Sad News
Sheila Danzig
illness.
Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
He will be missed by many.
-Sheila Danzig
Ike Okonkwo
Ike
In article <8bkac7$cph$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Levicoff
> I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> illness.
>
> Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
> personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
> He will be missed by many.
(Note: Ray was the president of American Coastline University, from
which Sheila earned - um, received - her doctorate.)
Ray's loss is certainly profound, as he was one of the more humorous -
and sporting - degree mill operators to grace our presence.
May he find his peace in, um, that great degree mill in the sky . . .
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://levicoff.tripod.com
------------------------------
John Bear
As far as this news group is concerned, his epitaph could well be, "Despite
involvement with a dozen or more institutions, he never made a misleading or
untrue statement about accreditation."
Do we have any idea what this will mean for his two main schools, American
Coastline and Summit?
John Bear
www.degree.net
Sheila Danzig wrote:
> I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> illness.
>
> Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
> personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
> He will be missed by many.
>
> -Sheila Danzig
Moorshidee B A Kassim
leader in my country holds a PHD from American Coastline University
and he is also an authority in his field. He must have benefited from
American Coastline University which is considered a degree mill by
many in this newsgroup.
Good bye Ray and thank you for your contributions in the field of
distant learning.
Steve Levicoff <levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Sheila Danzig wrote:
> I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> illness.
>
> Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
> personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
> He will be missed by many.
(Note: Ray was the president of American Coastline University, from
PatCol3767
epitaph cold. Is this a time to joke? Many had your differences, but surely,
in death, one would hope that you would let go of the petty disagreement, and
go into your heart to ask God to bless his soul. One day that announcement will
come about each of us. What do you want written about each of you? Now live
the life that will get that epitaph written for you. Of course I suspect that
Dr. Levicoff may well be happy to be in that big truckstop in the sky.
I do not mean to be rude or disrespectful. Certainly the good doctors Levicoff
and Bear are experts here on aed and contribute a great deal. I just felt that
some respect is due for any of God's children who has passed on and for a
moment, we could bury the hatchets and put away our differences.
PAT
Steve Levicoff
> I didn't know Ray but I found Dr. Levicoff's comments cruel and Dr. Bear's
> epitaph cold.
Pat, your comments are taken in the spirit with which they are
intended. However, to you, Raymond Chasse was simply an unknown person
who, unfortunately, passed away. To many of us, however, he wasa
well-known degree mill operator who led many people down what Prof.
Harold Hill, in The Music Man, called the path "to the depths of
degradation." (In fact, he could have played Harold Hill.)
> Is this a time to joke?
In light of the above, and in the case of Ray Chasse, my answer is yes.
Incidentally, the name of the guy escapes me (perhaps Goldie will remind
us), but when a regular on the Universal Life Church newsgroup who had
also run a degree mill died, not only was it considered pathetically
funny (a phrase I choose carefully), many people even wrote posts
questioning whether he had died at all.
> Many had your differences, but surely, in death, one would hope that you
> would let go of the petty disagreement, and go into your heart to ask God
> to bless his soul. One day that announcement will come about each of us.
Quite true. But we have to be careful in not letting our eulogies
disguise the fact that a person did a lot of damage during his or her
life. And do pardon me if I would not have asked God to bless the soul
of Hitler, Koresh or, when the time comes, Timothy McVeigh.
> What do you want written about each of you?
"He was a putz, but at least he was funny."
> Now live the life that will get that epitaph written for you.
Actually, if her time comes during my life, I would miss Sheila D. But,
I confess, I would probably joke about her being loofahed to death.
(And somewhere in that great beyond, she would probably be laughing her
ass off.)
> Of course I suspect that Dr. Levicoff may well be happy to be in that
> big truckstop in the sky.
Especially if it has a nice sleeper cab.
> I do not mean to be rude or disrespectful. Certainly the good doctors Levicoff
> and Bear are experts here on aed and contribute a great deal. I just felt that
> some respect is due for any of God's children who has passed on and for a
> moment, we could bury the hatchets and put away our differences.
Was Ray one of God's children? Having earned my graduate credentials in
theology, I would not speculate. But differences do not fall by the
wayside in death - they are not necessarily forgotten, merely forgiven.
Ray was a schmuck, but I *will* miss the give-and-take he provided in
the newsgroup, which actually *was* funny. But he was still a fraud,
and there are still people who are stuck with degrees from American
Coastline and Summit University of Louisiana. His death, for better or
worse, will not legitimize their credentials.
Tom Head
> I didn't know Ray but I found Dr. Levicoff's comments cruel and Dr.
> Bear's epitaph cold. Is this a time to joke? Many had your
> differences, but surely, in death, one would hope that you would let
> go of the petty disagreement, and go into your heart to ask God to
> bless his soul.
<snip>
"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray
in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them."
(Mt 6:5)
Peace,
_____ _ _
|_ _| | | | Tom C. Head
| | | |_| | http://www2.netdoor.com/~tlh
| | | _ |
|_| |_| |_| ICQ 20364804
Kevin Stewart
hard-heartedness of Jerusalem?
Also, who's praying?
Kevin
"He wept." -the Bible.
Tom Head wrote in message ...
snipped
Kevin Stewart
Steve Levicoff wrote in message <38DF887E...@ix.netcom.com>...
snipped
>Incidentally, the name of the guy escapes me (perhaps Goldie will remind
>us), but when a regular on the Universal Life Church newsgroup who had
>also run a degree mill died, not only was it considered pathetically
>funny (a phrase I choose carefully), many people even wrote posts
>questioning whether he had died at all.
You mean the guy you faked the identity of with that insipid diatribe on the
pleasures of hell from "his" POV? The guy who closed his school up when he
found it was a gray area?
Lee Salter.
Kevin
Hey, Pat? In case you've missed it, Steve is one class act. Obviously a
forgiving x'ian type. [And yes, Steve. That was an incomplete sentence.]
Sheila Danzig
"Steve Levicoff" <levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38DF887E...@ix.netcom.com...
> Actually, if her time comes during my life, I would miss Sheila D. But,
> I confess, I would probably joke about her being loofahed to death.
> (And somewhere in that great beyond, she would probably be laughing her
> ass off
I probably would be, but goodness knows Steve, my kids my take offense to
that. I would have hoped you could consider Ray's family and, as a man of
God, drop the differences (they were only differences) and offer some
comfort.
May he rest in peace.
-Sheila
Earon Kavanagh
feathers ruffled occasionally in the early days of alt.education.distance
(mostly by Steve Levicoff, who else?). Reflecting on my comments for a
moment, who hasn't had one's feathers ruffled by Steve?
Anyway, God rest him. He was one of the interesting characters in some of
the great performances on this newsgroup. I hang my head in momentary
silence and respect.
Earon Kavanagh
"Steve Levicoff" <levi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:38DE2DE5...@ix.netcom.com...
> Sheila Danzig wrote:
>
> > I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> > illness.
> >
> > Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew
him
> > personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big
heart.
> > He will be missed by many.
>
> (Note: Ray was the president of American Coastline University, from
> which Sheila earned - um, received - her doctorate.)
>
> Ray's loss is certainly profound, as he was one of the more humorous -
> and sporting - degree mill operators to grace our presence.
>
> May he find his peace in, um, that great degree mill in the sky . . .
>
toar-litman
*******************************()**********************************
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WE HAVE LEARNED WITH DEEP REGRET THE SAD NEWS OF THE
DEATH OF DR. RAY CHASSE, OF BLESSED MEMORY,
CHANCELLOR / PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN COASTLINE UNIVERSITY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*@
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A part of us is missing now.
