On 9/6/2016 9:12 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/6/16 8:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:00:32 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Not if you got in...

I doubt you would get much more than the statistical guessing average
(~25%) on the ETST (a test that is a prereq for Navy electronics
training)


Why would I want Navy electronics training?


Not to worry. You wouldn't qualify for it anyway.

On 9/7/16 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 9:12 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/6/16 8:11 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:00:32 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:



Not if you got in...

I doubt you would get much more than the statistical guessing average
(~25%) on the ETST (a test that is a prereq for Navy electronics
training)


Why would I want Navy electronics training?


Not to worry. You wouldn't qualify for it anyway.



You mean, my soldering and assembling a half dozen Radio Shack kits
(from the Crown Street store) while I was in junior high and high
school, my ability to take completely apart and properly reassemble
outboard motors and lawnmower engines, and my A's and B's in algebra,
geometry, chemistry, calculus, and physics in high school wouldn't have
done it for me? Damn! Then I guess I would have had to go to college and
not join the navy. Drats!

On 9/7/16 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 8:00 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:29 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/6/16 5:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:07:41 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Leaving students bewildered and stranded. Anyone know more about
this government action against education?

===

The problem is that studens were misled about their employment
opportunities and then defaulted on their government backed student
loans when they couldn't get jobs. The ITT training wasn't quite as
rigorous as the US Navy's and neither were their admission standards.



The Navy has admission standards? Beyond fogging a mirror?


You'd be surprised.


Not if you got in...

The problem with your accusations is that you have no idea what you are
talking about. The Navy has many jobs ... called "ratings" ... and each
one has a minimum score required (along with other specific
requirements), to attend the rating's particular school(s). Some
require enlistments beyond the typical 4 years due to the length of the
schools and the educational investment the government makes. Without
giving away any unnecessary details, the rating and schools "Justan"
attended required one of the highest qualifying scores. You may be
good at sentence structure, prepositional phrases and teaching bonehead
English but it's highly unlikely you would have qualified for the Navy
schools he attended.




Oh, yeah, because the "details" from 50 years ago are significant today.
I get it.

On 9/6/2016 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:01:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:49:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:

Why would I want Navy electronics training?

I know, it is a science, you are an artist.


I took and got A's in a good number of university math and science classes.
As I have and had no interest in being in the navy, why would I want navy
electronics training?

I suppose if you want to spend 2 years learning what you could learn
in 6 weeks, go for it.


Ahh. Your anti-intellectual nonsense

Why is learning things faster anti intellectual?
It seems to me they dumb down schools to the lowest common denominator
and call it being intellectual. How is that right?
It is funny that the only schools who operate that way are the ones
that charge you by the hour so it is not all that amazing.
Schools run by people who have an interest in teaching you quickly, go
much faster with classes 7 or 8 hours a day at a much faster tempo and
if you can't keep up, you get kicked out.
Personally I prefer going fast. Even the IBM schools and the navy
school was not really challenging me. Public school was a joke to me
and my private school was barely holding my attention.
Give me the books and a little nudge in the right direction and I will
ace your test.


Heh. Having attended both Navy technical schools and civilian college,
there is no question which of the two is the most efficient in getting
knowledge that can be put to good use beyond contemplating your belly
button. Most of the college courses were simply a matter of putting in
the required hours to earn the credits. Some were worthwhile, but for
the most part it was just a time consuming process. For example, in my
post-Navy civilian career a requirement to use advanced calculus ...
specifically in the application of Fourier Transforms arose. I took
calculus in college but the Navy schools had covered it as well ... even
though they didn't specifically call it by that name. The Navy
education was far more helpful in my civilian career.

I am lousy at writing advertising jingles though.

On 9/7/16 8:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:01:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:49:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:

Why would I want Navy electronics training?

I know, it is a science, you are an artist.


I took and got A's in a good number of university math and science
classes.
As I have and had no interest in being in the navy, why would I
want navy
electronics training?

I suppose if you want to spend 2 years learning what you could learn
in 6 weeks, go for it.


Ahh. Your anti-intellectual nonsense

Why is learning things faster anti intellectual?
It seems to me they dumb down schools to the lowest common denominator
and call it being intellectual. How is that right?
It is funny that the only schools who operate that way are the ones
that charge you by the hour so it is not all that amazing.
Schools run by people who have an interest in teaching you quickly, go
much faster with classes 7 or 8 hours a day at a much faster tempo and
if you can't keep up, you get kicked out.
Personally I prefer going fast. Even the IBM schools and the navy
school was not really challenging me. Public school was a joke to me
and my private school was barely holding my attention.
Give me the books and a little nudge in the right direction and I will
ace your test.


Heh. Having attended both Navy technical schools and civilian college,
there is no question which of the two is the most efficient in getting
knowledge that can be put to good use beyond contemplating your belly
button. Most of the college courses were simply a matter of putting in
the required hours to earn the credits. Some were worthwhile, but for
the most part it was just a time consuming process. For example, in my
post-Navy civilian career a requirement to use advanced calculus ...
specifically in the application of Fourier Transforms arose. I took
calculus in college but the Navy schools had covered it as well ... even
though they didn't specifically call it by that name. The Navy
education was far more helpful in my civilian career.

