The educational systems we have today greatly differ from any time in the past. Due to its complexity, there are many questions to be asked. Here you might ask and answer questions about education: career paths, colleges and universities, classes, student loans, and more.
How do you answer 'Where do you see yourself in five years' in a job interview?
Where do you see yourself: Here's what the resume advice company Resume Edge recommends as a sample answer to the question, "Where do you see yourself in ten years?" In ten years, I endeavor to have refined my strategic and client relations skills. I intend to be a leading expert in estate planning. After having proven myself as a senior manager, I hope to help shape the strategic direction of estate planning services. I could do this in any number of official roles. The important thing is that I will continue contributing my abilities in a challenging and rewarding environment. More advice: While it is not usually a good idea to try to be a Jim Carey in an interview, depending on how things have gone and who you are dealing with, you might inject a little humor here and ask: "When do you expect to be promoted?" ....or "When are you moving on?... This could easily break the ice. Seriously, you can easily respond that you have no idea as you have no idea what you are capable of so far, although you know it is a lot. Therefore, you want to make sure you are open and flexible to whatever opportunities present themselves. If you actually know what you want to be when you grow up, you could offer to conduct a seminar on how to actuate that. You know when you come to that common situation where someone asks you "Where do you see yourself in five years?" Yea you should call a person on that because that question is silly! You have no idea where you'll be in five years nor should you worry. I mean how depressing can that question actually be? If someone asked me that question five years ago I wouldn't have predicted my life to be like this nor would I have wanted to say my life would be like this, I'm not saying I'm unhappy with my life necessarily its just that in a span of five years a persons likes and dislikes change, the people around them either disappear, reappear, or show up for the first time. The things you once loved could become something you hate or vice versa. Aspirations change and feelings lose their magic. Yes you can say what you'd like to see happen in five years but I'm pretty sure it won't and five years from now when you look back on yourself answering that question you'll probably no longer want the same things. There's always hope but no definite so all you can do is live life like you have those five years to look back on... When an interviewer asks this question, they're asking where you see yourself within a company. They don't want to hear you say, "Well, in five years, I will be married to a handsome European man, touring the South Pacific in our yacht with a mai-tai in my hand." They want something like, "Well, that will depend on my individual performance and on the opportunities I'm presented with, but ideally, I will be..." Even if you're going, "Yeah, like I'll be here in 5 years..." act like you will be. They don't want to hear you saying you'll essentially use them to get where you want, and the minute the opportunity is presented jump ship. Some might think that you should not tell the interviewer that you want to move up the ladder of success, because they will fear that you might replace them or move on to another job. However, most would recommend that you answer with just the opposite: that you do want to be successful. A good manager wants his employees to be successful and grow in their careers because that benefits the whole company. If they don't want this, you don't want to work for them. As for the actual standards of success and specific career paths, they are very different for different people and different industries. It is most important to show that you do want to be successful. Think educationally-- higher degree? certification? Think leadership-- at least one step up from where you are at now. Think about what your goals in life are. Then think about what you are doing now. The answer will be somewhere in between, for example "I want to be the CEO of Microsoft and right now I'm studying towards a degree in computering engineering." In five years time the person would probably be "working with a decent computer company in a high position, looking to move on to greater things". Be ambitious but realistic. If you are applying for a job in the mail room in a large corporation, don't say you are gong to be CEO in 5 years; but try to find out before your interview where a mail room clerk might be promoted to. This is a tricky interview question and definitely something worth thinking about before hand. You should come across as being flexible with strong ideas of several directions you are interested in developing. You should be positive, confident and ambitious but not overly so. Don't say "I want to be doing your job" Where will you be in five years? This is a very common job interview question. Think carefully about your plans. Really answer it for yourself, Where do you see yourself in five years? Where do you hope to be? The interviewer is looking to find out a few things with this question. First, are you the type of person who plans ahead and sets goals? You should be. Second, do your goals match those of the company and the position? Your goals need to fit the career path for the job. They don't want to lose you in a year or two.