ACU is still in our world.
Good World.
Israel Litman, M.A.
Director
Toar
March 27, 2000 24:25 Israel Time
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> > What do you want written about each of you?
>
> "He was a putz, but at least he was funny."
Actually, Steve, you ceased to be funny some months ago, and putz has the
implication of a good-natured simpleton, neither of which applies to your
public persona. My seven year old son might find your antics funny, but my
ten year old daughter gave up laughing at your category of "humor" at two
years ago.
I've read your dissertation and these eloquent pleas you made:
Testimony on S.B. 1129 and H.B. 1861
The House of Representatives version of testimony on the original bills.
Statement on S.B. 619 and H.B. 670
Statement to the Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional
Licensure in support of the revised legislation that passed in 1998.
From which I will quote:
"We propose that an appropriate way to circumvent this is to adopt the
language used by our neighbors in Delaware, which adopted licensure for
professional counselors in 1987.[63] In mandating the licensure of Licensed
Professional Counselors of Mental Health, the legislature specifically
included the following exemption:
(3) Any person or legal entity engaged in religious activity of any
nature whatsoever. Religious activity shall be construed in the broadest sense
possible to include all activity:
a. Arguably protected by either the free exercise or the
establishment clauses of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution;
b. Arguably protected by Sec. 1, article I of the Constitution of
this State;
c. Which can be shown to have been historically engaged in by any
religiously motivated person or legal entity; or
d. Which can be shown to be sincerely believed to be described in, or
mandated by, the Holy Scriptures of the individual or legal entity involved.
Religious activity is not limited in any way to Sabbath worship but extends to
any activity of a spiritual or religious nature which touches in any way on
the affairs of life. Religious activity is not limited to clergy or churches
and it includes church members or other religiously motivated
individuals.[64]"
If you knew Dr. Ray Chasse at all for the profoundly religious man he was --
which you obviously didn't -- you would immediately have realized that your
own legal arguments, elegantly stated, spoke also in his behalf.
But they weren't JUST legal issues you were speaking so eloquently in those
statements, were they? Read 3d again. You said it, didn't you? As a
doctoral authority, with the full power of your degrees behind you, you said
those very words ... you put your reputation behind those words -- your
credibility.
Yes, Steve -- res ipse loquitor. Your work has indeed spoken for itself.
Here's another bit of Latin for you: nil nisi bonum de mortuis. Or how about
one you, as a legal specialist should know: rectus in curia. Upright in
court, perhaps -- or perhaps an incurable ass.
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
Steve Levicoff
> Steve Levicoff said:
>
> > > What do you want written about each of you?
> >
> > "He was a putz, but at least he was funny."
>
> Actually, Steve, you ceased to be funny some months ago, and putz has the
> implication of a good-natured simpleton, neither of which applies to your
> public persona. My seven year old son might find your antics funny, but my
> ten year old daughter gave up laughing at your category of "humor" at two
> years ago.
Thank you for your delightful feedback, Quinn. Nonetheless, perhaps you
are not familiar with the word "putz." Literally translated from the
Yiddish, it means penis. In its normative figurative usage, however, it
is more or less a common decription of someone who is both a prick and
an asshole.
And I hope, of course, that you are not allowing your children to read
this newsgroup. Unless, of course, they are academically and socially
bright beyond their years.
Of course they did. And I did not know Ray as being religious or
otherwise; in fact, I did not know Ray personally at all. Nonetheless,
like me, Ray Chasse was a public figure. Thus, at any stage of the
game, his conduct is subject to public comment. And while the tragedy
of his death is painful to those who loved him, the fact remains that he
led many people down the wrong path with regard to their higher
education.
> But they weren't JUST legal issues you were speaking so eloquently in those
> statements, were they? Read 3d again. You said it, didn't you? As a
> doctoral authority, with the full power of your degrees behind you, you said
> those very words ... you put your reputation behind those words -- your
> credibility.
Irrelevant. In "3d" above, I was directly quoting Delaware law. And I
stand by that in the context the quote was included.
I never argued with Ray Chasse's right to believe whatever he chose, nor
even his right to grant bogus degrees. As I have often said, if it were
not for people like Ray Chasse, Thomas Kirk, Les Snell, et al., John
Bear and I would not have had nerly as much fun at this game as we have
had over the years. (In fact, that is a paraphrase of something Lenny
Bruce once said, "If it were not for crime and degradation, J. Edgar
Hoover and I would be out of jobs.")
But someone who rips off others is open to critique, and just as Ray had
the right to do what he did, the rest of us have the right to critique
such activities.
> Yes, Steve -- res ipse loquitor. Your work has indeed spoken for itself.
> Here's another bit of Latin for you: nil nisi bonum de mortuis. Or how about
> one you, as a legal specialist should know: rectus in curia. Upright in
> court, perhaps -- or perhaps an incurable ass.
And your point is? (Never mind, Quinn . . . the question was
rhetorical.)
Steve Levicoff
> I *would* ask God to forgive them, even if I would have a hard time
> doing so. (But that's just me)
No problem. After all, there is a biblical precdent for this: "Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do."
However, since Ray Chasse was an active participant in this newsgroup at
one time, he *did* know what he was doing.
Perhaps, then, we should come up with a generic Prayer for the
Forgiveness of Degree Mill Operators. "God, forgive Ray for operating
several well-known degree mills, for claiming fake accreditations, for
operating out of mail forwarding services, for using religious
exemptions to institutional licensure as a legal loophole, and for
granting sham degrees to people who did not know they were getting a
worthless piece of paper."
Yeah, that's the ticket . . . And just think, when their time comes, we
can use the same prayer for people like Thomas Kirk (LaSalle), Les Snell
(Monticello), John Scheel (the head of ACI), and countless others in
California, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Mexico, etc.
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> > doing so. (But that's just me)
>
> No problem. After all, there is a biblical precdent for this: "Father,
> forgive them, for they know not what they do."
What has always enlightened me (though not given me much comfort) when someone
passes, is not only what contemplating the contributions and lives of those
who have passed, but also meditating upon how others take the opportunity that
the reminder of mortal finality affords us and run with it.
In the past two weeks, I have lost a grandmother, a colleague, a well-known
member of the High IQ community, and now Ray Chasse, who I counted as a dear
friend. Perhaps it was because he and I shared the same birthday (different
year), I don't know -- but he let me in, and I got to know him very closely
Steve, you know that you only play when you have people by the balls. You
know that the Go6 won't take the sand out of your sandbox. You're no
simpleton -- you're one damn smart cookie. But the measure of a man is not
his breadth, or height, or width, but in the angles he chooses to pursue or
abandon.
Kevin Stewart
Steve Levicoff wrote in message <38E09884...@ix.netcom.com>...
snipped
>Perhaps, then, we should come up with a generic Prayer for the
>Forgiveness of Degree Mill Operators. "God, forgive Ray for operating
>several well-known degree mills, for claiming fake accreditations,
I still haven't heard what makes accreditation real
for
>operating out of mail forwarding services,
Would it have been better to work from websites like Leland, changing them
periodically?
for using religious
>exemptions to institutional licensure as a legal loophole,
For using religious exemptions as exemptions? Aren't you one of those "learn
the system and learn to use it" advocates. If this is what he did, so what?
Are legal loophles just for the monied/officeholders?
and for
>granting sham degrees to people who did not know they were getting a
>worthless piece of paper."
Or didn't know how to market them, (like Gray &co do). It's amazing how
money justifies knowing and cancels the need for scrutiny or questioning.