I am lousy at writing advertising jingles though.


My guess is that the college course was designed to stretch your
thinking processes, and the navy course was designed to teach you to do
tasks. Thinking, after all, isn't really important, eh?

On 9/7/2016 8:51 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/7/16 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 8:00 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:29 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/6/16 5:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:07:41 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Leaving students bewildered and stranded. Anyone know more about
this government action against education?

===

The problem is that studens were misled about their employment
opportunities and then defaulted on their government backed student
loans when they couldn't get jobs. The ITT training wasn't quite as
rigorous as the US Navy's and neither were their admission standards.



The Navy has admission standards? Beyond fogging a mirror?


You'd be surprised.


Not if you got in...

The problem with your accusations is that you have no idea what you are
talking about. The Navy has many jobs ... called "ratings" ... and each
one has a minimum score required (along with other specific
requirements), to attend the rating's particular school(s). Some
require enlistments beyond the typical 4 years due to the length of the
schools and the educational investment the government makes. Without
giving away any unnecessary details, the rating and schools "Justan"
attended required one of the highest qualifying scores. You may be
good at sentence structure, prepositional phrases and teaching bonehead
English but it's highly unlikely you would have qualified for the Navy
schools he attended.




Oh, yeah, because the "details" from 50 years ago are significant today.
I get it.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. The standards *today* for some
of the Navy schools are higher than they were 50 years ago. Technology
has required that. However, a good part of what was taught in Navy
electronics schools 50 years ago is still pertinent today. The biggest
shift has been to digital processing but digital data processing
predates Morse Code and teletype. Nothing is really "new", and that
includes technology in general. Rather, it is a continuum of applied
physics.

On 9/7/2016 9:02 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/7/16 8:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:01:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:49:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:

Why would I want Navy electronics training?

I know, it is a science, you are an artist.


I took and got A's in a good number of university math and science
classes.
As I have and had no interest in being in the navy, why would I
want navy
electronics training?

I suppose if you want to spend 2 years learning what you could learn
in 6 weeks, go for it.


Ahh. Your anti-intellectual nonsense

Why is learning things faster anti intellectual?
It seems to me they dumb down schools to the lowest common denominator
and call it being intellectual. How is that right?
It is funny that the only schools who operate that way are the ones
that charge you by the hour so it is not all that amazing.
Schools run by people who have an interest in teaching you quickly, go
much faster with classes 7 or 8 hours a day at a much faster tempo and
if you can't keep up, you get kicked out.
Personally I prefer going fast. Even the IBM schools and the navy
school was not really challenging me. Public school was a joke to me
and my private school was barely holding my attention.
Give me the books and a little nudge in the right direction and I will
ace your test.


Heh. Having attended both Navy technical schools and civilian college,
there is no question which of the two is the most efficient in getting
knowledge that can be put to good use beyond contemplating your belly
button. Most of the college courses were simply a matter of putting in
the required hours to earn the credits. Some were worthwhile, but for
the most part it was just a time consuming process. For example, in my
post-Navy civilian career a requirement to use advanced calculus ...
specifically in the application of Fourier Transforms arose. I took
calculus in college but the Navy schools had covered it as well ... even
though they didn't specifically call it by that name. The Navy
education was far more helpful in my civilian career.

I am lousy at writing advertising jingles though.


My guess is that the college course was designed to stretch your
thinking processes, and the navy course was designed to teach you to do
tasks. Thinking, after all, isn't really important, eh?

Like many, I don't think I've ever had a problem with "thinking",
critical or otherwise. I certainly didn't learn to "think" while
attending civilian college courses ... mostly at night school after I
left the Navy. I was older than most of the students, having spent 9
years in the Navy, and was generally regarded as being "seasoned" and
more advanced in my "critical thinking" capabilities, both by my fellow
students and by the instructor.

Why do you seem to insist that there is only *one* path to education?

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/7/16 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 8:00 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:29 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/6/16 5:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:07:41 -0400 (EDT), justan wrote:

Leaving students bewildered and stranded. Anyone know more about
this government action against education?

===

The problem is that studens were misled about their employment
opportunities and then defaulted on their government backed student
loans when they couldn't get jobs. The ITT training wasn't quite as
rigorous as the US Navy's and neither were their admission standards.



The Navy has admission standards? Beyond fogging a mirror?


You'd be surprised.


Not if you got in...

The problem with your accusations is that you have no idea what you are
talking about. The Navy has many jobs ... called "ratings" ... and each
one has a minimum score required (along with other specific
requirements), to attend the rating's particular school(s). Some
require enlistments beyond the typical 4 years due to the length of the
schools and the educational investment the government makes. Without
giving away any unnecessary details, the rating and schools "Justan"
attended required one of the highest qualifying scores. You may be
good at sentence structure, prepositional phrases and teaching bonehead
English but it's highly unlikely you would have qualified for the Navy
schools he attended.




Oh, yeah, because the "details" from 50 years ago are significant today.
I get it.


