Is this school a DEGREE MILL?
Rich Douglas
considered a degree mill. I didn't think so, but decided to use someone else's criteria. So, I compared the
co-founder's writings and the "NIFI" criteria we see published here from time to time. The examples below
reflect the NIFI criteria numbers and the aspects of the school that seem to fit or approach each respective
criterion. Afterwards, there are some other quotes from the school's co-founder that might make you
wonder.
3. Claims they're pursuing regional accreditation.
13. Not listed in many guides on higher education.
19: Two part-time faculty in the beginning.
22. Admissions are extremely flexible and subjective, taking the "whole person" into account.
24. Tiny faculty, no library at all.
25. No courses at all. Instead, an undefined learning program and a project (which doesn't have to be a
dissertation, or even a paper at all).
29. Co-founder expounds on the validity and usage of experiential learning and incorporating it into one's
doctoral program. Also, there are few, if any, limits on accepting credits and learning done prior to entry:
"...we do take all previous study into consideration in helping a student design a program,"
30. No exams at all are proscribed to measure student learning.
31. Although there are short periods of non-campus residency involved (students getting together count as
residency, too), no student measurement takes place at these (courses, exams, etc.). For example, students
can earn degrees in psychology without taking any courses, exams, or having their learning measured in any
way, other than the assessment by their faculty advisors.
34. A co-founder denies the school is a degree mill in a book he authored.
49. The school has addresses in California (several), Ohio and the District of Columbia.
62. Although degree requirements are described, there are no proscibed courses or even descriptions of
courses required to earn a degree.
63. I requested a catalog from their San Francisco office and got a photocopy of a typewritten brochure.
75. They award a great number of degrees in psychology, but are not approved by the APA.
Other quotes about the school from its co-founder (contained in his book):
page ix: "Why do we give so little formal credence to experiential learning? Isn't this paradoxical in so
pragmatic a society s ours?"
page x: "Is it inevitable that experimental programs become increasingly like those from which they revolt?"
"Must institutions inevitably move from charisma to nureaucracy and hence become incrasingly routinized,
abstract, and dehumanizing?"
page x: "Must 'residency' in any program require that a student be in residence at a particular place and time?"
Residency can take place anwhere two or more scholars coincide.
page xi-xii: "...for we have made more than our share of mistakes in following a kind of 'plan as you go' mode
of development."
page 9: "Perhaps we should judge such programs by their fruits rather than their roots."
page 14: "Doctoral theses written in this context have the external appearance of and read like theses from
traditional institutions; it is the method by which they are derived that sets Walden apart."
page 14:Co-founder touts two schools for their innovations: East Coast and Open (later, Clayton) Universities.
Was he pumping up two other degree mills in addition to Union? <grin> He laments degree mills, and lists
two: L.I.A.R. (John's for-fun operation) and Universal Life Church. They're different from East Coast?
page 25: Co-founder refers to the school has having problems "ranging from our own internal intertia, marginal
financial operation..." (They were later sued into bankruptcy.)
page 26: "The more the publicity, the less freedom to do what one wants to do."
page 26: The school "is not a place. It has little to do with ivy, staduims, and other such accoutrements of
higher learning."
page 29: "....we do take all previous study into consideration in helping a student design a program,"
page 102: No objective criteria for admission, decisions made by both faculty and students
page 103: Started with just two part-time faculty.
page 107: Unaccredited.
page 107: No formal learning contracts; understanding between faculty and student.
page 121: No exams.
page 128: Final project isn't necessarily a thesis or dissertation, and includes the pre-project studies. Could
even be a performance. One graduate's final project was a performance in Oresteia. Another was a
mime-dance performance in a prison.
pages 259-263: Example titles:
A Portrait of a Change Agent Learning His Craft
Self-Determined Education
Myth and Consciousness
Black Success in Predominantly White Institutions
Botanical Art
Lessons Man Can Learn From Animals
The Joy of Being Fired
page 130: Only one student dropped from the program in the first four years.
page 168: No residency on campus (there isn't a "campus" anyway), but students have to attend some
mandatory sessions.
page 168: "We frequently get tagged as a degree mill...on the basis of this short residency...."
page 180: "To be of use, you must take abuse."
page 188: School didn't have guidebooks, handbooks, etc., but he says the development of these is
inevitable.
page 220: No credits or grades given.
page 230: One total fee for the program, unless the student took more than 4 years
The school? Union Graduate School in the 1970's
The co-founder (and author)? Roy P. Fairfield (a helluva guy, really)
The book? "Person-Centered Graduate Education," Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1978
Comment: Was Union a degree mill? Of course not. I would imagine its more vocal graduates would
bitterly oppose such a characterization of their schoool.
In this little project, I set out to look for any flaw or misperception that could hold the school in a bad light,
and I did use one of their graduates' own degree mill criteria in the process.
