. You could eat a different apple every day for more than 19 years, and never eat the same kind twice. Yet, with all the different varieties grown and available, the "Delicious" apple variety is the most widely grown variety in the United States. And even here we have to add more labels--not all Delicious apples are exactly identical; there are some 50 cultivars of this type. In some cases the differences are only skin deep--the outside peel is of different colors or color combinations while the inside is basically the same, both taste and texture. In other cases the outside peel may look the same but the inside taste and texture differs,--some sweet, some sour, some mealier some juicier. In some cases the size of the mature fruit is different--some huge, some large, some medium sized, some small. But for all their differences, both in the Delicious family and the other apple families, consumers know they are all apples. There is no variety that we can objectively call a better variety of apple or the best variety of apple because it is all a matter of personal taste and what we have become accustomed to. And, in truth, if we are looking to buy apples in the store, and there are only red Delicious apples available, most of us will buy them. If only gala apples were available when we needed apples, we'd buy them. If you are looking to make apple juice any juice apple will do, not just one out of those 7500 varieties.
Now let's look at those labels we apply to Klal. The list in the posting is hardly all inclusive. And, as was pointed out by a commenter, there are other labels that are applied to members of Klal living in places outside of the US, labels that aren't exactly equivalent to Jews living in the US. But for some--many--who use those labels for Klal, they would benefit from looking at those fruit labels.
First, all members of Klal are "fruits." There is a general shared characteristic that puts us all in this category. Second, there are different varieties of fruits, and they can't all be used for the same purpose, nor do they taste identically. Okay so far. Now is when things start to break down. For arguments sake let's call those of Reformed Judaism grapes, those who are of Conservative Judaism oranges and those of Religious/Orthodox Judaism apples. All three are fruits, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they don't have real differences.
Now let's look at those "Orthodox" apples. Here is where the labeling we apply to Klal gets sticky. Yes, there are some differences among Orthodox groups--some are juicier, some are mealier, some are sweeter, some are more sour, some are larger, some are smaller in size. Some have different colored peels, ranging from a red so deep it looks black to a yellow so pale it looks white. But in the end most of these differences are a matter of personal taste, not real category distinctions. They may not like it, but they are all apples. In too many cases those labels have no meaning of importance outside of marketing and market positioning. Is a Washington State Red Delicious apple really any different from a New York State Red Delicious apple? Those trying to sell apples to the public would have you believe they are different, but scientific analysis would show you there is no real difference between them, except for their labels.
Yes, granted, there are some apples that are better for baking than other apples, and some apples that are better for making applesauce than other apples, and some apples that are better for juicing than other apples. But what unites these types of apples is greater and of more importance than what divides them--they are all apples.
Let me end off with this. Too many of the labels that are applied to Klal are attempting to market the groups so labeled as uniquely different fruits rather than just garden varieties of the same fruit. You have a personal preference? Fine, but don't kid yourself into thinking that those varieties of apples are anything other than just that--varieties of apples. They aren't cantaloupes, they aren't carambolas, they aren't persimmons--they're apples.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Cut It Out!!!
Dodgson seems to have gotten it right when he wrote the following:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass
I have, on various occasions, mentioned that I am sick and tired of the labeling that goes on in Klal. Why does this labeling make me go ballistic? Because basically those labels have no meaning, none whatsoever. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean at the time they are using the label, and it matters not a whit if the person to whom the label is being attached doesn't quite understand what that label means or doesn't feel they belong under that label. And give it a day or two or a week or two or a month or two and that label will miraculously expand and contract, adding new elements to its meaning and subtracting some that have been there before, or it might disappear altogether.
Dr. Mark Skousen has written extensively on the dangers of economic and political labels. Let me paraphrase his words to apply to religious matters. "The three main reasons why labels are best avoided in religious discussions/usage are: (1) Labels are often an inaccurate description of a person's or group's views. (2) Labels often become pejorative terms used in character assassination (3) Labels put people into religious boxes and keep them there, preventing individuals from objectively considering alternative opinions and changing their minds....Categorizing someone's ideas using labels is often used to avoid real thinking about actual issues....[Using labels] it is a method for throwing someone into a convenient ideological box."
Labels are a type of stereotyping, and like other stereotypes, they may have no truth to them or only some truth to them. They may not apply to all in a group being stereotypically labeled or they may actually apply to none in that group. Stereotype does not equal truth, and neither does a label. At best a stereotype is "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image; a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning."