"Yes, there are PhD's with fractional IQ's, but their degree is accredited,
so they're entitled!" How could Gates, Fuller, Henderson, Robbins, Graham,
many Presidents and countless others be heeded sans parchment -- and without
most people seeing what this says about formal ed.?
>
>Yeah, that's the ticket . . . And just think, when their time comes, we
>can use the same prayer for people like Thomas Kirk (LaSalle), Les Snell
>(Monticello), John Scheel (the head of ACI), and countless others in
>California, Hawaii, Louisiana, New Mexico, etc.
Gee, how about a prayer for the well-educated shysters in Congress, the
Seminary grads that rip off the faithful, the Academicians that teach
students vapid fluff and arcane stuff at a couple hundred dollars a credit?
Or is it worth mentioning/mocking for those who don't conform to the
"Education is worth any (large) amount, even if I end up flinging fries, as
long as the school has the right sq ft of turf:tree count ratio."
You sure you don't want to come back to the ULC NG, Steve? Some of the vocal
ones over there have your "My Methods/POV's flaws are moot; those in my camp
do little wrong. Everyone else is a con waiting for a mark -- at best."
mentality.
Prayer for departed, judgemental Conformists:
Lord,
They sure knew how to cut down the fools who did as they said, but in the
'wrong' way. Thanks for making so much room at Your right hand for those
ssoooooooooo righteous. Forgive them for not needing forgiveness, but they
were good at ignoring substance, reducing efficiency and trying to make sure
shortcuts were done their way, regardless of the reason or legality of the
variance.
Hell. . . heck. . . Father. Substance got just a tad stronger with them gone
and we know that can't be good. Amen
That will be a free-will offering of $250/reader. (Hey, what other way can
value be seen or effectiveness known, except dear old lucre?)
Rev. Dr.* Kevin
*Another religious exemption used legally. (goshgollygeewhiz, I didn't ID it
for once! ummmmmooops and amibothered?!)
John Bear
> In the past two weeks, I have lost a . . . well-known
> member of the High IQ community . . .
May I ask who? I've had involvements with a number of them over the years,
especially Four Sigma and Intertel (as well as Mensa of course), so I
fear/suspect it may be someone I know/knew.
Thanks.
John Bear
jo...@ursa.net
John Bear
>>>I still haven't heard what makes accreditation real
Put 1,000 randomly-chosen registrars or human resources executives in a room,
and I'd bet that 99 to 100 percent of them would agree that the answer to Mr.
Stewart's question (for US-based schools) is: "Recognized by the Council on
Higher Education Accreditation."
Now you've heard.
John Bear
www.degree.net
Russ Blahetka
Russ
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The first myth of management is that it exists.
http://www.blahetka.com/school.shtml
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kevin Stewart
Now this acceptance doesn't happen quickly, does it? Is there ANY chance
these mill accreditors won't be mainstream someday? Is there any way for
diversity/competition to come into play?
Kevin
John Bear wrote in message <38E128B6...@ursa.net>...
Kevin Stewart
Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote in message ...
snipped
>Grady M. Towers was killed in the line of duty as an unarmed park security
>guard on 20 March 2000.
>
>It is a sad commentary on the system that such a brilliant man as Grady
Towers
>had to support himself by putting himself harm's way due to American
>credentialism -- since his love was anthropology. One of the smartest men
in
>America, Christopher Langan, makes his living as a bar bouncer, and quit
>traditional education years ago. When will a bar brawl take him? God
forbid.
This is certainly a tragic waste of ability and potential and one reason why
I hope we can eventually drop the farce of credentials for conformity and
education as a passive, totally uniform collection of credits and
plagarism-but-for-phraseology.
A local clerk has a gift for high math, but no interest in spending years
and thousands of dollars getting the knowledge formally approved. A friend
went to Stanford as a Merit scholar thinking of working in Einsteins'
legacy, but only got offers pertaining to enhanced bomb making and went into
sales. And so it goes.
Everyone is entitled by right of breathing, not interest or proven ability.
Nearly everyone studies the same stuff while the interesting and(???)
challenging material is held off until idiot standardized tests are passed
and Ft Knox can be cleared out. And surprise! we have job shortages and few
areas of growth/contribution outside the military.
And the best and brightest are bypassed, marginalized and lost.
Yeah, we're big on critical thinking! DDUUHHHHH!
Kevin
John Bear
Kevin Stewart wrote:
> Thanks, Doc!
>
> Now this acceptance doesn't happen quickly, does it? Is there ANY chance
> these mill accreditors won't be mainstream someday? Is there any way for
> diversity/competition to come into play?
Well, according to some experts at this news group, DETC already provides an
example.
When CHEA was founded, its director, Dr. Eaton, made public remarks that
suggested that CHEA wasn't going to deal with the likes of DETC and ACICS. A
year or so later, Dr. Eaton was a featured speaker at the annual DETC
convention, and she had nothing but kind things to say about it (and made a few
references to the persistence of DETC in presenting their views to CHEA).
So, in a world where AICS gets recognized accreditation and LaSalle hovers at
the brink of same, surely anything is possible.
But only one non-mainstream accreditor has even made serious attempts at
recognition: the National Association for Private Nontraditional Schools and
Colleges in Colorado. I have spent some time with their most recent
application, roughly 2,000 pages, and there is a lot of impressive stuff in it.
But after 7 rejections in 21 years, and a very hostile letter written (and
widely distributed) by the head of NAPNSC to the head of the accreditor
approval office, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything positive from
this situation. The only other contender is GATE, the Global Alliance for
Transnational Education, the heavily-funded effort started by Mr. Jones of
Jones International U (www.gate.org). But even though it quacks like an
accrediting agency and walks like one, it hasn't quite yet declared that it
plans to be one.
John Bear
www.degree.net
John Bear
The book "Genius Revisited: High IQ Children Grown Up" (Ablex Publishing, 1993)
-- which focused on attendees at the one-and-only reunion of a class at the
Hunter College Elementary School's program for the intellectually gifted -- 38
years after they/we had spent eight or nine years together, seems to reinforce
some of Hollingworth's and Terman's suggestions that there may be a high
correlation between IQ and competence and/or creativity, but there is not one
between IQ and financial or business success.
When we went around the room giving brief life stories at that reunion (a room
full of 50-year-olds who had not seen each other in 38 years), there were a lot
of competents, a fair number of drudges, and only one really famous person -- my
best friend Bobby Rosenblum who, under another name, has become a world-famous
author of those bodice-ripper novels for teenage girls and their ilk.
John Bear
Quinn Tyler Jackson wrote:
> > > In the past two weeks, I have lost a . . . well-known
> > > member of the High IQ community . . .
> >
> > May I ask who? I've had involvements with a number of them over the years,
> > especially Four Sigma and Intertel (as well as Mensa of course), so I
> > fear/suspect it may be someone I know/knew.
>
> Grady M. Towers was killed in the line of duty as an unarmed park security
> guard on 20 March 2000.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the system that such a brilliant man as Grady Towers
> had to support himself by putting himself harm's way due to American
> credentialism -- since his love was anthropology. One of the smartest men in
> America, Christopher Langan, makes his living as a bar bouncer, and quit
> traditional education years ago. When will a bar brawl take him? God forbid.
>
Quinn Tyler Jackson
toar-litman
2. Indeed, we can't trust the law, the state, the nation, the religion
blindly, and can't see them as the essence of it all;
The terrible deeds in all times in the world were done by them, in the name of them.
3. So, it's a a common sense, common moral, common reality to identify
and a take a personal decision based on the real reality and its true value.