A few thoughts. First, even great schools sometimes start off as very questionable projects. Walden and
Nova were termed degree mills routinely. National and Phoenix, too. Second, the whole process of
evaluating the worth of the school can be very subjective, especially if one has an agenda or bias. Third, I
assumed the role of biased observer, but actually I cherish the time I spent in the program and what it taught
me. I believe it to be innovative, open, progressive and certainly a worthwhile approach to earning the
doctorate. (In fact, I believe the UGS in its original form and spirt made a more original and valuable
contribution to higher education than the much more traditional version of today's Union Institute.) But I've
tried to make it clear that evaluating any new venture takes time to see the fruits of its processes.
Selectively taking narrow aspects of a school's operations and then forming broad assessments of its
operations is foolhardy, as the tongue-in-cheek analysis above illustrates.
On many occasions, I've written on a.e.d. about some of the funnier and not-so-flattering incidents in the
history and development of National University. Yet, I'm very proud of the MBA I earned there; the
credential has served me very well. People who sling the term "degree mill" freely at other institutions might
benefit from a little bit of insight into the history of their own schools. Accepting this legacy, warts and all,
frees one up to see the good (and not so good) in other schools and programs while maintaining some
semblance of balance.
Or not.
Rich Douglas
harves...@my-deja.com
Very enlightening and informative material. It certainly sounds like
Union has gone through some rather uncertain seasons, as MIGS is
currently experiencing. In most circumstances serious academic
institutions have a way of outliving their critics.
Regards,
HH
In article <8uv271$mal$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Levicoff
own current educational circumstances, quoted in part:
> The school? Union Graduate School in the 1970's
>
> The co-founder (and author)? Roy P. Fairfield (a helluva guy, really)
>
> The book? "Person-Centered Graduate Education," Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1978
>
> Comment: Was Union a degree mill? Of course not. I would imagine its more
> vocal graduates would bitterly oppose such a characterization of their schoool.
>
> In this little project, I set out to look for any flaw or misperception
> that could hold the school in a bad light, and I did use one of their
> graduates' own degree mill criteria in the process.
Rich, sweetheart, you must have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your
hands. Nonetheless, there is only one reason I bother to reply at all:
You have, several time, alluded to Union "being sued into bankruptcy."
Let's have some facts on this, because it's news to me. Yes, Union had
some financial and administrative problems in their early days, but I
have no knowledge of their being "sued into bankruptcy." So back it up,
sport.
In the meantime, we are left with what we have always had: My Ph.D. is
regionally accredited, and the one which you are pursuing (from MIGS) is
not. If you haven't noticed, kiddo, it's not the 1970's anymore. It's
a new freakin' century, and Union is at the top of the heap with regard
to regionally accredited low-residency programs. MIGS is at the
bottom. And you, having not even graduated from MIGS, are doing an
awful lot of tap-dancing to justify your future doctorate. Excuse me if
I don't have to bother doing so - mine is regionally accredited, viewed
as quite credible, and yours doesn't stand a proverbial snowball's
chance in hell. So if I can't be bothered wallowing with you, excuse
moi.
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://levicoff.tripod.com
------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
> Very enlightening and informative material. It certainly sounds like
> Union has gone through some rather uncertain seasons, as MIGS is
> currently experiencing. In most circumstances serious academic
> institutions have a way of outliving their critics.
"Most" circumstances? Not necessarily. Let's look at two schools that
were operating in one form or another back in the 1970's: The Union
Institute, and Columbia Pacific University. Both, at the time,
unaccredited. Both, at the time, using methods that were not in the
mainstream.
Union went on to become a regionally accredited, very credible school.
Columbia Pacific went down the tubes, and was ultimately ordered closed
by sevaral authorities in the State of California.
Now let's compare Union with MIGS. When Union was started, it was the
doctoral-granting, experimental consortium of ten well-established
colleges and universities, and its creators had regionall accredited
doctorates themselves. When MIGS was started, it was the creation of
Sheila Danzig, the "Queen of the Internet," and its chief apologists on
this newsgroup have been Rich Douglas and Peter French. (And, just to
add to the comparison, the founder of Columbia Pacific, Richard Crews,
had a legitimate M.D.)
So what are we left with? Even if one cannot accurately predict the
future of MIGS at this time (anymore than one could predict the growth
and ultimate regional accreditation of Union nor the downfall of
Columbia Pacific), we can evaluate the school based on what we know thus
far. And MIGS falls below the standards of both Union (at any time) and
Columbia Pacific (at any time). My prediction is that MIGS will not
grow in its credibility; I recognize that there may be other opinions,
but I feel quite comfortable in calling the school a degree mill.
Kevin Stewart
Steve Levicoff wrote in message <3A132E01...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Rich Douglas wrote a ridiculous magnum opus attempting to justify his
>own current educational circumstances, quoted in part:
Was that his intent? Have you dropped scrying with play doh in favor of
"reading" oil stains in the asphalt at truck stops?
I saw it as an interesting 'study' backing the question of what exactly a
mill is. I would say that in today's climate, you would have put Union right
before Universal L.C. -- or be doing the song and dance routine you say he's
trying.
snipped
>In the meantime, we are left with what we have always had: My Ph.D. is
>regionally accredited,
. . . and light years from being remotely tertiary. News flash, my son: NO
doctorate bestows mastery in all fields, nor imputes greater weight to the
holders' POV.
and the one which you are pursuing (from MIGS) is
>not.