Asked in Education
What is a standard definition of success?
== == Here are some suggestions for how people can define their standard of success: * Success is different for each individual person. Too often we look at one another to measure how successful we are in our own lives. You may look at a certain person and think wow they really got it together. What you may not know is that person probably isn't in his/her mind satisfied their own selves (successfully) speaking. Ask yourself what your standard of success is, but remember you are your own worst critic so go easy. Life is a journey not a destination! * Use a metaphor to describe your personal success. For example, "I have four pillars of success. They are hard work, pursuance, determination and reliability." * Success is the fruit of: 1. Good directing as a leader, providing people with specific instructions and closely supervising task accomplishment; 2. Coaching by explaining decisions, solicits suggestions and support progress; 3. Supporting by facilitating and supporting subordinates efforts toward task accomplishment and shares responsibility for decision - making with them; 4. Delegating by turning over responsibility for decision - making and problem - solving to subordinates. * They want to know how much of a perfectionist you are. They want to know if you are a go-getter. They want to know if you will settle for less than they will. * A) Start by determining what success means for you: lots of money? reaching targets? execution of a project? change in people behaviour? so it depends on the sort of job you are in. B) It is also useful to look at what your own work values are. These should be in line with your own personal life values. The combination of A + B= may give you the answer. The interviewer will verify in how far these are in line with the organization's values. Again all depends on the type of activity. One golden tip: always remain yourself - do not pretend to adhere to values that are not yours. Goods luck! == == * Well success means what you are adding in your self every day, for me what I have decided in the morning and what I have achieved end of the day. * Is end of the day I find more polish myself, if the answer is yes than I am successful person in my life. == == * For me, success means what you are adding in your self everyday, if you are experiencing growth and change (better one) in the field that you are in and when you are able to use and contribute the education and knowledge that the university provided you as a student in giving quality service to people. And also considering what you have achieved at the end of the day. * The best way to handle this interview question is to provide a well-accepted definition of success and then support this with good examples of your personal success. One of the widely accepted definitions of success is goal attainment. Give examples of challenging goals you have set yourself and achieved.
What is the difference between a college and a university?
Colleges vs. Universities vs. Schools: The difference between a college and a university is that a college just offers a collection of degrees in one specific area while a university is a collection of colleges. When you go to a university you are going to be graduating from one of their colleges, such as the business college. As to which is better, it depends on what you want. Single colleges tend to be smaller while universities are bigger, but universities are better known. Explanations from other contributors: Be aware that there is a very distinct difference in terminology between the USA and the rest of the world. In the US, there is very little difference academically between a "college" and a "university." In the US, the terms are synonymous; other countries use "college" to refer to some secondary schools, but "university" is always used to mean an institution of tertiary education and higher learning. Universities are usually larger and often contain multiple "colleges" within them. However, some of the top-ranked schools in the US have a name including "college" (e.g., Dartmouth College). In other parts of the English-speaking world, the term "university" equates to the US use of "college" and the term "college" refers more to a trade or vocational school. Depends on the country you are in. Here in the UK, a university can award its own degrees and has a charter giving it various guarantees of independence. A college usually depends on a fully-fledged university to validate its degrees, or may even be part of a university, as in Oxford or Cambridge colleges. Or a college may be little to do with degree-level education at all, such as a Further Education college. Also don't forget Community Colleges. In that usage a college is very different than a University because a community college can't offer a 4-year degree (i.e., a B.A. or a B.S.). Community colleges can offer trade and technical certifications and training as well as the first 2 years of a 4-year program, but they are unable to grant Bachelor's degrees. In Canada, a University is an education institution that can