4. One more aspect: groups of interest, especially the establishments'
(see the aforementioned states, nations, laws, religions, laws...)...
GodIsAllOfUs will bless ALL of us,
Israel
Steve Levicoff
> Grady M. Towers was killed in the line of duty as an unarmed park security
> guard on 20 March 2000.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the system that such a brilliant man as Grady Towers
> had to support himself by putting himself harm's way due to American
> credentialism -- since his love was anthropology. One of the smartest men in
> America, Christopher Langan, makes his living as a bar bouncer, and quit
> traditional education years ago. When will a bar brawl take him? God forbid.
C'mon, Quinn, this is getting to the point of absurdity. Nothing
against Grady Towers (who, unlike Ray Chasse, did not run degree mills),
but to extent that to the possibility of Christopher Langan being killed
in a bar brawl while making his living as a bar bouncer because *he*
decided to quit traditional education is ridiculous.
After writing several books and teaching in traditional education myself
for over six years, I decided to quit and become a truck driver. Which,
incidentally, I enjoy far more than I ever enjoyed teaching or writing.
Of course there is a possibility that I could be taken in a rollover,
but I drive because *I* choose to, I no longer teach because *I* do not
choose to, and life is a crap shoot regardless of what you do. (Hell,
if Christopher Langan or I were teaching, we could be killed by a
psychotic student doing a graduate school version of Columbine.)
One must learn not to presume. There is no telling if a bar brawl might
be an exciting way for Christopher Langan to go. (I, however, will pass
up the opportunity to go in a rollover.)
Steve Levicoff
> 1. By calling 'his' degrees "fake' etc. - you call so the LAW itself.
Don't be a schmuck, toar. My field is religion and law, and I've done
no such thing. And yes, Ray was a fake.
> 2. Indeed, we can't trust the law, the state, the nation, the religion
> blindly, and can't see them as the essence of it all;
> The terrible deeds in all times in the world were done by them, in the name of them.
> 3. So, it's a a common sense, common moral, common reality to identify
> and a take a personal decision based on the real reality and its true value.
> 4. One more aspect: groups of interest, especially the establishments'
> (see the aforementioned states, nations, laws, religions, laws...)...
Congratulations on posting a message that is absolutely irrelevant to
this newsgroup. No further response necessary.
> GodIsAllOfUs will bless ALL of us,
>
> Israel
Yeah. Right, dude.
Marshall Rice
<srda...@degree.com> writes
>I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
>illness.
I am saddened to learn of it.
Although I never had the opportunity to meet Ray in person, we spoke on
the telephone on a number of occasions and I always found him helpful,
straightforward and sincere.
In the days when it was possible to exchange opinions more freely in
this newsgroup I found his input interesting and informative, and have
missed it since.
>Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
>personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
>He will be missed by many.
Indeed.
--
Marshall Rice
kg...@my-deja.com
"Sheila Danzig" <srdan...@degreeSPAM.comNO> wrote:
> I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> illness.
>
> Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who
> knew him personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a
> very big heart.
> He will be missed by many.
>
Although I wasn't around a.e.d for most of Ray's posts here I remember
him fondly from my pre-internet days hanging around the various (non-
degree) education sections on GEnie.
My condolences to his family and friends.
Tommy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
toar-litman
Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an official
definition and status, aren't they ?
Dear Dr. Levicoff -
Can it be that you have not just human eyes - or human glasses to look through them - to
see the relevancy to the subject ?
Till the next message - go and search a little kindness, and buy a tongue brush...
GodIsAllOfUSS
Kevin Stewart
toar-litman wrote in message <38E4B839...@bezeqint.net>...
>Hey, Levicoff,
>
>Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
>
>Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
Interesting concept, but can you do that with words/CRT images? <G>
>The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
>are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an
official
>definition and status, aren't they ?
[I like this guy, too! No prompt given for the 'Moment'; wing it]
Not in this group, t-l! Wild guess: you weren't here when we last discussed
the honorary, legal but "illegitimate" D.D. the ULC &co offers -- and all
the nefarious, hyper-demonic cons a phanthom holder may do with "Dr." before
the name and no mention of what kind. (It is uncouth to say Dr. Kevin
Stewart, DD"; I "ought" to use one or the other. . . actually the latter,
though just "Dr." is legal -- in the RW)
And yes, folks! SOME do use it "irreligiously", just as some MD's start
mills. [galactic gasp!!]
Rev. Dr. Kevin (with a 'raspberry'-laden "nyah!!!" showered forth amidst
shouts of "Who has smelling salts!" <G> )
"There are more people fixing cars than there are mechanics."
- a friend.
Tom Head
> Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
>
<snip>
> > > ,-~~-.___.
> > > / | ' \
> > > ( ) 0
> > > \_/-, ,----'
> > > ==== //
> > > / \-'~; /~~~(O)
> > > / __/~| / |
> > > =( _____| (_________|
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Steve Levicoff
> > > levi...@ix.netcom.com
> > > http://levicoff.tripod.com
> > > ------------------------------
I don't know, buddy, it looks like Snoopy at a typewriter to me. Giving
you a Rorschasch test must be a trip...
Steve Levicoff
> Hey, Levicoff,
>
> Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
>
> Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
>
> The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
> are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an official
> definition and status, aren't they ?
>
> Dear Dr. Levicoff -
>
> Can it be that you have not just human eyes - or human glasses to look through
> them - to see the relevancy to the subject ?
>
> Till the next message - go and search a little kindness, and buy a tongue brush...
>
> GodIsAllOfUSS
An "onanist dog masturbating abusing words?" As Auntie Mame would say,
"How vivid."
Anyway, Toar, bubaleh, you did not appear on this newsgroup until Sheila
D. provided the recent obit (for lack of a better term) about the death
of Ray Chasse. Which, of course, brings up the proverbial question,
"Who are you? Who were you? Who do you hope to be?"
I find it quite fascinating that Ray Chasse has so many public defenders
in his death than he had in his life. I have no doubt that he was a
nice guy - he provided some lively fodder here on the newsgroup during
his, um, reign. Nonetheless, when it came to educational
administration, even his ptragic passing will not change the fact that
he was simply a sleazy degree mill operator.
So what's your story, putz-breath? Are you a graduate of one of Ray's
mills? Did you earn a degree from American Coastline or Summit? Is
that why you feel the need to defend Ray's academic, um, career?
Don't bother with the "ACU is LEGITIMATE" act; we have hashed that out
here on the newsgroup many times in the past. And everyone knows my
position: Of course ACU was legal (as were many degree mills in
Louisiana). But it was hardly legitimate.
And as for the "GodIsAllOfUSS" [sic], this is not a theological
newsgroup, sweet cheeks. Whether you spell it correctly or not.
Ah, what the hell . . . Let's lay it on a little thicker. Ray Chasse
was a scam artist, a hustler, a bamboozler, a shyster, a huckster, and a
swindler. And you're trying to defend American Coastline here? Toar,
babe, you're a freakin' joke.
Bill Highsmith
Tom Head wrote in message ...
>I don't know, buddy, it looks like Snoopy at a typewriter to me. Giving
>you a Rorschasch test must be a trip...
>
>
>Peace,
>
> _____ _ _
>|_ _| | | | Tom C. Head
> | | | |_| | http://www2.netdoor.com/~tlh
> | | | _ |
> |_| |_| |_| ICQ 20364804
>
Yeah, in other words, sometimes a dog at a typewriter is just a dog at a
typewriter and a knucklehead posing as an intellectual is just a
knucklehead.