Yours is accredited only because you started after the 'questionable merit'
bit ended. BFD. If MIGS gets 'proper' in the U.S. sense, I hope he'll brag
about being a pioneer/innovator, (Sheila and Peter French, too). At least
tHEy'll have relevance and a part in some prime "original contribution" that
few PhD's could claim!
If you haven't noticed, kiddo, it's not the 1970's anymore.
Amazing. You make the point for innovation and continued growth, but ignore
your own support of them!
It's
>a new freakin' century, and Union is at the top of the heap with regard
>to regionally accredited low-residency programs. MIGS is at the
>bottom.
Oooopppps! You just put them in the same heap. Wanna retract that?
And you, having not even graduated from MIGS, are doing an
>awful lot of tap-dancing to justify your future doctorate. Excuse me if
>I don't have to bother doing so - mine is regionally accredited, viewed
>as quite credible,
Too bad it's just the paper that's acceptable.
and yours doesn't stand a proverbial snowball's
>chance in hell.
Should the time come, do you want sweet and sour or honey and mustard sauce
to go with your words?
So if I can't be bothered wallowing with you, excuse
>moi.
Then why this novella? (Damned! I'm adapting one of your cliches!)
The Reverend Doctor Daniel K. Stewart HM, RP, CPE and hopeful supporter of
MIGS, (who has enough sense not to make any definitive statements on MIGS
and/or the future).
Rich Douglas
financial irregularities. The accreditation status [candidacy] was cancelled, but was
later reinstated after the school hired a new president and revised its accounting
procedures. Union has been very open about discussing this situation with students and
potential students."
From "The Alternative Guide to College Degrees and Non-Traditional Higher Education," by
John Bjorn Bear, Ph.D. Published by The Stonesong Press (a division of Grosset and
Dunlap, Inc.), 1980. Page 104.
Nothing to do with any other schools, nothing materially incorrect. What is true, is
true. That you are ignorant (or chose to be) regarding these things is hardly
surprising. Your usual end-around of the facts (not to mention your ire) is
predictable. And hardly a "magnum opus." Rather, just a casual exercise by someone who
was there long before you, and knows better. That, my interestingly strange man, is yet
another fact you cannot change. I congratulate you on earning a fine degree from a
wonderful school. But get your facts right.
Rich Douglas
Steve Levicoff wrote:
> Rich Douglas wrote a ridiculous magnum opus attempting to justify his
> own current educational circumstances, quoted in part:
>
> > The school? Union Graduate School in the 1970's
> >
> > The co-founder (and author)? Roy P. Fairfield (a helluva guy, really)
> >
> > The book? "Person-Centered Graduate Education," Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1978
> >
> > Comment: Was Union a degree mill? Of course not. I would imagine its more
> > vocal graduates would bitterly oppose such a characterization of their schoool.
> >
> > In this little project, I set out to look for any flaw or misperception
> > that could hold the school in a bad light, and I did use one of their
> > graduates' own degree mill criteria in the process.
>
> Rich, sweetheart, you must have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your
> hands. Nonetheless, there is only one reason I bother to reply at all:
> You have, several time, alluded to Union "being sued into bankruptcy."
>
> Let's have some facts on this, because it's news to me. Yes, Union had
> some financial and administrative problems in their early days, but I
> have no knowledge of their being "sued into bankruptcy." So back it up,
> sport.
>
> In the meantime, we are left with what we have always had: My Ph.D. is
> regionally accredited, and the one which you are pursuing (from MIGS) is
> not. If you haven't noticed, kiddo, it's not the 1970's anymore. It's
> a new freakin' century, and Union is at the top of the heap with regard
> to regionally accredited low-residency programs. MIGS is at the
> bottom. And you, having not even graduated from MIGS, are doing an
> awful lot of tap-dancing to justify your future doctorate. Excuse me if
> I don't have to bother doing so - mine is regionally accredited, viewed
> as quite credible, and yours doesn't stand a proverbial snowball's
> chance in hell. So if I can't be bothered wallowing with you, excuse
> moi.
>
Rich Douglas
the future from a perch of falsehoods of your own making. I wasn't involved
with the genesis of MIGS, nor do I have a stake in its future. Rather, my
future use of the doctorate is directly tied to the usefulness (or lack
thereof) of a degree awarded by the CEU. That you have some issues with
Sheila Danzig is your own affair, and hardly concerns me. I'm just grateful
for the opportunity to continue my studies and be involved in a project that
has the same sense of excitement of Union's earlier days: the opportunity to
establish a virtual branch of an existing Latin American university, one
that will award master's and doctorates to candidates from around the
globe. That you don't get it doesn't surprise me. You never do.
Rich Douglas
Steve Levicoff wrote:
> harves...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Very enlightening and informative material. It certainly sounds like
> > Union has gone through some rather uncertain seasons, as MIGS is
> > currently experiencing. In most circumstances serious academic
> > institutions have a way of outliving their critics.
>
> "Most" circumstances? Not necessarily. Let's look at two schools that
> were operating in one form or another back in the 1970's: The Union
> Institute, and Columbia Pacific University. Both, at the time,
> unaccredited. Both, at the time, using methods that were not in the
> mainstream.
>
> Union went on to become a regionally accredited, very credible school.
> Columbia Pacific went down the tubes, and was ultimately ordered closed
> by sevaral authorities in the State of California.
>
> Now let's compare Union with MIGS. When Union was started, it was the
> doctoral-granting, experimental consortium of ten well-established
> colleges and universities, and its creators had regionall accredited
> doctorates themselves. When MIGS was started, it was the creation of
> Sheila Danzig, the "Queen of the Internet," and its chief apologists on
> this newsgroup have been Rich Douglas and Peter French. (And, just to
> add to the comparison, the founder of Columbia Pacific, Richard Crews,
> had a legitimate M.D.)
>
> So what are we left with? Even if one cannot accurately predict the
> future of MIGS at this time (anymore than one could predict the growth
> and ultimate regional accreditation of Union nor the downfall of
> Columbia Pacific), we can evaluate the school based on what we know thus
> far. And MIGS falls below the standards of both Union (at any time) and
> Columbia Pacific (at any time). My prediction is that MIGS will not
> grow in its credibility; I recognize that there may be other opinions,
> but I feel quite comfortable in calling the school a degree mill.
>
Tom C. Head
<levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It's
> a new freakin' century, and Union is at the top of the heap with regard
> to regionally accredited low-residency programs. MIGS is at the
> bottom.
Actually, MIGS' programs aren't low-residency or regionally accredited;
they're zero-residency and the degree granting authority comes from
Mexico. Further, my general feeling is that to compare a U.S.
regionally accredited low-residency doctorate with an online doctorate
from a small Mexican school is (to borrow a phrase) like comparing
apples and moon rocks. They're two entirely different university
systems and they play by different rules.
> And you, having not even graduated from MIGS, are doing an
> awful lot of tap-dancing to justify your future doctorate.
He has to here; one of the most respected posters in AED is constantly
referring to it as a degree mill. If you were suddenly to go after
California State University/Dominguez Hills, I'd have to do the same
thing.
> Excuse me if I don't have to bother doing so - mine is regionally accredited,
> viewed as quite credible,
Credibility's intersubjective. You chop into MIGS' credibility by
calling it a degree mill, just like Union would fall flat pretty quick
if John Bear were to ever go after it. If there's one thing I've
learned as a homeschooled liberal in Mississippi, it's that it's darned
easy to raise eyebrows. It only takes one scandal, one funny
association, or one disapproving sigh to ruin institutional prestige
within a given context. Marketability is a strategic consideration,
not a moral one. One is not obligated to pursue a sellable doctorate
just as one is not obligated to pursue an inexpensive doctorate, or a
professional doctorate, or a doctorate in a specific field. The
new-and-weird factor might be a concern for people who want school
district positions, need to qualify as clinical psychologists, or for
whatever reason never want their credentials to be questioned. The
only relevant _moral_ considerations are the legitimacy of the
credential. the legitimacy of the school, and the legitimacy of the
student's work. None of these factors have been called into question
in the case of MIGS, at least not in any clear and tangible way.
Peace,
TH
Steve Levicoff
>"In 1978, the Union was sued into bankruptcy by a group of students and
>faculty, claiming financial irregularities. The accreditation status
>[candidacy] was cancelled, but was later reinstated after the school hired
>a new president and revised its accounting procedures. Union has been very
>open about discussing this situation with students and potential students."
>
>From "The Alternative Guide to College Degrees and Non-Traditional
>Higher Education," by John Bjorn Bear, Ph.D. Published by The Stonesong Press
>(a division of Grosset and Dunlap, Inc.), 1980. Page 104.
What's the matter, Rich, you couldn't find a *primary* source? Even you
should know that secondary-source research doesn't cut it in debate.
Nonetheless, granting you the point, I cannot help but notice that you
left off John's following comment: "Despite its previous financial
troubles, I think Union still offers the best, most widely acceoted, and
most flexible alternative Doctorate available today . . . Because of all
the major universities that are members of the Union, the degrees have
widespread acceptance in academic, business, and professional areas."
How conveeeeeenient.
Rich Douglas
even admit when you're dead wrong. And regarding secondary sources: this isn't a research paper, it's a
newsgroup. And you're one of the most most corner-cutting, non-factually based participants here. Surely
you don't mean to say Bear's Guide (as it was known informally) is not a credible source?
Rich Douglas
Bill Dayson
early days of the Union Institute in order to attack Steve Levicoff? Do
you think that by discrediting Steve somehow, that you have added a
shred of credibility to MIGS?
That's a pretty shaky chain of reasoning in my opinion. Wouldn't it make
more sense to defend MIGS directly by producing and publishing good work
in its name? By playing that academic game whereby doctoral programs
ultimately are judged?
Moving on to a few of these little attack fragments you posted:
> 3. Claims they're pursuing regional
> accreditation.
What's wrong with that? The new CSUMonterey Bay says the same thing. I
think the point is that at some point in 30 years you have to receive
that accreditation. It's like being a student. Working on a BA is great.
But spending 20 years as an undergraduate without earning a degree is
less great. Bottom line: Union sought *and received* regional
accreditation.
> 13. Not listed in many guides on higher
> education.
It's hard to comment on that without knowing which guides you are
talking about, or when in Union's history this refers to. But no school
is listed in any guides when it immediately starts out. Try to find
CSUChannel Islands in any university guide. Schools generate listings by
achieving credibility in those areas that the editors are using as
selection criteria. USNews' listing of "best colleges" is fixated on
traditional four year undergraduate education. You won't find UCSan
Francisco in their listing of "national universities" even though it has
produced Nobel prize winners, because it has only a token number of
undergraduates. Same thing for Rockefeller University and the Salk
Institute for Biological Studies. But bottom line: the Union Institute
obtained listings in those lists that count, the UNESCO Handbook and the
NCA's list of accredited institutions.
> 19: Two part-time faculty in the beginning.
I don't believe this. Didn't Union start out as a consortium of several
well established colleges and universities that wanted to take part in
some of those 70's-style academic experiments? And didn't it draw
faculty from its member schools? I can certainly believe two part-time
clerical staff in the office, but not two faculty.
> 22. Admissions are extremely flexible and
> subjective, taking the "whole person" into
> account.
What's wrong with that? I'd be willing to bet that you will find the
same platitudes in the catalogs of every liberal arts college in
America. They *all* claim to "take the whole person into account".
> 24. Tiny faculty, no library at all.
I addressed the 'faculty' issue above. The library issue can be
addressed in the same way, by pointing out that the members of the Union
consortium (that's why they called it "union") all had libraries. I do
think that the issue of a central library is more problematic, and
perhaps of less importance, in distance education. But the issue of
*access* to suitable library resources at the student's location *is* a
crucial issue, particularly for those in remote areas pursuing advanced
degrees. I think that it should be addressed *much* more aggressively by
this newsgroup. But it is a general issue concerning distance education
as a whole, and doesn't particularly pertain to the the Union Institute.
> 25. No courses at all. Instead, an undefined
> learning program and a project (which doesn't
> have to be a dissertation, or even a paper at
> all).
I think that the "undefined" learning program *became* defined by being
created jointly by the student and his or her supervising faculty. And
leaving open provision for a final project that is not a traditional
thesis/dissertation was probably a recognition of possibilities such as
a music composition student submitting scores as part of the
requirements. Once again, bottom line: the quality of both the learning
programs and the final projects successfully underwent the peer review
of the other RA universities in the North Central region.
> 29. Co-founder expounds on the validity and
> usage of experiential learning and
> incorporating it into one's doctoral program.
I used to attend CalPoly, San Luis Obispo. Their motto is "Learn by
Doing".
> Also, there are few, if any, limits on accepting
> credits and learning done prior to entry: "...we
> do take all previous study into consideration
> in helping a student design a program,"
I have been investigating the possibility of entering a doctoral
program, and have been talking off the record with a particular Bay Area
department where I know some people. And I have found that doctoral
admissions are a lot more subjective, and a lot more individualized,
than most posts on this group suggest. There is a BA-MA-Ph.D
progression. If a student has a 30 unit MA, he or she rarely just plugs
the degree in and automatically knocks off 30 units from the doctoral
requirements. Rather they are going to look at what your proposed area
of research is, and at what your prior work in that area looks like. How
much of your previous work will count towards your doctoral requirements
will be a case-by-case thing, and what further coursework you will have
to take prior to commencing your disseration depends. Bottom line: Don't
all doctoral programs take all previous study into consideration? In
fact, isn't that more common than the simplistic, "I've got a masters, I
think I'll enroll in a Ph.D program" that we get here?
> 30. No exams at all are proscribed to
> measure student learning.
I think that you mean "prescribed". I just received a regionally
accredited MA in spring 2000, with few examinations to speak of. I did
write several hundred pages worth of papers plus a thesis.
> 49. The school has addresses in California
> (several), Ohio and the District of Columbia.
The University of California has addresses all over the state, and in
many other states and foreign countries as well. The bottom line is that
neither UC nor the Union Institute has operated through false mail drops
or has had to change states to stay ahead of the law.
> 62. Although degree requirements are
> described, there are no proscibed courses or
> even descriptions of courses required to earn
> a degree.
See my comments on Ph.D admissions above. I would expect that those
prescriptions would appear as the result of a student developing an
individualized plan with his or her mentors.
> 75. They award a great number of degrees in
> psychology, but are not approved by the APA.
To the best of my knowledge, the APA only approves clinical programs.
Harvard University has been the poster child of non-APA psychology
programs, largely because the Harvard program has been heavily
experimental and scientific in nature, and not practitioner oriented.
Bottom line: When the Union Institute put in a practitioner oriented
psychology program, it received APA accreditation in due course.
This point by point rebuttal of vague and poorly argued criticisms of
Union could go on all day, but what's the point?
Kevin Stewart
critical or demeaning about the Union. At the very least, it shows one of
Steve's inconsistencies: he does claim to hold a schools' history against
them
Kevin
Bill Dayson wrote in message
<14438-3A...@storefull-247.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Rich, what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to trash the
early days of the Union Institute in order to attack Steve Levicoff?
snipped
>This point by point rebuttal of vague and poorly argued criticisms of
Union[?] could go on all day, but what's the point?
Bill Dayson
> A few thoughts. First, even great schools
> sometimes start off as very questionable
> projects.
These schools ended up proving themselves to at least some standard. And
they are recognized as peer institutions by the other regionally
accredited universities.
> But I've tried to make it clear that evaluating
> any new venture takes time to see the fruits
> of its processes.
And I would like to make it very clear that the responsibility to prove
itself lies with the institution, and with those who teach and study
there. There is absolutely no obligation on our part to accept every
questionable new school just because it *might* prove to be credible in
the future.
> Selectively taking narrow aspects of a
> school's operations and then forming broad
> assessments of its operations is foolhardy, as
> the tongue-in-cheek analysis above
> illustrates.
It demonstrates nothing of the kind. To the extent that the scraps of
criticism that you posted were well founded, and not just
misrepresentations, they constituted good reason to criticize Union. And
Union responded to those kinds of criticisms by proving itself to its
detractors. At which point the criticisms basically stopped.
The point being, once agin, that the criticisms were justified (to the
extent they were valid) until the school, its faculty and its students
did the necessary work to prove themselves.
> People who sling the term "degree mill" freely
> at other institutions might benefit from a little
> bit of insight into the history of their own
> schools. Accepting this legacy, warts and all,
> frees one up to see the good (and not so
> good) in other schools and programs while
> maintaining some semblance of balance.
Rich, Steve Levicoff is just a guy who posts here, just like you and me.
I think that you would be better off not fixating on the fact that he
considers MIGS to be a "degree mill", and instead spending your time
working to demonstrate to a skeptical academic community that MIGS is in
fact *not* a degree mill. That will mean having MIGS conduct itself in
the same manner as other doctorate granting universities, and taking a
part in the intellectual life of its fields.
MIGS will have to earn its credibility. It can't just demand that we
treat it as credible without evidence, because some other questionable
schools in the past eventually earned credibility. The fact is that
those schools didn't become credible until they earned it. And the great
majority of questionable schools never do.
I personally disagree with Steve, and I don't consider MIGS to be a
degree mill. I think that it has a lot of potential. But at this point,
it's unrealized potential. The ugly fact remains that MIGS is pretty
borderline. In my opinion it is about as low as you can go and retain
any academic credibility at all.
At the doctoral level, I don't think that GAAP counts for much. You are
operating on departmental reputation, and if the academic community
decides MIGS is a joke, no GAAP in the world will save it. And if MIGS
doesn't aggressively address that situation and strive for recognition
as fast as it can, it's gonna fall off the edge of the earth, and Steve
will have been proven right.
Bottom line: You have gonna have to go out and prove Steve wrong.
You need to produce a valuable bit of research for your dissertation,
and you probably need to generate some publications. You need to contact
people in your field and show up at professional meetings. With Dr. Bear
helping you and perhaps lending his name, you have a head start. But
it's up to you and Frenchy and all the others to make MIGS credible.
If you succeed, what Steve thinks will be irrelevant.
Tom C. Head
Dayson <cis...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Rich, what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to trash the
> early days of the Union Institute in order to attack Steve Levicoff? Do
> you think that by discrediting Steve somehow, that you have added a
> shred of credibility to MIGS?
Not quite. Rich's *first* post in this thread applied Steve's own NIFI
criteria (hence the numbers below, e.g. "3. Claims they're pursuing
regional accreditation.") to the early Union Institute, thereby calling
into question the NIFI criteria.
If you watch this thread carefully, Rich has made a point of referring
to Union, even the old sued-into-bankruptcy Union, in a positive light
in most of these posts. The target isn't Union. The target is the
72-point NIFI red flags list.
This does sort of show what I was saying all along -- that if the right
person attacks or seems to attack a school, even a regionally
accredited school, it can raise eyebrows pretty quickly.
Peace,
TH
Steve Levicoff
> If you watch this thread carefully, Rich has made a point of referring
> to Union, even the old sued-into-bankruptcy Union, in a positive light
> in most of these posts. The target isn't Union. The target is the
> 72-point [sic] NIFI red flags list.
Actually, I didn't interpret Rich's magnum opus that way at all. I have
always said that the NIFI Criteria were subjective and could not be
applied in any specific formula, no more than the 14-point IRS criteria
for determining the legitimacy of a church had a specific formulary to
their application. They are merely a working tool, but when it comes to
degree and other credential mills, they stand up quite well. (For
newbies, you'll find the NIFI Criteria at
http://levicoff.tripod.com/criteria.htm.)
> This does sort of show what I was saying all along -- that if the right
> person attacks or seems to attack a school, even a regionally
> accredited school, it can raise eyebrows pretty quickly.
Notwithstanding, as Tom notes, that Rich did not attack Union per se
(which is appropriate, since Rich claims to have gone ABD through
Union), let's look at the issue in a different light: At the time Union
was being criticized it was one of the earliest non-traditional doctoral
programs available. It was new and *very* different to what the U.S.
academic community was accustomed - a needle in a haystack that could
simply not be compared to similar programs at the time. Union, if you
will, was the Summerhill of American education at the doctoral level -
of *course* it was criticized.
Today, however, their methods are so accepted that many traditional
colleges and universities use them. Moreover, they've got *lots* of
competition, both public and private, nonprofit and proprietary, in many
more fields. And most of those programs in the U.S. are regionally
accredited.
The question, then, is why Rich has not chosen one of them. Why,
instead, he has chosen a mickey-mouse program like MIGS, which would
hardly gain regional accreditation if it were located in the U.S. (And
which perhaps provides an explanation for why Sheila & Co. decided *not*
to locate the program in the U.S., even though much of it is
administered from Sheila's office in Florida.)
Several years ago, John Bear wrote that he could not see why a person
would pursue an unaccredited bachelor's degree because there were so
many accredited opportunities available. I submit that today, the same
thing can be said about graduate degrees.
And whether Rich likes it or not, he is now enrolled in a degree mill.
Steve Levicoff
>[My point] was to show the folly in trying to slap the term "degree mill" on
>every school you don't like. I simply used Steve's own criteria and compared
>them to Union circa 1978.
And there are tow point, Rich, which you seem to inately moronic to
realize. First, if you have read anything I have written over the
years, you would realize that there have been schools that I have
removed from the degree mill category because they have shown
significant improvement.
Would I have classified Union as a degree mill circa 1978? I have no
idea, since I did not research them in 1978. But it's 2000, and Union
is not only not a degree mill, it is one of the most respected
nontraditional doctoral programs in the world. MIGS, on the other hand,
is still a degree mill. Will I say that in five or twn years? Maybe,
maybe not. I hope not, but I'm not holding my breath - the
powers-that-be behind MIGS are far less credentialed than those who
started Union.
Second point: There are many schools that I do not like, but I hardly
call them degree mills. I don't like Bob Jones University, and would
never go there, but they are most certainly not a mill. Ditto Goddard
College, a regionally accredited school which is as quick to shove their
liberal ideology down your throat as BJU shoves their conservative
ideology up your ass. But Goddard is hardly a degree mill.
Slap the term "degree mill" on *every* school I don't like? Surely,
Rich, even you realize that this is a ridiculous allegation. But then,
since you are enrolled in a degree mill and feel compelled to constantly
defend your decision even before your degree is in hand, I guess you
must be feeling kind of desperate. Therefore, I'll forgive you.
Rich Douglas
trash Union, nor promote MIGS (which wasn't even mentioned). Rather, it was to show the folly in trying to
whatever conclusions about the facts as one may. And didn't I say I preferred the old Union?
Regarding APA and Union: for more than 20 years they graduated Ph.D.s without APA accreditation. At the
time I was there, 80 percent of their students were in psychology (their figure). No one talked about APA,
but many were worried about gtting throught their respective states' licensure processes.
My post wasn't about slurring Union. It was about someone else's hypocrisy.
Rich Douglas
cis...@webtv.net (Bill Dayson) wrote:
>Rich, what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to trash the
>early days of the Union Institute in order to attack Steve Levicoff? Do
>you think that by discrediting Steve somehow, that you have added a
>shred of credibility to MIGS?
>
>That's a pretty shaky chain of reasoning in my opinion. Wouldn't it make
>more sense to defend MIGS directly by producing and publishing good work
>in its name? By playing that academic game whereby doctoral programs
>ultimately are judged?
>
>Moving on to a few of these little attack fragments you posted:
>
>> 3. Claims they're pursuing regional
>> accreditation.
>
>What's wrong with that? The new CSUMonterey Bay says the same thing. I
>think the point is that at some point in 30 years you have to receive
>that accreditation. It's like being a student. Working on a BA is great.
>But spending 20 years as an undergraduate without earning a degree is
>less great. Bottom line: Union sought *and received* regional
>accreditation.
>
>> 13. Not listed in many guides on higher
>> education.
>
>It's hard to comment on that without knowing which guides you are
>talking about, or when in Union's history this refers to. But no school
>is listed in any guides when it immediately starts out. Try to find
>CSUChannel Islands in any university guide. Schools generate listings by
>achieving credibility in those areas that the editors are using as
>selection criteria. USNews' listing of "best colleges" is fixated on
>traditional four year undergraduate education. You won't find UCSan
>Francisco in their listing of "national universities" even though it has
>produced Nobel prize winners, because it has only a token number of
>undergraduates. Same thing for Rockefeller University and the Salk
>Institute for Biological Studies. But bottom line: the Union Institute
>obtained listings in those lists that count, the UNESCO Handbook and the
>NCA's list of accredited institutions.
>
>> 19: Two part-time faculty in the beginning.
