User:Tez17001/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

Topic: Higher Education

The sources and citations of the article are up to date, most of which are peer reviewed journal articles or press released books. However, there are a few sources that are out of date, with one published in 1973. With the test of a few sources, it could be seen that all the links are valid links. The article has an introduction of higher education, a brief description of history of higher education, and a listed a few types of higher education, including liberal arts, engineering, performing arts. However, the types are not properly categorized. Instead of mentioning art and science (especially STEM), it categorizes higher education into "general", "vocational", "professional higher education" and "statistics", which looks messy. Some of the subtitles are confusing, including "as employers" and "recognition of studies". Some of the terms are mixed used, such as "post secondary education", "higher education", and "further education". The "recent controversy" was not explained clearly. The recent development and innovation of higher education under the development of the internet and globalization is not mentioned.

there are several problems in terms of this topic that should be addressed and solved. First, the article failed to point out why it is argued that higher education is no longer necessary. Reasons missing include all of the following: industry changes are so quick nowadays that a specific skill is important for a brief span before it is obsoleted by the following trend; internet has influenced data so unavoidable that one to can comprehend and embrace most occupations that recently required preparing after a short on line look; globalization has led to a diminished accentuation on research as the two governments and ventures have sought after expense cutting to the handle. Second, the article failed to mention that as governments have decreased instruction spending, some higher education have baised their instructing material to a particular merchant trying to verify financing. This anyway decrease the solidness of granted recognition as its legitimacy is unbendingly attached to a specific seller. Third, the article failed to point out that despite these perceptions, higher education particularly in colleges is as yet essential, as higher education enables one to confront an issue from an all encompassing perspective. Higher education additionally helps fill data hole, which is extremely inescapable in talented yet uneducated workers. Fourth, the article tends to certain distinctions in higher education in better places (for the most part English-talking), however does as such rather heedlessly. So as to make it progressively attainable to reflect worldwide contrasts in higher education, it appears as though it is useful to consider a re-association. A model article that takes on a point like this with a decent inclusion of worldwide variety should be recommended. Fifth, the article failed to include some very important types of higher education, such as STEM. Finally, the definitions and difference between some terms are not clearly mentioned, including “college”, “university”, “higher education”, “higher learning” and “post secondary education”.

In short, there are three most important things to work on this article that were mentioned in the talk page. First, to clarify the true reasons of recent controversy in regard to higher education. Second, to talk about the impact of globalization and development of internet on higher education. Third, to clarify the difference between the terms related to higher education.