Bill H.
toar-litman
Steve Levicoff wrote:
> toar-litman wrote:
>
> > Hey, Levicoff,
> >
> > Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
> >
> > Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
> >
> > The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
> > are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an official
> > definition and status, aren't they ?
> >
> > Dear Dr. Levicoff -
> >
> > Can it be that you have not just human eyes - or human glasses to look through
> > them - to see the relevancy to the subject ?
> >
> > Till the next message - go and search a little kindness, and buy a tongue brush...
> >
> > GodIsAllOfUSS
>
> An "onanist dog masturbating abusing words?" As Auntie Mame would say,
> "How vivid."
* If you can't live without abusing - abuse against the mirror...
>
>
> Anyway, Toar, bubaleh,
** All I tried to say loudly that there is no reason, even for a cool, educated and
correspondence-freak as Prof.-Dr. Levicoff (Jew ?) not to avoid from abusing the other;
The participate of this really educated and very-very useful newsgroup !!!:-))
I believe, Dr. Levicoff, that you are a good fellow with a little personal problem;
That's all. But I can assure you that you will be much more cool if you will avoid from
abusing; At least me.
beside - if you observe, in (one of) my first messages ("not relevant"...)
I concluded that on the bottom line it's a question of A PERSONAL CHOICE;
On one of your messages to one of the participates of this newsgroup, you witnessed on
yourself that IT WAS *YOUR* CHOICE to leave the academic world and drive the truck - - -
. . .
Although you attacked me - - - . . . Why ?...
Again - for sure I can learn from you - but not in such a way, through being abused !
It's really shame of you and of the newsgroup if you will not keep my honour.
I DEMAND YOU TO RESPECT ME. AND EVERYONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE NEWSGROUPS.
> you did not appear on this newsgroup until Sheila
> D. provided the recent obit (for lack of a better term) about the death
> of Ray Chasse. Which, of course, brings up the proverbial question,
> "Who are you? Who were you? Who do you hope to be?"
A. It makes no difference regarding the respect you have to respectful me and us.
B. It makes no difference regarding the CONTENT of my message:
face and deal with the question I'm asking you.
C. I can tell you "who am I" etc., but -
D. It was NOT the first time I participated the discussions, although not much; I have
just "revealed" the forum, and started to participate; What's wrong with this ?
E. IT'S *REALLY* NOT A USUAL SITUATION TO FACE A DEATH.
IF YOU DESPISE THE DEATH - YOU DESPISE THE LIFE. IF YOU DEGRADE THE DEAD - YOU DEGRADE
THE ALIVE.
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUDDY, REALLY TO MY SORROW.
PLEASE - YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK LIE ABOUT THE DEAD - BUT YOU HAVE NOT STILL TO MAKE IT
DIRTY.
>
>
> I find it quite fascinating that Ray Chasse has so many public defenders
> in his death than he had in his life.
(*) Then the truth is publicized. The lowdown appears before.
> I have no doubt that he was a
> nice guy - he provided some lively fodder here on the newsgroup during
> his, um, reign. Nonetheless, when it came to educational
> administration, even his ptragic passing will not change the fact that
> he was simply a sleazy degree mill operator.
>
> So what's your story, putz-breath?
* Again ?...Please clean your mouth, your tongue:-)) I'm not going to despair...
> Are you a graduate of one of Ray's
> mills? Did you earn a degree from American Coastline or Summit? Is
> that why you feel the need to defend Ray's academic, um, career?
>
> Don't bother with the "ACU is LEGITIMATE" act; we have hashed that out
> here on the newsgroup many times in the past. And everyone knows my
> position: Of course ACU was legal
****~~~~ STOP HERE: ACU WAS AND IS YET *L E G I T I M A T E*
- AND THAT IS ENOUGH FOR DEALING WITH ACU.
Beyond it's up to everyone to choice -
1. To choice if to take it at all, to enroll with, etc.
2. To choice the efforts to be invested, to accept these exemptions or others, to work
over the formal requirements, etc. - TO MAKE IT RESPECTFUL !!! IT'S HIS OWN, ALL WHO AND
WHAT IS INVOLVED, INCLUDING *THE SYSTEM* WHICH YOU ARE A PART OF IT, AREN'T YOU ? SO IT'
HAS TO BE YOUR INTEREST TO MAKE IT RESPECTFUL
AND AS SUCH TO ENCOURAGE IT, AND NOT TO ATTACK IT IN SUCH A BLATANT WAY !
Beside, what you are saying: that the legal authorities, in this case, the State of
Louisiana's Board of Regent do not know what you know ?
Why are they admitted, accepting, and authorizing ACU to award degrees ? Are the States
recognizing MILLS ?
Are you better that God, pardon state ?
...and that's what I meant when I said that you are saying the law is fake - as long as
the law authorize Ray and ACU to award degrees...
> (as were many degree mills in
> Louisiana). But it was hardly legitimate.
>
> And as for the "GodIsAllOfUSS" [sic],
* OK, Prof. Levicoff, it is MY VERY BIG ESSENTIAL MISTAKE, and it has to be GodIsAllOfUS
and NOT GodIsAllOfUSS...
If the mistake is something else - please tell me; In any case -
GOD is just a religious, theological term; The secular, the worldly, just call 'it' "
LIFE";
All I try to do is to find the HIGHEST denominator and integrating the two points of
views which is ONE REALITY, and call it - in a paraphrase to a famous song - God Is ALL
(and not just one, although it's a great idea as well...) of Us (US=United
States...mere) -
Don't you like it ? You who are part of me, and of Ray, and of all of us...God, Image of
God does not abuse another God, Image of God...
> this is not a theological
> newsgroup, sweet cheeks. Whether you spell it correctly or not.
* The newsgroup, the state, the faith, is one of the human activity; as such - we have
to see the large circle and concentrate with our close circle - but not to forget the
large one...What's the big deal with the "accreditation" and the Mills" and is between
them referring the life and death issues, and other serious things...You have to know
this...
>
>
> Ah, what the hell . . . Let's lay it on a little thicker. Ray Chasse
> was a scam artist, a hustler, a bamboozler, a shyster, a huckster, and a
> swindler. And you're trying to defend American Coastline here? Toar,
> babe, you're a freakin' joke.
>
* First of all I'm trying to defend MYSELF and - if you don't mind - participant, His
Majesty...
I would NEVER defend a false, fake, etc. thing...
beside, Dr. Levicoff, about the evaluation of such a thing (fake etc.) -
if you have a bomb - it's a bomb; you can't say that it's fake etc.;
The unaccredited degree has a known influence , a POSITIVE one !
Steve, even if you have nothing - you can do a magic deed...
You can be a magician ...
In one word - promote the DL with respectful way.
I'm trying to do a little path in my small space here in Israel...
With all best wishes and minimum misunderstanding:-))
In one word: be B.A. (=Ben Adam = A mentch...).
Yours indeed,
Israel
Toar
GodIsAllOfUs
Russ Blahetka
<snip>
> > > Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
I believe the word you want is onanist- a person who practices
masturbation- which makes your sentence above quite ludicrous.
<snip>
> ** All I tried to say loudly that there is no reason, even for a cool, educated and
> correspondence-freak as Prof.-Dr. Levicoff (Jew ?) not to avoid from abusing the other;
> The participate of this really educated and very-very useful newsgroup !!!:-))
> I believe, Dr. Levicoff, that you are a good fellow with a little personal problem;
> That's all. But I can assure you that you will be much more cool if you will avoid from
> abusing; At least me.
Why should he treat you differently?
> beside - if you observe, in (one of) my first messages ("not relevant"...)
> I concluded that on the bottom line it's a question of A PERSONAL CHOICE;
> On one of your messages to one of the participates of this newsgroup, you witnessed on
> yourself that IT WAS *YOUR* CHOICE to leave the academic world and drive the truck - - -
And this is relevant because?? Steve has been quite upfront that this is
his decision. You are the one that seems toi have a problem with it,
sport.
> . . .
> Although you attacked me - - - . . . Why ?...
Whay not?
> Again - for sure I can learn from you - but not in such a way, through being abused !
> It's really shame of you and of the newsgroup if you will not keep my honour.
> I DEMAND YOU TO RESPECT ME. AND EVERYONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE NEWSGROUPS.
Demand? Respect is earned. If one must DEMAND it, then there is a much
more basic problem than looking for respect from others.
<snip>
> A. It makes no difference regarding the respect you have to respectful me and us.
> B. It makes no difference regarding the CONTENT of my message:
> face and deal with the question I'm asking you.
> C. I can tell you "who am I" etc., but -
> D. It was NOT the first time I participated the discussions, although not much; I have
> just "revealed" the forum, and started to participate; What's wrong with this ?
> E. IT'S *REALLY* NOT A USUAL SITUATION TO FACE A DEATH.
> IF YOU DESPISE THE DEATH - YOU DESPISE THE LIFE. IF YOU DEGRADE THE DEAD - YOU DEGRADE
> THE ALIVE.
> YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUDDY, REALLY TO MY SORROW.
> PLEASE - YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK LIE ABOUT THE DEAD - BUT YOU HAVE NOT STILL TO MAKE IT
> DIRTY.
You were asked a couple questions, very simple and forthright. You
decided not to answer them, and you continue to rant and preach. The real
question is, what are you hiding?
<snip>
> ****~~~~ STOP HERE: ACU WAS AND IS YET *L E G I T I M A T E*
Yes, this is a good place to stop. Legal, legitimate, ethical, fair
play.... amazing, one would think these went hand in hand. However,
reality dictates otherwise.
The rest of what you wrote is of little concern. I really suggest a
little R&R.
Russ
trodgon
of participants who express their opinions (not to be confused with sarcasm
or criticism). However, just what the heck does someone's religion, alleged
or actual, have to do with anything?
Tony Bonet
>> toar-litman wrote:
>** All I tried to say loudly that there is no reason, even for a cool,
educated and
>correspondence-freak as Prof.-Dr. Levicoff (Jew ?) not to avoid from
abusing the other...
Marshall Rice
<c...@bezeqint.net> writes
>It's really shame of you and of the newsgroup if you will not keep my honour.
>I DEMAND YOU TO RESPECT ME. AND EVERYONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE NEWSGROUPS.
>
>> you did not appear on this newsgroup until Sheila
>> D. provided the recent obit (for lack of a better term) about the death
>> of Ray Chasse. Which, of course, brings up the proverbial question,
>> "Who are you? Who were you? Who do you hope to be?"
>
>A. It makes no difference regarding the respect you have to respectful me and
>us.
>B. It makes no difference regarding the CONTENT of my message:
>face and deal with the question I'm asking you.
>C. I can tell you "who am I" etc., but -
>D. It was NOT the first time I participated the discussions, although not much;
>I have
>just "revealed" the forum, and started to participate; What's wrong with this ?
>E. IT'S *REALLY* NOT A USUAL SITUATION TO FACE A DEATH.
>IF YOU DESPISE THE DEATH - YOU DESPISE THE LIFE. IF YOU DEGRADE THE DEAD - YOU
>DEGRADE
>THE ALIVE.
>YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUDDY, REALLY TO MY SORROW.
>PLEASE - YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK LIE ABOUT THE DEAD - BUT YOU HAVE NOT STILL TO
>MAKE IT
>DIRTY.
Just when I was beginning to think that we had all the lunatics on
uk.legal.
--
Marshall Rice
donnie
toar-litman wrote in message <38E63773...@bezeqint.net>...
>Please see below, initial response:
---------------------SNIPPED-----------------
Gosh! You are an angry person, though God knows why! Perhaps God will
tell us.
Lighten up for goodness sake.
Thomas Nixon
trodgon wrote:
> I don't appreciate name-calling or incendiary and abusive personal attacks
> of participants who express their opinions (not to be confused with sarcasm
> or criticism). However, just what the heck does someone's religion, alleged
> or actual, have to do with anything?
>
> Tony Bonet
>
> >> toar-litman wrote:
> >** All I tried to say loudly that there is no reason, even for a cool,
> educated and
> >correspondence-freak as Prof.-Dr. Levicoff (Jew ?) not to avoid from
> abusing the other...
I noted/noticed the same thing. I'm not sure what the relevance might be to
this group (or, for that matter, Dr. L.).
Tom
trodgon
engage in name-calling, etc. I was referring to him with regard to his
bringing in religious affiliation. I agree that religion has no relevance
to DL, unless we were discussing religious education.
Tony Bonet
Thomas Nixon wrote in message <38E67B8A...@ix.netcom.com>...
toar-litman
I missed to clarify myself: I am NOT religious, I DO NOT think it has any
relevancy to our discussion group(s) !:-))
By 'signing' GodIsAllOfUs I used the highest interesting denominator WITHOUT
ANY MISSIONARY INTENTIONS...
Look at it just through such glasses...:-))
Anyway, I am VERY GLAD - I hope Prof.-Dr. Steve Levicoff as well -
to realize that ALL OF US agree NOT to abuse ourselves :-)). Be cool,
not coal of vulgarity. Call name not "name"...
Yours,
Israel
(Almost forgotten - I have asked in brackets if "LEVIcoff" is Jew, just for
mine little LINGUISTIC curiosity...Sorry if it was / may be interpreted in a
religious route...Forget it.)
toar-litman
will do, say and behave, especially in the newsgroup;
If you could see the matter with some more POSITIVE & optimistic view, Russ...
Yours,
Israel
Russ Blahetka wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, toar-litman kvetched:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
>
> I believe the word you want is onanist- a person who practices
> masturbation- which makes your sentence above quite ludicrous.
>
> <snip>
>
> > ** All I tried to say loudly that there is no reason, even for a cool, educated and
> > correspondence-freak as Prof.-Dr. Levicoff (Jew ?) not to avoid from abusing the other;
> > The participate of this really educated and very-very useful newsgroup !!!:-))
> > I believe, Dr. Levicoff, that you are a good fellow with a little personal problem;
> > That's all. But I can assure you that you will be much more cool if you will avoid from
> > abusing; At least me.
>
> Why should he treat you differently?
>
> > beside - if you observe, in (one of) my first messages ("not relevant"...)
> > I concluded that on the bottom line it's a question of A PERSONAL CHOICE;
> > On one of your messages to one of the participates of this newsgroup, you witnessed on
> > yourself that IT WAS *YOUR* CHOICE to leave the academic world and drive the truck - - -
>
> And this is relevant because?? Steve has been quite upfront that this is
> his decision. You are the one that seems toi have a problem with it,
> sport.
>
> > . . .
> > Although you attacked me - - - . . . Why ?...
>
> Whay not?
>
> > Again - for sure I can learn from you - but not in such a way, through being abused !
> > It's really shame of you and of the newsgroup if you will not keep my honour.
> > I DEMAND YOU TO RESPECT ME. AND EVERYONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE NEWSGROUPS.
>
> Demand? Respect is earned. If one must DEMAND it, then there is a much
> more basic problem than looking for respect from others.
>
> <snip>
>
> > A. It makes no difference regarding the respect you have to respectful me and us.
> > B. It makes no difference regarding the CONTENT of my message:
> > face and deal with the question I'm asking you.
> > C. I can tell you "who am I" etc., but -
> > D. It was NOT the first time I participated the discussions, although not much; I have
> > just "revealed" the forum, and started to participate; What's wrong with this ?
> > E. IT'S *REALLY* NOT A USUAL SITUATION TO FACE A DEATH.
> > IF YOU DESPISE THE DEATH - YOU DESPISE THE LIFE. IF YOU DEGRADE THE DEAD - YOU DEGRADE
> > THE ALIVE.
> > YOU HAVE A PROBLEM BUDDY, REALLY TO MY SORROW.
> > PLEASE - YOU DON'T HAVE TO TALK LIE ABOUT THE DEAD - BUT YOU HAVE NOT STILL TO MAKE IT
> > DIRTY.
>
> You were asked a couple questions, very simple and forthright. You
> decided not to answer them, and you continue to rant and preach. The real
> question is, what are you hiding?
>
> <snip>
>
> > ****~~~~ STOP HERE: ACU WAS AND IS YET *L E G I T I M A T E*
>
> Yes, this is a good place to stop. Legal, legitimate, ethical, fair
> play.... amazing, one would think these went hand in hand. However,
> reality dictates otherwise.
>
> The rest of what you wrote is of little concern. I really suggest a
> little R&R.
>
> Russ
>
> >
> > >
Kevin Stewart
Kevin
toar-litman wrote in message <38E63773...@bezeqint.net>...
>Please see below, initial response:
>
>Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
>> toar-litman wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, Levicoff,
>> >
>> > Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
>> >
>> > Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
>> >
>> > The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
>> > are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an
official
>> > definition and status, aren't they ?
>> >
>> > Dear Dr. Levicoff -
>> >
>> > Can it be that you have not just human eyes - or human glasses to look
through
>> > them - to see the relevancy to the subject ?
snipped
Bill Huffman
just purchase a bogus diploma from a fake school there isn't much
opportunity to instill any kind of style or learning in the student.
There must be another explanation.
Kevin Stewart <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote in message
news:sef42u...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do you use Babelfish or another translator?
>
> Kevin
>
> toar-litman wrote in message <38E63773...@bezeqint.net>...
> >Please see below, initial response:
> >
> >Steve Levicoff wrote:
> >
> >> toar-litman wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey, Levicoff,
> >> >
> >> > Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
> >> >
> >> > Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
> >> >
> >> > The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
> >> > are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by
an
> official
> >> > definition and status, aren't they ?
> >> >
> >> > Dear Dr. Levicoff -
> >> >
> >> > Can it be that you have not just human eyes - or human glasses to
look
> through
> >> > them - to see the relevancy to the subject ?
>
>
> snipped
>
>
>
Quinn Tyler Jackson
news:ZLMF4.3433$d5.5...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
> Perhaps ACU graduates have their own unique style. Then again when you
> just purchase a bogus diploma from a fake school there isn't much
> opportunity to instill any kind of style or learning in the student.
Do you know for a fact that ACU graduates all pay for their degrees?
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
"Coffee is a catalyst for turning Computer Science into mortgage payments."
toar-litman
2. ACU's diplomas and alike degrees are especially for whom has already
educational and professional background, self discipline and moral.
3. For the "other-kind" of degrees one doesn't pay ?
4. I know for sure that one of the most famous, prestigious and accredited
university offered its degree just because of the "name" of the student.
Cambridge University didn't awarded the degree just because the student was a
woman. Only now when she is very old she get her degree.
5. So, my friends, be a little more tolerant, fair, and not-abusing one who is
just walking in peace in his path, link in the forum, and see incidentally that
a man he was in contact with died, and expressed his human natural pain.
6. All I am asking now is to talk respectfully.
7. More, to the case of question - later.
BTW, it's addictive, to participate the newsgroup - - - . . .
Israel
LifeIsAllOfUs
Larry McQueary
(at times), Kev!
Larry
-who, although absent for a week, has still not been run over by a bus in London
(for those who recall that rumor)
"Kevin Stewart" <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote in message
news:se9me...@corp.supernews.com...
> ohgoshgollygee
>
> toar-litman wrote in message <38E4B839...@bezeqint.net>...
> >Hey, Levicoff,
> >
> >Re. your message of the 03/29/00 I have seen only just now:
> >
> >Don't be an onanist dog masturbating abusing words.
>
> Interesting concept, but can you do that with words/CRT images? <G>
>
> >The bodies, ideas, concepts, and identities "Ray" and "ACU"
> >are, were, and will remain LEGITIMATE as long as it is so even by an
> official
> >definition and status, aren't they ?
>
Larry McQueary
"toar-litman" <c...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:38E70896...@bezeqint.net...
> Hello friends,
>
> I missed to clarify myself: I am NOT religious, I DO NOT think it has any
> relevancy to our discussion group(s) !:-))
> By 'signing' GodIsAllOfUs I used the highest interesting denominator WITHOUT
> ANY MISSIONARY INTENTIONS...
Well, your *position* is certainly clear.
<cough>
<rimshot>
> Look at it just through such glasses...:-))
> Anyway, I am VERY GLAD - I hope Prof.-Dr. Steve Levicoff as well -
> to realize that ALL OF US agree NOT to abuse ourselves :-)). Be cool,
> not coal of vulgarity. Call name not "name"...
I reserve the right to abuse myself once in a while. :-)
Larry
-back from vacation and full of off-topic mischief
Larry McQueary
"Quinn Tyler Jackson" <qjac...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xYNF4.105966$Dv1.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> "Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ZLMF4.3433$d5.5...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
>
> > Perhaps ACU graduates have their own unique style. Then again when you
> > just purchase a bogus diploma from a fake school there isn't much
> > opportunity to instill any kind of style or learning in the student.
>
> Do you know for a fact that ACU graduates all pay for their degrees?
I have heard that Ray was very generous in offering "scholarships" to those who
didn't have much money. There are certainly those who believe that Ray's
interests were humanitarian, even in the operation of ACU and SUL. This doesn't
change the facts regarding the validity and utility of degrees obtained from the
aforementioned.
Re: your earlier posts in this thread --
My curiousity is piqued, now, Quinn. You seem to have reappeared in AED from
the abyss, suddenly defending the allegedly departed Ray Chasse with vigor
against the likes of Steve Levicoff. Why is that, exactly? Was Ray a personal
acquaintance of yours? Seemingly your academic background is such that you
wouldn't have needed to muck around ACU or SUL, so enquiring minds wouldn't mind
knowing what the association was.
Larry
Larry McQueary
I, too, wonder at the fate of ACU and SUL. Perhaps those in the know would care
to comment? I know you're monitoring the newsgroup, folks.
Larry
"John Bear" <jo...@ursa.net> wrote in message news:38DE3AD6...@ursa.net...
> Thank you for sharing the news, Sheila. Ray was indeed one of a kind.
>
> As far as this news group is concerned, his epitaph could well be, "Despite
> involvement with a dozen or more institutions, he never made a misleading or
> untrue statement about accreditation."
>
> Do we have any idea what this will mean for his two main schools, American
> Coastline and Summit?
>
> John Bear
> www.degree.net
>
>
>
> Sheila Danzig wrote:
>
> > I am sorry to report that Ray Chasse died today, after many months of
> > illness.
> >
> > Some here have disagreed with some of Ray's policies, but all who knew him
> > personally knew that he was a wonderful, kind person, with a very big heart.