grant degrees (BA, BSc, MA, PHd, etc). Colleges can grant certificates or diplomas, but not degrees. Maybe it is in Canada alone that universities are different than colleges. Most countries except Canada (developing or developed countries), colleges offers four (4) year course - Bachelor's Degree. Of course, universities are more prestigious and more expensive. Also, universities offers further studies after a Bachelor's degree like Master's degrees, Doctorate degree, and Post Doctorate degree - these degrees can be achieved if you have earned a Bachelor's degree first. Basically, colleges are small and faculties (such as lecturers) are more focused to students. They usually focus on a few courses (for a Bachelor's degree). In universities, a professor handles more students and they most likely can't place a focus on each individual student. Australia is in the same boat as Canada, then. Here, Universities offer degrees, but Colleges (also known as T.A.F.E.,) offer Diplomas and Certificates. In France, college Grande Ecole is highly reputing than University especially in Engineering. It is part of National Polytechnic Institute taking into account the selection criteria. A university confers degrees up to PhD. A 4-year college confers Bachelor's and Master's degrees (BA, BS & MA, MS). A 2-year or community college confers the associate degree (AA or AS). The main difference between a college and a university is that the university maintains research requirements for its instructors and that the university is, in essence, a more research-focused institution. A college can offer many majors with which to direct your studies. However, doctorate programs are more prone to be offered at universities where they have the money to support such programs. This is probably related to the fact that Universities conduct research, which in turn allows them a certain degree of recognition, attracts a larger student body and affords them the capacity to offer higher learning options than a college can offer. While the terms today are often used interchangeably, originally a college was a specific school teaching a specific subject, such as Education, Medicine, etc. and a University is a school made up of numerous colleges. In general the difference is the level of degree that they can award. Colleges typically award Bachelor's degrees and Universities can confer Master's and Doctorate degrees. The distinction has never been "enforced" by any organization. Sometimes a college could have called themselves a university, but chooses not to for historical reasons and/or continuity of its name. The College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, founded in 1693, could have long ago called itself a university, with studies available in many areas, undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate. However, to maintain the historical title that dates back to colonial times, the college has never adopted the title of university. Those of us who work here commonly refer to it as "the university," and as a Virginia Charter University, which has allowed William & Mary a large degree of independence from the commonwealth, all new employees are now "university employees" vice "state employees" as the college now has its own human resources structure separate from (but similar to) the commonwealth's HR structure. Current "state employees" also have the option to convert to "university employees." Bottom line: While W&M operates at a level commonly equated to universities, it chooses to maintain the title of college for historical reasons. I suspect that Dartmouth College has the same or similar reasoning for not taking on the title of university, although it certainly would be justified in doing so. A few notes on some of these comments: 1) Community colleges absolutely do now offer bachelor degrees and not always in conjunction with a 4-year college or university. This is a new trend in the US and many are fighting it, because that wasn't the purpose behind the community college concept when it was first developed. 2) Universities are not more prestigious than colleges. I defy anyone to tell me that MIT, which isn't a university, isn't as prestigious as Harvard University. 3) In answer to this post: "A university confers degrees up to PhD. A 4-year college confers Bachelors and Masters degrees. (BA,BS & MA, MS) A 2-year or community college confers the associate degree. (AA or AS)": There are many colleges that offer doctoral degrees. In the US, a "4-year college" does not offer a masters. That goes beyond the 4 years. As I wrote before, many community and 2-year colleges offer bachelor degrees. 4) Last point, in answer to "The difference between a college and a university is that a college just offers a collection of degrees in one specific area, while a university is a collection of colleges": Universities contain colleges and universities offer the degree. For example, my degree is from the University of Illinois, not from the College of Education. I earned the degree through the COE, but UI granted the degree.
Is the United States Achievement Academy a scam?
