On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Louis Talman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Quite the contrary. We establish qualifications, review resumes and conduct interviews. We hire based on that process and compare results. We adjust our theory each iteration and we are competing with all of the other companies doing the same thing, so there is wide consensus and verification. What is not scientific about that Michael? Lou? > > Intent, for one very superficial thing. Your intent is to hire someone---not to figure out how something works.
Superficial? Let me get this straight. The parents of these students are exhausting their savings. The students are exhausting their savings. The students and the parents are going into debt. Do you really not know why they are putting themselves in such a financial hard spot? The number one reason, by a margin so wide it is ridiculous to even have a number 2, is for a better life via a better job. And you say "superficial"?
Just curious. When it comes to the financial well being of students, what do professors talk about around the water coolers these days?
Back to the context of this discussion. I know what "better" means with regard to education. My job often relies on me knowing what "better" means. I have 25 years of experience and training in knowing what "better" means. As I see it, this alone gives me an enormous head start over researchers that are trying to figure out what "better" means. This frees me up to figure out what works in achieving "better".