There is intention when a label is used, and that intention is not always or only rarely neutral. The way religious labels are used today it should be clear that their intent is not just strictly for the purpose of naming something so that it's easier to discuss that something. For the most part the intent is to invest the something being discussed with a type of value judgement, and for the most part when someone flying under the flag of one particular label applies a different label to someone outside of his/her own designated group, that value judgement is rarely a positive one..
If you want to see some examples of how truly ridiculous labeling has become among Jews, look at a standardized shidduch questionaire from the various shidduch groups. The number of labels available to categorize the single according to their "religion" has gone well beyond ludicrous. Other examples of ludicrous labeling vis a vis religion? Plug into any discussion about major issues confronting yiddishkeit or of concern to yiddishkeit and watch the labels multiply like rabbits. Watch how certain segments of Klal refer to other segments of Klal.
Pray tell, just what "religion" is MO Light? Or how about MO Machmir? Pray tell of what use labels may be when someone who sits and learns in Chaim Berlin or Torah VoDaas or yeshivas of that type and style will be labeled Yeshivish, but someone who sits and learns in a YU kollel is not considered Yeshivish?
Of late a new label has been floating around: Chareidi Light. Sounds to me more like a description of a mild Asian horseradish than a religious designation. We'd probably all be better off if it did apply to that horseradish. At least then there would be some actual referent the term pointed to, some neutral object.
I'm going to answer to exactly one name if someone asks me my religion: Jewish. If someone really pushes and I'm feeling benign I might tack on "religious/observant." Beyond that it's all labeling, and you realllllly don't want to take me there.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass
I have, on various occasions, mentioned that I am sick and tired of the labeling that goes on in Klal. Why does this labeling make me go ballistic? Because basically those labels have no meaning, none whatsoever. They mean whatever someone wants them to mean at the time they are using the label, and it matters not a whit if the person to whom the label is being attached doesn't quite understand what that label means or doesn't feel they belong under that label. And give it a day or two or a week or two or a month or two and that label will miraculously expand and contract, adding new elements to its meaning and subtracting some that have been there before, or it might disappear altogether.
Dr. Mark Skousen has written extensively on the dangers of economic and political labels. Let me paraphrase his words to apply to religious matters. "The three main reasons why labels are best avoided in religious discussions/usage are: (1) Labels are often an inaccurate description of a person's or group's views. (2) Labels often become pejorative terms used in character assassination (3) Labels put people into religious boxes and keep them there, preventing individuals from objectively considering alternative opinions and changing their minds....Categorizing someone's ideas using labels is often used to avoid real thinking about actual issues....[Using labels] it is a method for throwing someone into a convenient ideological box."
Labels are a type of stereotyping, and like other stereotypes, they may have no truth to them or only some truth to them. They may not apply to all in a group being stereotypically labeled or they may actually apply to none in that group. Stereotype does not equal truth, and neither does a label. At best a stereotype is "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image; a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning."
There is intention when a label is used, and that intention is not always or only rarely neutral. The way religious labels are used today it should be clear that their intent is not just strictly for the purpose of naming something so that it's easier to discuss that something. For the most part the intent is to invest the something being discussed with a type of value judgement, and for the most part when someone flying under the flag of one particular label applies a different label to someone outside of his/her own designated group, that value judgement is rarely a positive one..
If you want to see some examples of how truly ridiculous labeling has become among Jews, look at a standardized shidduch questionaire from the various shidduch groups. The number of labels available to categorize the single according to their "religion" has gone well beyond ludicrous. Other examples of ludicrous labeling vis a vis religion? Plug into any discussion about major issues confronting yiddishkeit or of concern to yiddishkeit and watch the labels multiply like rabbits. Watch how certain segments of Klal refer to other segments of Klal.
Pray tell, just what "religion" is MO Light? Or how about MO Machmir? Pray tell of what use labels may be when someone who sits and learns in Chaim Berlin or Torah VoDaas or yeshivas of that type and style will be labeled Yeshivish, but someone who sits and learns in a YU kollel is not considered Yeshivish?
Of late a new label has been floating around: Chareidi Light. Sounds to me more like a description of a mild Asian horseradish than a religious designation. We'd probably all be better off if it did apply to that horseradish. At least then there would be some actual referent the term pointed to, some neutral object.
I'm going to answer to exactly one name if someone asks me my religion: Jewish. If someone really pushes and I'm feeling benign I might tack on "religious/observant." Beyond that it's all labeling, and you realllllly don't want to take me there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)