Talk:Clayton State University/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

I would like to submit a link to an msn group that is meant to be an unbiased forum for CSU students. Is that allowed?24.159.102.160 20:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You should put up the link here and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. See WP:EL for external linking guidelines. Mrtea (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The link is definatly in it's infancy right now. It appears to be more geared towards being a discussion about csu. I would think it should be reevaulated after it takes off. Sabalon 17:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Clayton University

Is the similarly named "unaccredited" (i.e. scam) online "university" Clayton University worth mentioning here, as a "not to be confused with"? Clayton University, now based in Hong Kong and hosted in Canada, has been featured prominently in recent Swedish news, after it was found that a Senior Lecturer at a Swedish university has no other credentials than academically invalid ones from Clayton University (at that time dubbed "of Missouri"). —LX 02:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the past, there was a Clayton College in alabama, which was also unaccredited, which was frequently mistaked, especially as it was a nursing school and CSU is known for it's nursing. I'm just curious how you'd mention it without being deragatory towards Clayton U, which does appear pretty darn scammy. Sabalon 14:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Something along the lines of

Clayton State University is not to be confused with Clayton University, an unaccredited online institution based in Hong Kong, which offers academic degrees in which credit is awarded for life experience (a common characteristic of diploma mills).

perhaps? —LX 17:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism's

In the criticism area there is a complaint about a) the school is too hard b) too much work for the course c) the move to gain accredidation. Criticism is good, but there needs to be info to back it up. So far, there is one student posting from Ga State with this opinion, an nothing to back it up. As for defenses - many students at many colleges find college hard and the workload large. Also, one could argue the accredidation is a good thing for the students as without it, a diploma from an un-accredited school is worthless. (sorry for the spelling areas - under the weather)

Until the criticisms are substantiated here in the CSU discussion by more than one student they should be removed. Mikieminnow 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a CSU student. I have been awarded degrees from several different schools: Ga Tech (hold a masters from that school), GA State, and Valdosta. I spent the past year at CSU working on a two-year computer based degree for my new job field. Out of all the Universities I have attended, CSU was simply laughable. The professors were clueless, the department heads were the epitome of poor leadership, the approach to the courses were awful. Here are just a few examples:

1. In the year I was there, three different professors entered incorrect grades. One error is inexcusable, three is just unheard of in such a short time frame. One professor entered a test grade of "50" when the actual test was "87". Even when I presented the scantron to the department head, he simply stated "the academic assessment of the professor can not be challenged". It knocked my grade from an A to a C, all because the instructor can't keep track of her paperwork.

2. As the rather angry individual from GSU has pointed out, it seemed to me the school in general was more concerned with pushing their own agenda and politics rather than teaching. The best example I can think of is in one class, we were forced to read a book that was normally not part of the curriculum, only because the author was coming to speak at Clayton later in the semester. Work and material was added just for the hell of it. That is not how you run a school. You add material because it is relevant to the course, not because you want to impress someone.

3. Why were we required to have laptops? I never used it, and it was not necessary to my course, and I was studying a COMPUTER degree.

4. As mentioned above, the professors were so incompetent, it was untrue.

I could go on all day, but yeah, the GSU student is 99% correct based on what I have read. During my year there, I got to know all kinds of students, and all of them shared the same general concerns that I have. Which leads me to believe you guys are not students at CSU, or you are faculty members trying to cover something up. Yeah, that GSU student is way out of line, but if my assessment is correct, you guys are as well, if not more so.

I have cancelled my registration, and will be finishing up the remainder of the degree I wanted at Tech. Sure, it will be an additional 40-minutes of commute time, but it will be well worth it after having attended this sorry university. Feuerstorm 3:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am a student at CSU. I also work there.

1) There are dodgy professors at every school. Personally, I have a very low opinion of the I.T. school. I can't take any university program seriously that requires a class whose goal is to teach the student how to dress for an interview. That being said, you only went through with the second step (out of a possible five) in the appeal process. You can hardly fault the university for school hired professors and your inability to follow procedure.

2) The individual professors determine the course content (unless it is a standardized course; e.g. MATH 1101). If you did not agree with the professor's course content then you should have withdrawn during the drop/add period at the beginning of the semester. The syllabus given to you on the first day of class clearly outlines the course content. The drop/add period lasts for the first week of classes.

3) The school makes every effort it can to make sure the use of technology is in line with expectation. Ultimately, though, it is up to individual professors as to how much technology is used (if at all). Some courses, even courses in a so called "computer degree," do not warrant the use of technology as a part of instruction. I have taken several courses where technology played zero role other than what I gave it. As an example, the last history course I took. It was a lecture only course with no part of it being online. I used my laptop every single lecture to take notes.

4) The professors you had for your courses may have been less than stellar. But calling every professor on campus incompetent because you had a poor semester or two is hardly logical. You dealt with one school at the university. Again, the school of which you speak is not one I hold in high esteem. But you can't make the blanket statement "The professors were clueless, the department heads were the epitome of poor leadership, the approach to the courses were awful" based solely on your experience in that school. Someone who holds a masters should be able to realize that. -- James Sumners 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here’s an idea: why don't you post something to disprove it instead of just removing whatever you deem unsubstantiated?

The idea behind an encyclopedia is to be as factual as possible. In doing so, you need to back up what can not be seen as empirical data with explanations and fact. ie. the burden of proof lies in those presenting theories as facts. If there were specifics given to prove it, then Mikieminnow would be able to disprove it or offer a constructive counter argument. In what ways is the coursework to hard of the load too much? Do they not require a calculus course before you take a physics course? Do they expect you to read War and Peace between two class sections? In what ways have the accrediation efforts ignored the needs of the students? Have they stopped teaching classes to work on accredidation? Yes...it sounds obnoxious, but you need to back up claims with facts, or at least some reasons. Oddly enough one person posting anonymously from an IP address at another school does not make facts - and it does sound like someone who just couldn't cut it. EvilDead 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

yay for ending confusion

So, this school has finally ditched the "College & State University" part of its title in favor of the more traditional "Clayton State University". I see only two schools have the confusing C & S designation anymore. Are those schools going to follow suit and change? --{{SUBST:User:Coryma}} 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• It seems everytime the chancellor changes the names change. At one point, since Clayton has a DTAE unit attached, they were to be "Georgia Tech at Morrow" and other schools would be "Georgia State at" or "University of Georgia at" but the alumni from those main institutions put a stop to that. The worst was when it was Clayton College & State University and had the tagline of "A technical college and baccelaureate university." Sabalon 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

University logo

I've removed the logo until we can get an appropriate image for the template. Mikieminnow 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ccsu-seal.gif

Image:Ccsu-seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)