I just posted this on the other thread. It is in the University of Maryland system, it is not "University of Maryland". "University of Maryland University College" is not "University of Maryland".
"However, in 1997 the Maryland General Assembly passed legislation allowing the University of Maryland, College Park to be known simply as the University of Maryland, recognizing the campus' role as the flagship institution of the University System of Maryland."
No one of thinks "oh one of those Maryland universities with different faculties and different quality of education" when they hear University of Maryland. They think of College Park.
It may be splitting hairs, but we shouldn't even be having this conversation, as it should be clear on the bio page.
Again, your information from Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Maryland Annotated Code, Title 12 of the Education Article, 12-101(b)7 informs that the definition of the University of Maryland includes all the colleges and universities as the University System of Maryland. And, you are making assumptions that everyone knows that University of Maryland implies College Park. It doesn't. As well as the fact that the University of Maryland, University College is locating directly on the College Park Campus in College Park, Maryland. As well as the fact that the University of Maryland College Park campus includes courses that are similiar in content at UMUC. If you doubt that this is the case, I would suggest you ask UMD-College Park to present their 2001 - 2009 Graduate School course listings for their software engineering Master's degree and compare it with UMUC's software engineering degree. You will find similiar courses between the two. Yes, you are splitting hairs and doesn't help your argument at all.
That's just plain dishonesty. He should have mentioned the campus clearly on his resume. Dvorak screwed himself pretty badly. I wish Dvorak searched for the degree at UM University College rather than UM College Park.
" just posted this on the other thread, but UMUC is a Distance Learning (online) school."
So if I understand this correctly Mr.Kundra got his MS (IT) via correspondence? Or did he really have to attend classes and lectures and so on perhaps in a lower quality campus than what is generally understood by the unqualified "University of Maryland" phrase?
(This is an honest question. I have no dog in the fight. I am just trying to understand)
The naming conventions of the schools make it a little confusing. I've lived in Maryland my entire life; hopefully I can bring some clarity.
UMUC (University of Maryland, University College) is the place Kundra attended for his Masters. While UMUC offers online courses, it is primarily a brick & mortar accredited college targeted at working adults. They advertise heavily for working professionals looking to get graduate degrees. UMUC is not competitive on a national level.
UMCP (University of Maryland, College Park aka "University of Maryland") is where Kundra did his undergrad. UMCP is a competitive & prestigious college on undergrad and post-grad levels. They are particularly known for their math, science, and engineering. There are many notable people who have attended UMCP, including Sergey Brin of Google. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Maryland,...
There are many other schools in the "University of Maryland" system which use the name. When someone says simple "University of Maryland", they are typically referring to UMCP. Most of the other colleges are referred to by their four-letter abbreviation.
MIS is also a bit of a vocational/industry degree anyways; not surprising to see someone pick up an MIS at a second-tier, extra-flexible, extra-inexpensive venue.
Again, the Maryland State Annotated Code, Title 12 of the Education Article, 12-101(b)7 informs that the definition of University, University of Maryland, and University of Maryland System refers to all colleges and universities in the University System of Maryland including UMUC and College Park. Also, UMUC is located directly on the College Park campus in College Park Maryland. It is not a valid assumption that when refering to the University of Maryland, people are stating "UMD-College Park". But, then...it is still the truth...they are both one in the same as it pertains to quality and content of education but not necessarily in admissions.
Not true. And not sure why you think you can get something for nothing. First, the code was changed. There is no "University of Maryland System" anymore - only a "University System of MD" (www.usmd.edu) UMUC degrees say "UMUC". UMCP degrees say, simply: "University of Maryland", and UMCP is the only school in the USMD authorized to do so as the flagship university.
UMUC is a separate university within the USMD. Why you would attempt to argue otherwise is beyond me. It is a fine school for its mission -- but is not U-Md.
UMUC and UMD are two different schools and the degrees says so. for example, an MBA from the top 25 UMD can be found here:
www.rhsmith.umd.edu
The UMUC MBA (open admissions, different school) is different and can be found here.
"University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is the world's largest provider of online education, as well as one of the 11 degree-granting institutions in the University System of Maryland.
For over 50 years, UMUC has fulfilled its principal mission: to provide adult learners with access to high-quality education opportunities. Today, more than 70,000 men and women worldwide are pursuing their education and career goals at UMUC. Last year, UMUC had more than 97,000 enrollments in its online courses."
Back about 1981 the local reprentative in Playboy's "Girls of the ACC" turned out not be in attendance at UMCP, but to have registered once or twice for classes at University College. I don't recall whether this was even noticed out of town, or whether Playboy was abused for failure to exercise due diligence.
