Vocaboly.com

[Hank Murphy]

Troll.

A real notice would not have ads for improving one's sex life at the end...

I'm aware of one company which did hire testers. Pay was $7.00 per hour.

There are some openings for experienced QA people...but this is more than a
little competitive, and much depends on who one knows.

Hank Murphy
speaking only for myself

[rea777]

Thanks Hank,

In my case, the evidence was clear. The problem of cheating is one of
institutions tolerating cheaters, when not actively producing them.
Colleges are commercial institutions selling educational services.
Cheaters are obviously good business. The question is not for me how to
stop this or that cheating method. But how to motivate institutions not
to tolerate cheaters.

REA
http://www.redaelandaloussi.net/papers/cheaters_colleges.php

Hank Murphy wrote:
>

[PennDad]

"rea777" <reamail777-googlegroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

[rea777]

Yes PennDad,

In an ideal world...

And to the extent that the word gets out. Which is why I am getting the
word out through the paper.

However, since the majority of students does graduate, swallows the
pill, takes the trinkets and beads, keep their heads down, etc., I do
not suppose the word gets out that much. Once one has accepted such a
diploma, how much is one going to talk about the cheating going on? And
how easily is such a word about 2-year colleges going to reach the ears
of decision makers who hire on the job market? If decision makers are
more often from 4-year trainings, then the situation may be
compartimentalized. Decision makers may actually trust what they see on
2-year colleges' web sites, and have little contact with the real buzz.

Unfortunately also, damage control seems effective enough that prospect
students (like myself before I enrolled), have no idea about the
problem of cheating when they enroll. I know now, afterwards, that the
situation is endemic, and I nurture little about proper ethics of ANY
college. Yet in your reasoning, the word should be out when confronted
to decisions such as enrolling. The word was not out for me. Damage
control must be generally effective. The college did not go anywhere
near oblivion. What went there are my ideas of a fair education, my
self confidence on the job market.

Moreover, Community Colleges are not really subject to real
competition. They are geographic-based monopolies and cartels. Oblivion
does not seem an option available to them. The magic of self regulating
markets does not apply to Community Colleges in any positive term. Self
regulation applies in a negative sense. It creates a situation where
the colleges that do not cheat receive less money. The only reputation
that matters to their very existence is that of their metrics of
success, and NOT the reputation of their graduates on the job market
which nobody measures. Therefore more Colleges end up
institutionalizing cheating. This is made even more potent with the era
of multiple choice testing as a foundation for colleges to establish
their metrics of success, and therefore their financing. Now that there
is an 'objective' QUANTITATIVE measure of passing students, A students
etc., QUALITY itself is marginalized. Quantity won over quality.

And the disease can only be spreading. It seems to me the problem is
exactly the oposite of what you are saying: the schools that do not
cheat are at a disadvantage and it is they who are threatened by
financial oblivion if they do not promote cheating, cover it up,
silence whistle blowers, etc..., the whole works.

REA
http://www.redaelandaloussi.net/papers/cheaters_colleges.php


PennDad wrote:

[Guest]

Abe Kohen wrote:

[scallywag]

You missed the most important guide on choosing which school is right
for you. All of these websites that you have listed are watered down
with no information to actually back up anything. Go to college prowler
and read the survival guide on each. You'll never read anything else
again.

[outwest]

You guys still here?
What happened to Abe?
"octogenarian" <jim.m.gong@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115328353.787005.104250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[Janet Puistonen]

octogenarian wrote:

[rick++]

[Guest]

[octogenarian]

Anyone with a undergrad science degree employed in a major technical
field is usually labeled an Engineering. A SC grad will be better known
as a software engineer, SW (Software) or HW engineer ... than
programmer.

Similarly, BS in Chemistry, employed in semiconductor industry is a
Wafer Fab process engineer of some sort.

[Janet Puistonen]

octogenarian wrote:

[octogenarian]

You can opin any which way. Do tell what undergrad degree is most
desired for entry level Software, Hardware, System and IT engineers in
computation field?

Once upon a time, you need a "degree of Engineer" to become an
Engineer. Stanford and only a few Universities still offer it. From
Stanford:

The degree of Engineer represents an additional year (or more) of study
beyond the M.S. degree and includes a research thesis. The program is
designed for students who wish to do professional engineering work upon
graduation and who want to engage in more specialized study than is
afforded by the master's degree alone. Admission standards are
substantially the same as for the master's program.

[Guest]

[Janet Puistonen]

octogenarian wrote: