Friday, February 24, 2012


There are two parts to this.  First, an examination of the events caused which caused a no contest misdemeanor in CA.  Second, I'll provide an examination of SDSU's administrative incompetence and patently "unscientific" and horrifying grading policy relative to 'W' or 'I' grades.

The "Misdemeanor"

In 1997, a woman from SDSU's Loan Collections Office, named Ms. 'H' (we'll call her this although it is not her real name), called me in Santa Barbara stating that I owed SDSU $500 for a short-term emergency loan provided by the university.  Having no idea why I hadn't been able to gain appropriate and gainful employment since leaving their university, I had been subjected to unusual and bizarre circumstances in both Honolulu and CA, including poverty. 

Receiving Ms. 'H's collections call didn't make matters better.  I had been working part-time and earning minimum wages in "boiler room" telemarketing jobs, despite having tested at 71 WPM (no errors) at the local employment agencies and having run a word processing department on a full-time basis.  I was also a double major graduate from UCSB and had earned straight 'A' grades from SDSU in my core research coursework, as well.  In addition, I was also a past president of political science associations (at both the university level and community college level), a college tennis player, and had worked extensively wth youth in summer parks and recreation and t-ball as well.  (I discovered, 14 years later, that these challenges were due to SDSU's incompetent administrative policy on 'W' and 'I' grades which misguidedly lowered my GPA from 3.93 to approximately 2.17.  Businesses and schools applied to thought I was falsifying my GPA and the matter "snowballed" out of control.)

Since I was in such a terrible position and uncertain why, I decided to go back to school at my alma mater, UCSB, to pursue an M.A./Ph.D.  It was a good way to escape the social chaos and madness I was subjected to by the lumpen proletariat and criminal elements and I could get a consistent diet of nutritious intake, as well.  I made a deal with Hegman that I would pay her half the amount owed if she and SDSU would release my academic transcripts and have them sent to UCSB by the graduate division's deadline.  She was fully informed of my desperate circumstances and I sent her step-by-step instructions and deadline dates, along with a payment for $250, as well.  Everything was sent to her via certified-signature return receipt.

I skipped meals and scratched and clawed my way to paying for all of UCSB's admissions fees, postal fees, and rounded up all my letters of recommendations, etc., etc.  Nothing could go wrong.  Everything was set and I had a chance to reconnect with my alma mater and escape all the madness.

The transcripts never arrived and I missed the deadline.  I was disqualified from consideration.  I had been "bait and switched."

I  called SDSU's Chancellor's office and started from the top.  The lady who took my call told me that Ms. 'H' denied any agreement with me relative to sending my transcripts to UCSB.  I flipped out, blew a fuse and verbally abused the school.

In light of the circumstances, I would say that my behavior was that of a "reasonable man," frankly, and that SDSU's behavior was that of irresponsible misconduct, both relative to Ms. 'H's perilous behavior placing SDSU at risk and for their administrative incompetence relative to misrepresenting my GPA.

I earned a nolo contendere misdemeanor and community service at the Santa Barbara Boys and Girls club.  I also had to attend anger management (can you imagine?) counseling sessions, as well.  The court ordered 200 hours of community service and I gave them 220, since I was enjoying it.  All court requirements were met and the record has been available for expungement since about 2001.

Here's the kicker, however.  At the time of the proceedings, the court could not hold Ms. 'H' responsible for her "bait and switch" maneuver and her tactic didn't appear to have anything other than a collections interest in mind.  She certainly would not incriminate herself.  (Subsequently, the culprit, Ms. 'H', got off "scott free," to put it mildly.)  The court had no motive for why she would have resort to this type of behavior, even when considering her position as a loan collector.  It certainly didn't make sense that she would subject SDSU to such a perilous maneuver for a mere $250.  She had no bonus incentive or concerns about job security since she was a government employee and SEIU member.  So, why was the $250 so important?  The answer:  It wasn't.  She had an alterior motive for pulling this dangerous stunt that, if it were another person she did this to, would have put SDSU's campus and her fellow employees at great risk.  SDSU had just had a student shoot and kill a Ph.D. on their campus, as well, making 'H's action even more difficult to comprehend.

As it turns out, during my final semester at SDSU, my financial aid had been screwed up by the Office of Financial Aid, rendering me penniless and forcing me to withdraw from all my courses and causing all the semester's worth of coursework to go into the dreaded 'W' or 'I' status.  It also forced me to take out the infamous emergency student loan, as well, even though it was SDSU's error.  I demanded a full and thorough investigation by the Ombudsman's Office into the matter and got it.  The Ombudsman's Office raked them up and down, enough so that, apparently they "bore a grudge."

We had forgotten a very significant fact at the proceedings:  The Office of Financial Aid was also doubling as the Loan Collections Office.  Ms. 'H' was a member of the same office which I put under extreme scrutiny for screwing up my financial aid during my final semester.  The "missing motive" for Ms. 'H's pulling this stunt is now solved.  She didn't pull such a perilous stunt for the paltry $250.  She didn't do this for a bonus incentive.  She bore a long standing personal grudge for being investigated.  She came looking for trouble when she found me in Santa Barbara.  Ms. 'H' wasn't "just doing her job," she was a "predator" seeking to "exact revenge."

In short, Ms. 'H' was and is guilty of criminal contempt of court:  She lied to the authorities.  But, what would you expect from a "loan collector" backed by the the equally contemptuous SEIU?  While in support of job security and the "American Dream" for the "average working American," most certainly this bizarre and contemptuous behavior was not only unlawful, it was unforgiveable, as well, by any measure of standards of social decency.

Given SDSU's administrative incompetence, relative to screwing up my GPA, and Ms. 'H's unlawful misconduct, I stand innocent with the full understanding that my actions were those of a "reasonable man."

The Horrifying Impact of SDSU's Administrative Policy on 'W' and 'I' Grading

Relative to SDSU's severly misguided administrative policy of averaging in 'W' and/or 'I' grades into overall GPA, I think I owe you all an explanation of what occurred.

I was forced to withdraw from my 4 courses my final semester at SDSU as a result of their administrative screwup of my financial aid!  the four 'W'/'I' courses were later made into 'F's and averaged into my overall GPA reducing it from 3.93 to 2.17 or thereabouts.  The problem is that 'W'/'I' grades cannot represent academic performance since no inventory (test) is taken to determine the quality of the student's performance or competency in the overall coursework. In short, a student's peformance cannot be measured if they simply aren't there!  Subsequently, 'W'/'I' grades converted into 'F' grade points cannot be averaged into overall GPA where academic performance IS being measured/represented and students are present and actually inventoried by examination. In short, statistically, they're mixing "apples and oranges" and producing an "invalid" statistic or GPA.  The idea of assigning grade points is to represent a student's academic competency and performance, short and simple.  First, if the student is not there and has not been inventoried by examination to assign a grade point level to their performance, administration cannot simply "invent" a grade point to represent the student's performance as a replacement.  Second, administration cannot simply take the invented grade point and then average it into the rest of the overall GPA because, unlike the invented grade point, the overall GPA is a measurement of actual student performance where the student was present and inventoried by examination.  Again, this is mixing apples and oranges producing an "invalid" statistical GPA.  Make sense?

SDSU's GPA calculation, when averaging in such "invalid" grades and grade points, is patently "unscientific" and produces an invalid/skewed statistic/GPA.   My REAL GPA is 3.93 on a 4.0 scale.  I was citing my real/true graduate-level GPA on my resume and employment applications, since it is scientifically correct and accurate.  Apparently, CSU was reporting it tragically lower and statistically skewed.

In addition to the foregoing, I anticipate that SDSU/Cal State/State of California, will also likely employ an affirmative defense/evasive defense that they are statistically extrapolating a grade point out of an incomplete or withdrawn course and that, therefore, this is the employment of acceptable scientific method.

Good try, Cal State /SDSU/ State of California.  Here's why:

Let's take a language course in intro Japanese language.  The course is often composed of a series of separate and distinct components which require the student to employ separate and distinct abilities at different points in the course.

The course may have four examinations/inventories.  The first tests the student's ability to memorize katakana/kanji characters.  The second exam tests the student's ability to formulate strings of kanji in to sentences and sentence structure.  The third exam tests the student's ability in speech and pronunciation.  The final exam tests the student's ability to incorporate everything into appropriate discourse and writing at a basic level of communication.

As you can see, if a given Japanese language student takes only half the course and withdraws (for whatever reason), and we are left with two 'A' grade exams, we cannot extrapolate this out to the remaining two examinations because the student has not demonstrated mastery of speech and pronunciation, nor have they demonstrated that they are capable of "putting it all together" for basic writing and speaking communications.  They only demonstrated that they mastered the memorization of characters and formulated basic sentences, far from the mastery of basic writing and linguistic communications mastery of Japanese.

In short, if we were to statistically extrapolate the first two exams, 'A' grades, to the remaining two exam, we would not be measuring the student's competency in the overall coursework by any stretch of the imagination.  The grade, an 'A,' would be statistically invalid (does not measure/represent what is intended to be measured/represented) as a result, since it does not measure the student's performance/competency accurately, nor does it measure anything at all but "thin air" relative to the third and fourth examinations.

Clearly, the employment of statistical extrapolation is methodologically flawed when converting 'W'/'I' grades into grade points, and cannot be regarded as legitimate scientific method.  A 'false' 'A' grade or 4.0 (on a 0.0 to 4.0 scale) would be produced and averaged into the overall GPA, violently skewing the overall GPA upward.

Conversely, when a student fares poorly in the first two examinations, and receives 'C' or 'D' grades, we cannot employ statistical extrapolation, as well, should the student withdraw from the course (again, for whatever reason).  The same foregoing issues of statistical validity apply, and we cannot simply extrapolate their grades out to a final course grade of 'C' or 'D' which would violently skew their overall GPA downward and tragically misrepresent the student's academic capabilities.

While "extrapolation" sounds like it is a “valid and reliable” scientific method or an "O.K." or "acceptable" way of going about administration, it is clearly not "O.K." nor is it "acceptable."  It is patently misleading, an amazingly poor method of inventory, and predicated upon "fantasy" and the "imagination" rather than upon stout empirical observation, measurement and data gathering.  Not only is the method “invalid” in measuring student performance, it is “unreliable,” as well, since not all courses are structured the same.

Finally, relative to administrative policy, students could simply take a course, get 'A' grades in their first two or three exams in the course, and simply not show up for the remainder of the course and earn an 'A' grade for the overall course based upon extrapolation! Despite such students being "clueless" as to the content of the remaining half or quarter of the course, the administration would be obligated to honor such students with an 'A' grade for the overall coursework and represent them as "fully competent" of the coursework.  No, statistical extrapolation is not an acceptable affirmative defense in this matter.

Ultimately, SDSU's corruption of my GPA has produced a “Continuing Nuisance” (legal term) whose cause of action should not be subject to a statute of limitations. (I'm also investigating the fundamental integrity and jurisprudential competency of the Trial Lawyers Association and judiciary in CA, relative to the statute of limitations in CA.)

San Diego State University may have been caught intentionally converting my academic achievement there into a "continuing nuisance" (legal term) which has the effect, via the process of translation, of a "chronic, disabling and potentially lethal dis-ease". . . which steals financially, emotionally and physiologially through the unscientific and illegitimate administrative corruption and impostering of my GPA from 3.93 to 2.17 (or thereabouts) per the article in my Facebook Notes section . . .  The effect of the erroneous GPA is "theft," theft of opportunity for earnings, theft of reputation and replacing my person with an imposterous character (the individual their GPA represents me with was and is clearly "not me") and clearly I have been deprived of a litany of constitutional rights and civil liberties as a result of this ongoing mischaracterization.

No comments:

Post a Comment