MODNEX INTEL/KATSURA WORLDWIDE . . .
. . . "DIVISION OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE" . . . AND "DIVISION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE" AND "DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS" . . .
. . . REPORTS . . . IN A "POWER NEWS ALERT" . . .
. . . THAT "GOKATSURA2016" POTENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR 2016 . . . "KEN KATSURA" . . .
. . . EARLIER TODAY . . . RELEASED AN EMAIL SENT TO A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER . . . ELABORATING ON HOW HE "CAUGHT" . . . A FORMER GRADUATE SCHOOL'S ADMINISTRATION PRACTICING "BAD SCIENCE" . . . AND "ACADEMIC/CONSUMER/SCIENTIFIC FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION" . . .
. . . AS "PRODIGIOUS SAVANT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE" . . . "KEN KATSURA" . . . "DRAGNETS" . . . THE PROBLEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA'S HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS . . .
"I had a matter arise when attending SDSU, my third semester there, which forced me to drop out of the program after earning 3.93 GPA over two semesters of full-time study. As a result, this left me with approximately three 'I' or 'W' grades on my transcripts.
SDSU may have converted the 'I' or 'W' grades into an 'F' grades and then averaged this into my overall GPA, which is a "scientific error" and renders my overall GPA, technically, statistically, "invalid." If SDSU has, in fact, calculated my overall GPA in this manner, you cannot use it as a "valid" statistical measurement of my coursework competency while in attendance there, as it is technically/statistically "invalid," "unscientifically derived," and a misrepresentation of my overall coursework competency. You can, however, "validly" use my overall GPA at SDSU if you do not average in the 'W' or 'I' grades converted into 'F' grades from my final semester there. The GPA should then come out to 3.93.
A grade point average is a statistical representation/mean/average of a measurement of coursework competency. In this case, what is attempting to be measured and represented statistically (GPA) is my competency in completed coursework. This is what is being measured and represented by GPA. However, SDSU's administrative policy also allows for the averaging into overall GPA courses which are not completed, as well. While attempting to produce an overall statistical measurement and representation of coursework competency in completed courses, we get a "mixed bag" of both completed coursework and incomplete coursework, rendering the overall GPA as an invalid statistical measurement and representation.
Grades, as statistical measurements, measure our competency in completed coursework. However, as in this case, if the student is not there, a valid measurement of their competency/performance cannot be inventoried and, therefore, cannot be measured nor statistically represented. What SDSU's administrative policy allows for is the mixing/averaging of grades representing valid measurements of coursework performance with grades which are not valid measurements coursework performance. As a result, a statistically "invalid" overall GPA is derived from this flawed and clearly "unscientific" methodology.
If such a process has occurred, relative to the deriving of my overall GPA at SDSU, this is tantamount to academic misrepresentation/fraud and "bad science" on the part of their institution. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what their administrative policy or their "rights" may be, as "science is science," and misrepresentation is misrepresentation, bottom line.
Now, it is important to note that the above is not an "argument," a "position," nor an "opinion." It is scientific fact which is based upon universally established standards of professional social science criteria, and should be taken axiomatically.
I have brought this matter to the attention of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), as well. Hopefully, administrative changes will be agreed upon which will benefit students and graduates within all levels of academia, and fully indemnify them against such substandard ("sub prime"?) methods of representation mimicking "scientific method."
By the qualification of "scientific method," this time around, my overall GPA compiled at SDSU is 3.93 out of a 4.0 scale.
It is my sincere hope that the Review Committee can fully appreciate this demonstration of the rare ability to identify, evaluate and correct such "flawed science" in the face of overwhelming institutional power structure and self assuredness, which would easily intimidate most."