According to Maryland State Annotated Code, Title 12, 12-101(b)7, the University System of Maryland is defined as "University, University of Maryland", and "University Maryland System". Then there is all the consolidated universities in the University of Maryland including College Park and UMUC. People ought to check their facts before they spread untruths. If you doubt what I'm saying, look up that code in Lexis/Nexis or some other legal database and you will see it for yourself. UMUC is not a distance or correspondence school. It is located in College Park, MD and both UMD-CP and UMUC share the SAME campus. It is apparent that people in this forum are truly uninformed and do not have the sense to fact check their information. This in and of itself ought to cause doubt on any other postings that dispute these obvious facts.
In the UK, we understand that University College at Oxford is part of the Oxford system. Same holds true for both Jesus and Trinity Colleges. The university system, founded well before you Yanks got your footing in the world of academia, was designed to incorporate several colleges under a university system (thus the term "university" and not just "college"). Same holds true for our friends at Cambridge, consisting of several university colleges within the university system of Cambridge (check for yourself).
By indicting the U of M University College as sub-par, one would assume you are assailing the reputation of the entire University of Maryland as a whole. At least that's the way we view it from our perspective on academics here in the UK. Does the quality of education in the American collegiate system really degrade so dramatically from one school to the next? I thought Americans pride themselves in the quality of college-level academics... Thoughts?
By even responding to the report, instead of relying on its network of bloggers, the White House has just unleashed every mainstream political journalist in the country on this guy's history. Now everything will be examined, Creostar, the DC web sites, how a guy with no budget management experience is chosen to over see billions in government contracts. I hope, now that they have gone on record calling the report a lie, that none of it turns out to be true.
I'm reminded of the young lady, Mary Carol Turano, who was in charge of security at Boston's airport before 9-11. Although she was reassigned right away and the administration was able to hush a lot of that up by waving the flag and screaming patriotism. Or that 24 year old kid that was given the job of re-establishing Iraq's financial markets after the invasion. And cooly handed control of a US$13 billion budget. (Article by Matt Taibbi at http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/War_Profiteers_Iraq.html).
What is this guys budget?
You can bet that guys like Taibbi are going to be all over this.
Jeez, you guys. Dvorak is just promoting his podcast, "No Agenda." If you've never listened to it, it's the most bizarre combination of kooky conspiracy theories from former MTV VJ Adam Curry, mostly of the "9-11 never actually happened" variety, and typical right-wing radio yammering about how Obama is selling the country down the tubes. I get the feeling neither of them really believes a thing they're saying (they refer to themselves as "crankpot" (Adam) and "buzzkill" (Dvorak)) but they have hit upon a formula that attracts a lot of listeners so they're running with it.
I'm struggling to put together why we even need a "CIO of the United States". Shouldn't all of these things be managed by the relevant department's professional IT staff, not pointless bureaucrats? If they're trying to coordinate an IT strategy between the departments ... didn't they learn anything from DHS? Adding more layers doesn't make anything any simpler, just creates more neglect, more waste, worse policies, and slower response times.
If they were serious about streamlining IT, or anything else in government, they'd focus on paring down to a manageable size, not creating new bureaus and departments to oversee the old bureaus and departments.
Why go through Om Malik on this? Why not contact Dvorak directly? Why not use that awesome, expensive whitehouse.gov to interact with us directly? Why say Dvorak is lying? Do you honestly thing he is fabricating things or really doesn't believe what he has written?
Ugh. So many failures of communication at so many levels with this shitshow.
Why satisfy/dignify Dvorak's need for attention with a direct response? What should they do when the next person makes a claim? And the next? And the next? Why don't they have a direct line with Lou Dobbs or Glenn Beck?
What's so difficult about having a PR person contact a blogger who is getting significant play on a story he wrote? Just contact him, clarify the situation. If he is reasonable, he or she will write an update and we move on.
I don't care about who Dvorak is, or his history, or "satisfy"-ing his need for attention. I'm looking at this from a broader perspective: is this administration as in touch with the minute by minute news cycle as they claim to be? Are they able to recognize a story as it grows from one blog post to thousands of retweets and facebook messages? Do they know how to handle that kind of brushfire exposure?
John C. Dvorak vs. the White House spin doctors. Sit back and watch the mud slingers and the muck rakers do battle, and just have fun, because it doesn't matter who wins.
No, actually, I'm quite serious. Dvorak is a hack. Has been a long time. But the White House retort is worth about the same. A big battle for what, exactly? Dvorak won't even put a scratch in Kundra's reputation. And the White House, for their part, will put whatever blah-blah spin on it they wish, just like they always do. It's PR management, and you are kidding yourself if you think it is anything else.
In other words: A whole lot of to-do about absolutely nothing, that doesn't matter in the slightest.