Nothing stands still like the English language. Once you master
it, it's yours for life. That holds true for most of the union
trades as well. Rules and standards change a bit but once a brick
stacker always a brick stacker. Technology is a different story.
You can't stagnate like an English proffessor and expect to move
along or even keep a job. So you're right. You also proved that a
pedestrian skill set like you have is not that hard to come by
and is of little value, especially for bragging rights.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 9/7/16 8:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:01:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:49:23 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:

Why would I want Navy electronics training?

I know, it is a science, you are an artist.


I took and got A's in a good number of university math and science
classes.
As I have and had no interest in being in the navy, why would I
want navy
electronics training?

I suppose if you want to spend 2 years learning what you could learn
in 6 weeks, go for it.


Ahh. Your anti-intellectual nonsense

Why is learning things faster anti intellectual?
It seems to me they dumb down schools to the lowest common denominator
and call it being intellectual. How is that right?
It is funny that the only schools who operate that way are the ones
that charge you by the hour so it is not all that amazing.
Schools run by people who have an interest in teaching you quickly, go
much faster with classes 7 or 8 hours a day at a much faster tempo and
if you can't keep up, you get kicked out.
Personally I prefer going fast. Even the IBM schools and the navy
school was not really challenging me. Public school was a joke to me
and my private school was barely holding my attention.
Give me the books and a little nudge in the right direction and I will
ace your test.


Heh. Having attended both Navy technical schools and civilian college,
there is no question which of the two is the most efficient in getting
knowledge that can be put to good use beyond contemplating your belly
button. Most of the college courses were simply a matter of putting in
the required hours to earn the credits. Some were worthwhile, but for
the most part it was just a time consuming process. For example, in my
post-Navy civilian career a requirement to use advanced calculus ...
specifically in the application of Fourier Transforms arose. I took
calculus in college but the Navy schools had covered it as well ... even
though they didn't specifically call it by that name. The Navy
education was far more helpful in my civilian career.

I am lousy at writing advertising jingles though.


My guess is that the college course was designed to stretch your
thinking processes, and the navy course was designed to teach you to do
tasks. Thinking, after all, isn't really important, eh?


Thinking and doing is a hell of a lot more productive than just
sitting on a rock and thinking. Thinking is just part of a
process. I'm surprised that kollitch didn't impress that upon
you. But then again it was Kansas klown college. What can you
expect.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 9/7/16 9:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/7/2016 9:02 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/7/16 8:59 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2016 11:43 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:01:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 21:49:23 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:

Why would I want Navy electronics training?

I know, it is a science, you are an artist.


I took and got A's in a good number of university math and science
classes.
As I have and had no interest in being in the navy, why would I
want navy
electronics training?

I suppose if you want to spend 2 years learning what you could learn
in 6 weeks, go for it.


Ahh. Your anti-intellectual nonsense

Why is learning things faster anti intellectual?
It seems to me they dumb down schools to the lowest common denominator
and call it being intellectual. How is that right?
It is funny that the only schools who operate that way are the ones
that charge you by the hour so it is not all that amazing.
Schools run by people who have an interest in teaching you quickly, go
much faster with classes 7 or 8 hours a day at a much faster tempo and
if you can't keep up, you get kicked out.
Personally I prefer going fast. Even the IBM schools and the navy
school was not really challenging me. Public school was a joke to me
and my private school was barely holding my attention.
Give me the books and a little nudge in the right direction and I will
ace your test.


Heh. Having attended both Navy technical schools and civilian college,
there is no question which of the two is the most efficient in getting
knowledge that can be put to good use beyond contemplating your belly
button. Most of the college courses were simply a matter of putting in
the required hours to earn the credits. Some were worthwhile, but for
the most part it was just a time consuming process. For example, in my
post-Navy civilian career a requirement to use advanced calculus ...
specifically in the application of Fourier Transforms arose. I took
calculus in college but the Navy schools had covered it as well ... even
though they didn't specifically call it by that name. The Navy
education was far more helpful in my civilian career.

I am lousy at writing advertising jingles though.


My guess is that the college course was designed to stretch your
thinking processes, and the navy course was designed to teach you to do
tasks. Thinking, after all, isn't really important, eh?

Like many, I don't think I've ever had a problem with "thinking",
critical or otherwise. I certainly didn't learn to "think" while
attending civilian college courses ... mostly at night school after I
left the Navy. I was older than most of the students, having spent 9
years in the Navy, and was generally regarded as being "seasoned" and
more advanced in my "critical thinking" capabilities, both by my fellow
students and by the instructor.

Why do you seem to insist that there is only *one* path to education?


I don't. I simply believe educational methodology leads to different
paths, intellectually. I wouldn't expect the training for a cabinetmaker
to be the same as the training for a forester, even though both deal in
wood, as it were. I would expect a good cabinetmaker to know a great
deal about the properties of wood and joinery, but not necessarily much
about how trees are planted, maintained, grown, harvested, and I
wouldn't expect a forester to know about the intricacies of
cabinetmaking. The educational processes that lead to either vocation,
though, are valuable.