Sorry I don't agree with your answer. I have researched the internet and find that this "company" does sell your child's information to many other parties. It also continues to send letters to people who have graduated, who are already in college, who are now teaching and/or who NEVER had a GPA above a C. I find it interesting that my grandson, along with EVERYONE in his class got a letter with their name addressed in it. In the second paragraph it states... "Because only a relative handful of students anywhere in the United States qualify for this honor, we at The Academy are pleased to propose your child's inclusion in the prized USSA National Yearbook." The handful seams to be quite BIG! So it appears that anyone vain enough to want their child's name, address, phone number and email address (and picture for a fee if they don't want the book) , can fill out the form, send in their money and get their child published for anyone to see. AND they get to purchase the year book for just $59.95 if they want to. WHOOEEE! What an honor. On the student bio form it asks for the estimated GPA, but I'm quite sure that no one verifies it after they get your money... Just as they continue to send out mailings to people who are no longer in school and to unqualified students to begin with! Just another scam to get peoples hard earned money. You're better off saving it and looking into legitimate grants and scholarships.
Asked in Software Engineering, Education
What next after BE Computer?
friend, you should go for M.Tech after you BE, because this is your core stream or core line.so engineering is best option for your bright future If you need more information about the admission process ,then check out the websites of some of these universities given below:- BITS , BHU , LOVELY PROFESSSIONAL UNIVERSTY , AMITY UNIVERSITY....etc...
Asked in Education
If you were to get married after high school would that affect your academic scholarships?
No, because life is all about the lots of challenge facing problems and you must marry to take another problem to make your ability to sustain with it. Yes, because hun, we all know your gona get pregnant or already has a baby and no college wants a sluttty teen. got it? ^that's a terrible answer. After high school you're the adult. You make the decisions and no one can tell you otherwise. In fact, most colleges aren't going to look down upon you because you have a child. If you can pay for the school and everything else they are not going to really care. You're the adult now, you make the choice.
What are the differences between a nationally and regionally accredited school?
ANSWER 1: Accreditation is not a "one size fits all" concept. There are different types of accreditation - including regional accreditation and national accreditation. Colleges and universities voluntarily apply to receive their accreditation from different bodies, or different accrediting agencies. The following information outlines why some schools are regionally accredited, while others are nationally accredited, while others may have a "specialized" accreditation. Region Partition: If an online college chooses to apply for regional accreditation, it is evaluated by the regional agency that presides over its home state. These are the only 6 bodies that can award regional accreditation. They are all recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). You can learn more about these regional accrediting agencies, including which schools they accredit, by visiting their individual Web sites. National accreditation is not based on geography. National accreditation was designed to evaluate specific types of schools and colleges. For example, the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT) evaluates career schools and technology programs. The Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) accredits colleges that offer distance education. ANSWER 2: The first answer's pretty good. Let me see if I can make some things more clear, though... Accreditation is a means of the government (either directly, or by means of some agency appointed by it) evaluating a school and figuring out if it's doing its job sufficiently well. Accreditation concerns itself with things like whether or not the school's courses are both relevant and rigorous, whether its faculty is sufficiently well-qualified to teach said courses, whether the school is financially sound, how many students it initially registers versus how many fiinally actually graduate (and whether the education they got at the school actually helped them in life), and all that kinda' stuff. In the United States, the government does not directly accredit (as is often the case in other countries). Instead, the US Department of Education (USDE), and the USDE-sanctioned Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), approve accreditors; and it is those accreditors -- those non-governmental, outside agencies -- which actually do all the accrediting... ..but, of course, still under the watchful eye of the government in the form of USDE and its appointed, sanctioned, blessed agency, CHEA. The reason there are two agencies (USDE and CHEA) which are allowed to approve accreditors is a little complicated. Though it's an incomplete explanation, it's probably