I agree with the decision too and with you Keith, that there should be some mechanism to test students -- all students -- in the math, science, and language skills for students who are graduating to insure that parochial and religious schools are teaching at the same level.

 

I disagree completely, the only test should be whether they pass or fail their courses at UC.

This policy puts into place a presupposition that is not supported by any facts, only an agenda on UC's part.

 

My question is; "Are they targeting these religious schools unfairly?" Its clear that these schools have a target on them for the textbooks and methods they use but is it really any different than what goes on at a lot of secular schools. Personally I went to a public school and in history courses all we got was that Washington did this, FDR did that, the US is the greatest, etc. We were never taught these high standards UC is complaining over and I would say a lot of school systems are similar. So why aren't the kind of high school I went to looked at suspiciously? My argument isn't that UC is doing this to be anti-religious but rather that they are being foolish as most high school students won't have these skills they want anyway. The Christian schools are more easily visible and although I agree with UC they need to take this all the way or drop it and let them in.

It just seems a little petty to me.

 

According to an interview I saw with a USC official the standards are applied to all schools and, any school that fails to meet the minimum criteria, is at risk of graduating students from an non-certified program.

In the same story I saw, they interviewed a religious school that taught creationism, intelligent design and evolution and required students to be familiar with all those ideas. That school is certified by the state and its student are eligible to attend California universities.

I hope that answers your question bro.

 

There has to be some criteria to decide whether they get into the school before pass and failing a UC course is even an issue, no?

 

It is not objective, it is presuppositional.

Since when is it UC's mission to mete out consequences? I thought there mission was to provide a quality College Education, not the retribution.

 

Are there not test scores mandated before a applicant can enter UC? Aren't there GPA's that must be maintained before enrollment can be considered?

 

And other things apparently. The UC expects a certain level of knowledge from any incoming freshman, if you went to a school that avoided teaching some very standard things because of a religious preference it isnt the UC's job to get you caught up with the other students.

 

I don't think it is just a matter of passing standardized tests. All universities that I know of require a high school diploma or equivalent from an accredited source.

If a school is not accredited solely because creationism is part of a broader view of biology, that I would have a problem with but I have no problem with requiring that accredited schools provide their students with strong science, math and language programs.

It is when a school teaches that there is no truth save the creation account that I would draw the line at accreditation because it sends a student ill-prepared into the real world of higher education.

 

The only real test of knowledge can be found in it's application Shoes,

If they fail, they fail, UC is not even allowing them to fail and that is the presupposition that I find troubling.

 

And once again, the presupposition, that the applicant is somehow inferior by priori of courses is nonsensical, that puts the College in the position of not evaluating the candidate's knowledge, but the school's curriculum, that is why tests are standardized, a pre college exam has only a result with no presuppositions.

That is why they are used by every college in the country.

Pity that Ohio...you could have been Dan Rather...:lol:

 

Indeed, UC's polict however ignores actual results on tests, it is a priori.

I disagree, there are state standards, all of which are designed for mere uniformity, for example the SCIQ may have dissected frogs, but what UC is suggesting is that because they are not Evolutionarily Theory educated, they are unacceptable.

To that I would say if the Biology Department teaches from an Evolutionary view, then it is the Student's responsibility to treat that as the basis for all course work, they are there to learn, not to make social policy statements.

I disagree, I'm a fan of distance learning, and "accreditation" is a mythical beast, this school may be disqualified in UC's view, but a dirt hut of a school in the 4th world is not?

That is why testing like the SAT or CAT (the CA version) is a much better gauge of who is qualified and who is not, there is no presuppositional bias in a test, one scores what one scores.

 

The Catholic High School I attended renamed some religious courses with things like "Philosophy" and other secular-like things in order to fool universities into accepting them as credits.. Which is all rather hilarious since I thought that honesty was supposed to be a Christian value..