>
>I don't believe this. Didn't Union start out as a consortium of several
>well established colleges and universities that wanted to take part in
>some of those 70's-style academic experiments? And didn't it draw
>faculty from its member schools? I can certainly believe two part-time
>clerical staff in the office, but not two faculty.
>
>> 22. Admissions are extremely flexible and
>> subjective, taking the "whole person" into
>> account.
>
>What's wrong with that? I'd be willing to bet that you will find the
>same platitudes in the catalogs of every liberal arts college in
>America. They *all* claim to "take the whole person into account".
>
>> 24. Tiny faculty, no library at all.
>
>I addressed the 'faculty' issue above. The library issue can be
>addressed in the same way, by pointing out that the members of the Union
>consortium (that's why they called it "union") all had libraries. I do
>think that the issue of a central library is more problematic, and
>perhaps of less importance, in distance education. But the issue of
>*access* to suitable library resources at the student's location *is* a
>crucial issue, particularly for those in remote areas pursuing advanced
>degrees. I think that it should be addressed *much* more aggressively by
>this newsgroup. But it is a general issue concerning distance education
>as a whole, and doesn't particularly pertain to the the Union Institute.
>
>> 25. No courses at all. Instead, an undefined
>> learning program and a project (which doesn't
>> have to be a dissertation, or even a paper at
>> all).
>
>I think that the "undefined" learning program *became* defined by being
>created jointly by the student and his or her supervising faculty. And
>leaving open provision for a final project that is not a traditional
>thesis/dissertation was probably a recognition of possibilities such as
>a music composition student submitting scores as part of the
>requirements. Once again, bottom line: the quality of both the learning
>programs and the final projects successfully underwent the peer review
>of the other RA universities in the North Centsychology
>programs, largely because the Harvard program has been heavily
>experimental and scientific in nature, and not practitioner oriented.
>Bottom line: When the Union Institute put in a practitioner oriented
>psychology program, it received APA accreditation in due course.
>
>This point by point rebuttal of vague and poorly argued criticisms of
>Union could go on all day, but what's the point?
>
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Rich Douglas
Studies, Monterrey. It is about your reaction to a playful little exercise exploring the history of a school you
speak so much about (rightly so, as one of its graduates). Too bad you don't offer the same courtesy to
others.
To scream "degree mill" every time you talk about MIGS doesn't make it so. And changing the subject to suit
your needs serves no one, except yourself. But that's what this is all about, isn't it?
What does "And there are tow point, Rich, which you seem to inately moronic to realize." mean? "Two
points?" Pointed toes? Inate morons all over the world await the answer. (Just kidding, Steve. I'd like to
think all of us are entitled to typos. After all, it's just a newgroup. We certainly don't have to be very precise
here, unless we dare to use John Bear as a source of our information. Of course, I would hope a secondary
source would be okay, considering your initial objection to my assertion regarding Union's bankruptcy action
cited no sources at all--except your own recollection.)
Gotcha, and it was good. (And oh, so easy. How hard can it be to catch someone who constantly
contradicts himself in a hypocritical stance?)
Rich Douglas, who is not "inately moronic." It rubbed off from dealing with Bhagwan Moron himself.
Steve Levicoff <levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Rich Douglas wrote:
>
>>[My point] was to show the folly in trying to slap the term "degree mill" on
>>every school you don't like. I simply used Steve's own criteria and compared
>>them to Union circa 1978.
>
Rich Douglas
error into my message, spelling it "inate." Sorry, all.
Rich, "I shoulda used a spell checker" Douglas
"Rich Douglas" <rcdo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Of course, this has nothing to do with MIGS, the virtual branch of the fully approved Center of University
>Studies, Monterrey. It is about your reaction to a playful little exercise exploring the history of a school you
>speak so much about (rightly so, as one of its graduates). Too bad you don't offer the same courtesy to
>others.
>
>To scream "degree mill" every time you talk about MIGS doesn't make it so. And changing the subject to
suit
>your needs serves no one, except yourself. But that's what this is all about, isn't it?
>
>What does "And there are tow point, Rich, which you seem to inately moronic to realize." mean? "Two
>points?" Pointed toes? Inate morons all over the world await the answer. (Just kidding, Steve. I'd like to
>think all of us are entitled to typos. After all, it's just a newgroup. We certainly don't have to be very
precise
>here, unless we dare to use John Bear as a source of our information. Of course, I would hope a secondary
>source would be okay, considering your initial objection to my assertion regarding Union's bankruptcy action
>cited no sources at all--except your own recollection.)
>
>Gotcha, and it was good. (And oh, so easy. How hard can it be to catch someone who constantly
>contradicts himself in a hypocritical stance?)
>
>Rich Douglas, who is not "inately moronic." It rubbed off from dealing with Bhagwan Moron himself.
>
>Steve Levicoff <levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Rich Douglas wrote:
>>
>>>[My point] was to show the folly in trying to slap the term "degree mill" on
>>>every school you don't like. I simply used Steve's own criteria and compared
>>>them to Union circa 1978.
>>