fair to say that USDE's interest in accreditation has traditionally be more along the lines of determining whether a given school is sufficiently good that it's okay for federal funds to be spent on it... either directly, in aid to the school, or, more specifically, as financial aid to the school's students. Most specifically, the USDE worried about the "G.I. Bill" funding the educations of former World War II veterans. USDE simply wanted to verify, via accreditation, that no federal G.I. Bill funds would be wasted on unworthy schools. Of course, USDE's interest in school quality, today, goes far beyond that... ...hence its creation of the USDE-sanctioned and blessed CHEA (er... well... actually, there have been previous agencies which have finally all come together as what we know, today, as CHEA; but I'm not gonna' get into all that here). CHEA concerns itself more with the specific manner in which the quality of the education is achieved. It's an oversimplification, but one could almost think of it as that USDE cares more about whether or not federal funds are wasted on lousy schools, and CHEA cares more about how to make schools better, and to ensure that they actually are really good schools via the accreditation function. It's important to understand, though, that accreditation is actually a minimal standard. It concerns itself not so much with how good a school either is or could be, but, rather, how bad it is simply not allowed to be and still call itself "accredited." That's an important distinction. Both Harvard and Yale are "regionally" accredited in exactly the same manner as one's local community college; yet no one, with a straight face, would ever argue that one's local community college is on par with the likes of Havard or Yale. So, then, to be clear, accreditation simply ensures that a school is minimally good; that it meets certain dead minimum quality standards. How much better than such minimal standards the school might actually be is another matter... one with which accreditation does not concern itself. The reason things are that way -- in other words, the reason accreditation only ensure minimal standards -- is, in part, so that credits earned at one accredited school will be more likely transferable to another accredited school; and/or so that the finished degree from one accredited school will be acceptable to another accredited school as requisite for entry into one of its higher-level degree programs. There are other reasons for accreditation (which will be discussed in a moment), but those two are really huge ones. Keep them in mind as you read, herein, further down, about how some accredited schools refuse to accept the transfer crediits, or the finished degrees, of other accredited schools. It can all get very weird and political... sadly. Most accreditors approved by USDE are also approved by CHEA; however, there are a tiny handful of accreditors which are approved by USDE, but not also by CHEA, and vice versa. All of the USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditors, though, are good, tough, no-nonsense accreditors which all ensure that the schools they accredit are good, sound, rigorous, well-run, well-staffed, and financially-sound. All of them! The "all of them" point is so strongly made, here, because the sad truth is that some in academia believe that certain accreditors are good, and that all others are not-so-good... maybe even downright bad. And the ones they believe are good tend to be the "regional" accreditors. All others, they believe and espouse -- including "national" accreditors -- are nowhere near as good as the six "regional" accreditors in the US. They're wrong, of course, but that's their claim. "Regional" accreditation is the kind of which most Americans have heard because it's so common. All public elementary, middle and high schools; and all public state colleges and universities, are "regionally" accredited. That, then, is the biggest reason why it's so commonly known; and so, then, why pretty much everyone has heard of at least "regional" accreditation. Some even think that "regional" accreditation is the only kind of accreditation; and so they mistakenly use the terms "accreditation" and "regional accreditation" interchangeably... synonymously... as if there were no difference; as if there were no other kind of USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditation out there. There are six "regional" USDE- and CHEA-approved accreditors in the US, each of which accredits schools only in the roughly one-sixth of the US states assigned to it. That's why they're called "regional" (and not "national") accreditors. They're sometimes referred to by academia as the "big six regional" accreditors; or sometimes just "the big six." "Regional" accreditors are "general" accreditors. They accredit all aspects of all kinds of schools... again, from elementary level right up through colleges and universities (and seminaries, and trade schools, and poly-technical colleges, etc.). And they're really good at it, and they're the biggest ones who generally accredit the most schools in the US. There are also "programmatic" accreditors... that is, USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accrediting agencies which accredit only certain kinds of educational programs: in things like business administration, nursing, accounting, law, engineering, etc. Many regionally-accredited schools also have certain of their programs "programmatically" accredited by smaller, specialist accreditors; and since such specialist programmatic accreditors are allowed to accredit in any of the 50 US states, they're considered "national" accreditors. Most "regional" accreditors don't have any issues with the kinds of "national" accreditors that are "programmatic" in nature because they only accredit programs, and not entire schools. Most regionallly-accredited schools want their specialist programs "programmaticallly" accredited. A regionally-accredited college or university which also has a law school will also want said law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA), which, in addition to being a national membership and support organization for lawyers, is also one of the USDE- and CHEA-approved "programmatic" accreditors. And, of course, as explained higher-up in this paragraph, all "programmatic" accreditors, because they accredit nationally, are also "national" accreditors; and so the ABA is not only a "programmatic" accreditor, but it is also a "national" accreditor. However, there are also "national" accreditors which compete, in effect, with "regional" accreditors because they accredit entire schools, not merely programs within them. This upsets the "regional" accreditors, and so, consequently, many of said "regional" accreditors have long sort of almost discriminated against schools (and their programs, and their students) which are "nationally" accredited by these smaller-and-effectively-competing accreditors. Most "national" accreditors of this type -- which can accredit entire schools, just like "regional" accreditors, and so are seen by some "regional" accreditors as competitors -- tend to specialize in accrediting only certain types of schools, such as religious schools, for example; or career-related schools; or distance-learning-only schools... stuff like that. There are, in fact, three (3) types of "national" accreditors: 1) Faith-related "national" accreditors 2) Career-related "national" accreditors 3) Programmatic "national" accreditors The last one accredits only programs within an otherwise separately and generally accredited (usually "regionallY' accredited) school, and so is not a threat to the "regional" accreditors. The first two, though, despite their being specialist at least in terms of the types of schools they accredit, are nevertheless able to accredit entire schools, just like "regional" accreditors; and so "regional" accreditors are often threatened by them. Because these "national" accreditors so specialize, though, one would think that the "regional" accreditors wouldn't feel so threatened. But, alas, they are... ...and the sad evidentiary result usually comes in the form of a "regionally" accredited school refusing to accept the transfer credits (or the finished degree as requisite for entry into a higher-level degree program) of a "nationally" accredited school. In other words, the "regionally" accredited school says to the transfer credit applicant something along the lines of this: "It's good that your school, where you earned the credits that you're now asking us to accept in transfer, is "nationally" accredited by an agency approved by USDE and CHEA, just like us. However, our standards, as a "regionally" accredited school, are higher than "national" accreditation standards. Therefore, as hard as you worked at your nationally-accredited school, and even though its accreditation is USDE- and CHEA-approved, just like our "regional" accreditation, we are, nevertheless, turning-up our noses at your transfer credits, and will not accept them." Of course, most "regionally" acrredited schools would never actually word it like that; but that's, in essence, the message. This, of course, makes the student applicant to the "regionally" accredited school (whose "nationally" accredited transfer credits just got rejected) hopping mad! And many complaints, then, have been registered with both USDE and CHEA over it, resulting in CHEA's "Higher Education Transfer Alliance" (HETA) program... http://www.chea.org/heta ...which attempts to re-educate smug and arrogant "regionally" accredited schools, and convince them to treat "nationally" accredited credits and degrees just the same as if they were "regionally" accredited. And it's beginning to work. More and more "regionally" accredited schools are finally beginning to accept many -- some of them even most, or even all -- "nationally" accredited transfer credits and finished degrees in one form or another of transfer. So, that's nice. However, the elitism and arrogance on the part of many "regionally" accredited schools -- especially those like Harvard or Yale which are far better than accreditation's minimal standards ensure -- continues. For that reason -- and this is important -- anyone contemplating getting a degree (or accumulating coursework) at a "nationally" accredited school needs to do so with his/her eyes wide open. Unless the coursework or degree is "programmatically" accredited -- in other words, if it's "nationally" accredited by a career- or faith-based accreditor -- then one should make certain that said coursework or degree will, indeed, be transferable into whatever "regionally" accredited program one has in mind for later! And there's yet another problem: Some employers will not accept degrees that are "nationally" accredited. Some employers insist that its job applicants' degrees be only from "regionally" accredited schools. It's awful, but it's a fact. And wishing it weren't won't change it. CHEA's HETA is doing its best to educate employers, too, but that is a much slower and less-effective process. So, then, BE CAREFUL before you enroll in a "nationally" accredited school. Do your homework. Figure out if the credits your earn will be transferable to any "regionally" accredited schools you might want to enter someday in the future. And/or, be certain that your "nationally" accredited degree would be acceptable to the "regionally" accredited school you have in mind for the future, as requsite for entry into said "regionally" accredited school's higher-level degree programs! DO YOUR HOMEWORK before enrolling in the "nationally" accredited school! Shame, of course, on the "regionally" accredited schools (and the "regional" accreditors, too) for all these years of brainwashing they've been doing to convince the world that "regional" accreditation is the only accreditation that's actually worth anything! They've done a terrific job of misleading the world, and the sad result is that really excellent "nationally" accredited schools are sometimes thought of as sub-standard when, in fact, they are not. When it really starts to hurt people is when "regional" accreditation is preferred over "national" accreditation in statutory law. For example, there are several places in California statutory law where a college degree is required in order for someone to perform a certain state-regulated task, or do a certain state-regulated job; and said degree, according to the statute, must be from a "regionally" accredited college or university. Sometimes the "regional" specification is literal, and other times the specification is by reference to the "regional" accreditor that covers California: The Western Association of Colleges and Schools (WASC). But, in practice, either specifying that the degree need by from a "regionally" accredited school, or specifying that the school be accredited by the "regional" accreditor WASC, are both treated as equivalent for purposes of ensuring that certain tasks or jobs are, statutorily, only performed by people with college degrees. A specific example: In California, one may become a licensed real estate "broker" either by being a licensed real estate "salesperson" for a certain number of years, after which s/he may finally take the "broker's exam" and become a broker... ...or, alternatively, the broker applicant is allowed to go ahead and take the broker's exam right away, without having to have gotten a few years of licensed "salesperson" experience, if said applicant has a bachelors degree. And California's Real Estate law specifically says that said bachelors degree must be from a school accredited by WASC (which, in practice, means the school may be accredited by any of the six big "regional" accreditors). Those with bachelors degrees from "nationally" accredited schools are treated by that law as though they have no bachelors degree at all; and so they must first do a few years as a licensed real estate "salesperson" before they are finally allowed to sit for the "brokers" exam, just exactly the same as if they had no degree at all. Of course, the California Real Estate Board has some discretion, and could, if it wanted to, accept even "nationally" accredited bachelors degrees as requisite for sitting for the "brokers" exam. But, so far, it has not so done. And so, then, those with bachelors degrees from "nationally" accredited schools whose accreditors are USDE- and/or CHEA-approved in exactly the same manner as "regionally" accredited schools, are disciminated against. So, then, I repeat: DO YOUR HOMEWORK before enrolling in a "nationally" accredited (unless, of course, it's "programmatically" accredited) school. If the "nationally" accredited degree will suit your purposes.... if it will help you to get what you want in life, then, fine... get it. But if there's any chance that you'd need to get a "regionally" accredited school to recognize it (to get a higher-level degree... maybe a law degree, for example), or a state licensing agency to recognize it, or an employer to recognize it, then by all means go verify those things first. Otherwise, just stick with the "regionally" accredited school, just to play it safe. And you cannot imagine how much it pains me that that's the case. I know it was a long answer, but it's a disservice to the degree seeker to not fully explain how it all works, else there's always the chance that said degree seeker will be misled, and will sign-up for a "nationally" accredited degree without his/her eyes being wide open about it. In closing, another critically important piece of advice to keep the degree-seker from being ripped-off by a degree/diploma mill, along the way: Always, always, always look-up any school in which you're thinking of enrolling in either or both of the USDE and/or CHEA