Comments on: All They Really Need to Know They Learned at Google U

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:58:58 +0000

Whatever “degree” JMcC “earned” from GooU, remember that it did not include the vaguest knowledge of Autistic Adults(as evident in her interview with Larry King). That degree is called B.S.

By: wskrz

wskrz — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:15:42 +0000

Hey, I’m all for access of information to everyone, but you have to determine so many things when you find stuff on the Net – the source, the research behind the information, who the information is coming from and the agenda behind it. It’s definitely one of those good/bad situations because people can interpret things in so many ways.

Books were a most trustworthy resource for many because a lot of research had to go into for it to be published. On the Internet, however, anyone and everyone can put up a site and put forth whatever information they want….regardless of whether it’s wrong or not.

This “Google University” stuff cracks me up. Using the logic Jenny uses of “I researched everything online, therefore I’m an expert in the autism field” must surely mean there are also a lot of sex experts out there as well, thanks to their, um, fervent research on Google.

By: Regan

Regan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:42:13 +0000

Emily said,
“analyze agenda and bias in information on the Web”

Absolutely. Even one of the developers of the web cautioned that misinformation and information propagate at about equal rates with the misinformation having a slight edge if it is controversial or has emotional appeal. I appreciate the info-access of the internet and google, but depending on the subject, casual surfing brings up a lot of junk and pseudoscience.

Does anyone recall the new search engine that purports to stick to validated sources of science and medicine?

By: emily

emily — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:12:07 +0000

Upper-case Emily: I’m a fledgling academic in my past life (ABD in English), so yes, I agree that evaluating sources is huge (my dad was a librarian). But as I said, the Net does give parents a lot of informational capital, which I’ve found incredibly helpful both in establishing cred w/paternalistic types and in knowing where to look for help.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:34:21 +0000

I have to admit I did find that funny. Especially considering what she’s saying because of the said university (Kristina, do you have a course over where you are about crystals and indigos? I’m somehow sure not).

Cliff

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:31:12 +0000

Well said, um, emily. One thing I try to teach my students is to consider the source when evaluating information. We actually analyze agenda and bias in information on the Web (in the context of science, health, and medicine).

By: Kassiane

Kassiane — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:16:50 +0000

Ads, however, are not reliable sources. And not knowing which links are ads somewhat cheapens the “degree”, no?

By: emily

emily — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:46:20 +0000

I’m no fan of Ms. McC, but I’ll just play devil’s advocate: I do think that the interwebs have somewhat leveled the playing field ITO access to information. There’s a lot of reliable stuff I’ve heard about, though not necessarily through Googling, on the Net, including Quackwatch, the estimable Wrightslaw website, and some parent advocacy groups that gave me good information on ABA. I’ll be eternally grateful for those resources.

Also, like a lot of parents, I had the experience of getting dismissed as “Mom” by the pediatricians/early childhood experts I went to (late bloomer/different timetable/you’re worrying for nothing/let’s wait and see, etc.). Doing my own reading and comparing notes w/other parents strengthened my belief in my intuition and led me to answers that helped me and my children.

So I don’t begrudge her the “Google U” comment particularly; the problem is that the course catalogue is infinite and she doesn’t seem to know which courses to take…..

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:40:15 +0000

My students are prohibited from citing Wikipedia as a source. They’re welcome to use it as a starting point for their research–the linked citations at the bottom of an entry can be useful–but they cannot cite it.

Kristina, I, too, have done a Google when the prose seems to be above the potential reached. If Turnitin gives me a reading of >20%, they have to do a rewrite. And I prohibit verbatim quotes in general unless they are from an expert who is giving an *opinion.* Otherwise, students must paraphrase.

By: stopautismquackery

stopautismquackery — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:00:52 +0000

Jenny’s son had/has epilepsy, as is my understanding — or some episodes of epilepsy. She went to a top neuro doc and her son went on the appropriate meds. As I understand, he then got better/improved/or whatever the appropriate term may be. He got services from the Regional Center because it’s very simple in several parts of LA to get services for a young child who displays any type of “autistic symptoms” … which does not imply a 299 dx. of autism. When it was clear the meds had worked and his epilepsy was under control, his services from the Regional Center were removed. Had Jenny wanted to interpret this another way, she could have retained an atty and gotten the RC to keep him as a client. Instead, she used this being removed as proof that he was “recovered”.