Friday, February 4, 2011

NUHS - Raising the Entrance GPA on an Idea that Gets an F, and a Milieu of Selective Fairness

here, I cite from a recent Dynamic Chiropractic [DC; which is quite COMICAL] article on National University of Health Sciences [NUHS; see 001., below]; then, I muse about the irony of having a concern for fairness when naturopathy itself is hugely mislabeled by NUHS in the first place! [see 002., below]:

001. the editorial staff of DC writes in "National Raises Bar, Ups Entrance GPA" (2011-01-29, vol. 29 no.03):

"National University of Health Sciences has announced that beginning with the fall 2012 incoming class, all students seeking to enroll [...] will be required to have a minimum 2.75 grade-point average to qualify for entry [...] the new standard will also apply to the university's naturopathic medicine doctorate degree program [...] 'as tuitions have gone up, it is vitally important for me that students be able to complete a program before sustaining a huge financial burden [...] if students come to National unprepared for the rigor of our curriculum, they might drop out or be expelled in the third, fourth or fifth trimester. They [would] then find themselves with a $60,000-$70,000 debt that they can't get rid of, and no career. It's not fair to them!' [...says] said Dr. James Winterstein, NUHS president."

Note: so, there's this label of science placed upon naturopathy, and this concern for fairness...of all things.  I think the costs of the process of an ND are adequately spoken for.

002. musing:

well, I know for a fact that preponderantly, naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected and that those science-ejected concepts are built into the ND oath.  I also know that within that oath is the label of science placed upon those science-ejected concepts.  And the oath also guides NDs / NMDs in another way: by example, it falsely labels the science-exterior without transparently relating that science-exterior content and is actual science-exteriority.

This sound like, and I agree with the NUHS person above: unfair.  Unfair trade.  They are, collectively, 'the education robbers'.

But, why is the grossest of charades not unfair: academic mislabeling [science upon sectarian belief systems]?  That is selective fairness.  It seems to say:

it's okay for us to take you for the whole deceptive ride, but we don't think it's fair if you can't get all the way.

Labeling naturopathy "science" is no better than labeling astrology or homeopathy as science.  It is simply WRONG.
Post a Comment