databases... USDE DATABASE - http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation CHEA DATABASE - http://www.chea.org/search ...and verify that the school really is accredited. Never take the school's word for it. Always look it up yourself; and if the school's not in at least one of those two databases, then it's almost certainly not actually accredited... no matter what it claims. Only if the school has been so recently accredited that the people who manage those two databases have not yet had time to enter it might it actually be accredited, but not in one or both of those databases. Visiting the actual accreditor's website, though, will reveal if it's actually accredited. Find out who is its accreditor, but do not visit the accreditor's website from a link give to you by the school. Rather, find the accreditor's website's URL from its listing on either or both of the USDE and/or CHEA websites's lists of accreditors... USDE ACCREDITORS - http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Agencies.aspx CHEA ACCREDITORS - http://chea.org/Directories/index.asp ...and visit the accreditor's website using only that URL. Once there, see if the school is listed. If it's not, then maybe it's been so recently accredited that even the accreditor hasn't had a chance, yet, to put it on its site. If so, then emailing or calling the accreditor will settle the matter in a hurry. Always do that sort of thing to verify any school's claim of accreditation. Never believe the school. Degree/diploma mills lie, and they also do things like creating fake accreditors with names that confusingly similar to the names of real accreditors, and then they create impressive-looking websites for them. If you don't know what you're doing, you'll be fooled. Verifying everything on the USDE and/or CHEA websites is your hedge against the mills. And remember to always look-up the school in both databases, if necessary. In other words, if the school's not in one database, don't assume it's not accredited until and unless you find that it's not in the other database, either. Remember that a tiny handful of accreditors are approved by USDE, but not CHEA, and vice versa; and so at least a few schools are going to be in one database, but not the other. So always check the second database if the school's not in the first. Finally, stay away from unaccredited degrees, if possible. Oh, sure, there are special circumstances wherein an unaccredited credential might get you what you want in life... particularly if it's a religious degree, for example, that will get you ordained as clergy in a certain national church, if that's your interest. But, by and large unaccredited degrees just aren't worth it. The unaccredited school's credits will almost certainly not transfer to any other school... accredited or otherwise. Similarly, its finished degrees will almost certainly not be acceptable as requisite for a higher-level degree at any other school... accredited or otherwise. Virtually no employer will accept it. Virtually no state professional licensing agency will accept it. And there are an increasing number of states which have made it actually illegal -- a criminal offense in a couple of them -- to put an unaccredited degree on a resume, business card, letterhead, advertisement, etc. That said, there are, believe it or not, unaccredited schools which are nevertheless state-approved for certain purposes, the degrees from which may be used for state professional licensing. California is notorious for having a few of those, but so are a few other states... Tennessee, Massachusetts, and others. In California, for example, there are unaccredited psychology schools which have nevertheless been approved by the state psychology licensing board, and so their unaccredited degrees are requisite for state Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) licensure, or Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) licensure, or even licensed psychologist licensure. There are also some California law schools which are unaccredited, but nevertheless approved by the Committee of Bar Examiners, and so a person who graduates from one of them may sit for the California Bar Exam and ultimately become a lawyer. So not every unaccredited degree is worthless. Most of them, though, are. So always avoid them unless there's a darned good reason not to. Answer 3: I like first Answer...If any school or college give the importance to the area and regions then it called regionally accredited and if any school or college target students on national level then it called nationally accredited.
Asked in Clothing, Education, School Uniforms
What are theTop three reasons for school uniforms?
1. Students will not judge each other based on clothing and will develop friendships with people they otherwise wouldn't talk to. 2. Saves money. 3. Students always look presentable, are comfortable, and have increased confidence because they know they aren't being judged by uniforms. I have been wearing uniforms for the past 12 years and they are great! It's a no-brainer when I have to get dressed for school. I don't have to worry about what I'm wearing everyday. I couldn't imagine not wearing uniforms! and now days they wear them due to to many gang fightings during school.