> > He will be missed by many.
> >
> > -Sheila Danzig
>
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> My curiousity is piqued, now, Quinn. You seem to have reappeared in AED
from
> the abyss, suddenly defending the allegedly departed Ray Chasse with vigor
> against the likes of Steve Levicoff. Why is that, exactly? Was Ray a
personal
> acquaintance of yours?
Yes, I got to know Ray Chasse through email for the deeply religious man he
was. As for his being "allegedly departed" -- let me assure you that it was
no pleasant task phoning and having his wife and daughter answer and confirm
the sad news. I'm absolutely going to leave it at that.
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> was. As for his being "allegedly departed" -- let me assure you that it was
> no pleasant task phoning and having his wife and daughter answer and confirm
> the sad news. I'm absolutely going to leave it at that.
Actually, I'm not going to leave it at that.... in this forum ambiguity could
lead to speculation and hearsay (oh no, not here).
I knew two Ray Chasse's -- the one who shared my day of birth and I go to know
as a deeply religious person, and the one who reviewed the last 11 years of my
non-professional (ie. extracurricular) research in computer science, art,
writing, and so on for a B.A. (Literature), M.Sc. CS and Ph.D. CS.
(By research, transfer credits, demonstration, documentation, et cetera, 1,300
pages on CD.) My research (if you go back far enough in Deja) was on the
verge of being too far in the running for me to go back and lie to some
university board and say I hadn't yet begun to search. (You see -- for me --
that would have been an academic no-no -- to claim I had not begun my research
yet, jump through hoops and hurdles of administration and then come into the
program with foregone conclusions -- my research was almost complete, so the
traditional model would have required me to piss around a tree three times and
say the magic words.)
I did not know his business model, other than he never asked me for a penny,
but asked instead for some amount of community work from me, to be served by
contribution to the Salvation Army in my area. (Oh, well -- there goes the
he's on a yacht with all the proceeds theory.)
I won't defend or attack your American system (I may question it, though) of
state licensed versus regional accreditation. That's not my area of research
although I suppose I could apply interdisciplinary principals to see what's
what -- but I don't have time. I satisfied my professional and ethical
conscience that ACU and Ray Chasse were on the up and up, conforming to the
law and worth the effort. I don't have to satisfy anyone else's.
My research results (presented so the eye can see) are on my website, as are
my current findings. If you want to get right in there (into my papers, into
my software, into that -- then go ahead....) But don't try to come into my
head, my life, or anywhere else. I don't want you there.
Show me what I missed in my science, where my logic is flawed, and I'll do
something to correct it. That's what being a peer reviewed researcher is
about.
But don't make me an apologist for something Big that you guys have been
fighting in the sandbox for years over. Don't make me a spokesperson for
something I don't represent, and don't think anyone has really begun to
properly define yet, let alone come to some agreement about semantics.
Now I'm here to learn about educational psych. programs by distance
learning -- no more, no less, and the timing of this came just when Ray
passed, so you caught me off guard. If your political, psychological, and
other agendas cannot let Ray Chasse rest in peace and you want to grab me by
the balls and disregard everything I have to say from this point on -- then
don't offer me any advice on my particular queries for the moment.
I'm not here to represent anything but myself.
Bill Huffman
news:xYNF4.105966$Dv1.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> "Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ZLMF4.3433$d5.5...@typhoon1.san.rr.com...
>
> > Perhaps ACU graduates have their own unique style. Then again when
you
> > just purchase a bogus diploma from a fake school there isn't much
> > opportunity to instill any kind of style or learning in the student.
>
> Do you know for a fact that ACU graduates all pay for their degrees?
Of course not, some could have gotten them for free, some might have
earned a degree from a real school as well as paying for a novelty
diploma. Some might have gotten their diploma before their check
bounced. There are endless possibilities.
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> what -- but I don't have time. I satisfied my professional and ethical
"Interdisciplinary principals" -- Quinn's unabashed dictionary defines this as
"Leather and Chains meets Grades Three and Four."
toar-litman
That exactly is the difference - in serious humor:
EVERYONE can abuse HIMSELF, and that means OTHERWISE if he abuses somebody else
!:-)
NO ONE has the right to abuse any one in addition to HIMSELF !-))
Especially here, in an academic newsgroup, is it not so ?...
In that occasion one or two additional remark(s):
* In the case of death a religious aspect arises, naturally or not, culturally
or by human react...To respect it - is a respectful react...
Thee who will respect the dead - will be respected by the alive...:-)
* There is an expectation for legitimacy...When it is met - the 'anti-'
continues..."Fake", etc. - One has to be fair. One has to claim the legitimacy
authorities, if he thinks something is wrong, fake...
* I'm proud of several years of study at Haifa University in Israel and completing
the Master degree in Anthropology at ACU.
It gave me what I deserve undoubtedly with full rights and no one can take it from
me. My feeling is marvelous, and everyone who knows me justify it in
understatement !:-))
I have now just two more dreams, at least: to be awarded with the doctorate degree
based on a comprehensive research on the Distance Learning Field - h e l p . . . -
and to establish in Israel an appropriate evaluation framework of academic
documents like the ECE, WES, etc.
Good Wish,
Israel
Life And God Are All Of Us
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
Joseph
--
"Teach a boy to blow a horn and he'll never blow a safe."
JLM
Kevin Stewart
Larry McQueary wrote in message ...
>I'm thrilled to have found someone ever-so-slightly more cryptic than you
can be
>(at times), Kev!
Cryptic? I am always perfectly understandable, though often in a
Marshall-McLuhan(?)-does-punk-rap sort of way.
>
>Larry
>-who, although absent for a week, has still not been run over by a bus in
London
>(for those who recall that rumor)
Damned! Just when I was going to hear a rumor about you, a meteor fragment
and Vienna! <G>
Welcome back, dude! Always good to read a friendly, if confused, face
around here!
Kevin
snipped
Larry McQueary
[ snip ]
> Welcome back, dude! Always good to read a friendly, if confused, face
> around here!
Many things confuse me, but pray tell what it is that you refer to here?
Larry
Larry McQueary
A few questions, if you don't mind:
May I ask how it is that Ray Chasse found himself qualified to evaluate your
work for award of an MS and a Ph.D. in Computer Science?
Are these more or less "vanity degrees" for you, for personal satisfaction?
"Conforming to the law and worth the effort" doesn't quite spell out your
motivation.
Out of curiousity, over what period did Ray evaluate your learning?
Larry
"Quinn Tyler Jackson" <qjac...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LFgG4.111858$Dv1.1...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> although I suppose I could apply interdisciplinary principals to see what's
> what -- but I don't have time. I satisfied my professional and ethical
> conscience that ACU and Ray Chasse were on the up and up, conforming to the
> law and worth the effort. I don't have to satisfy anyone else's.
>
> My research results (presented so the eye can see) are on my website, as are
> my current findings. If you want to get right in there (into my papers, into
> my software, into that -- then go ahead....) But don't try to come into my
> head, my life, or anywhere else. I don't want you there.
>
> Show me what I missed in my science, where my logic is flawed, and I'll do
> something to correct it. That's what being a peer reviewed researcher is
> about.
>
> But don't make me an apologist for something Big that you guys have been
> fighting in the sandbox for years over. Don't make me a spokesperson for
> something I don't represent, and don't think anyone has really begun to
> properly define yet, let alone come to some agreement about semantics.
>
> Now I'm here to learn about educational psych. programs by distance
> learning -- no more, no less, and the timing of this came just when Ray
> passed, so you caught me off guard. If your political, psychological, and
> other agendas cannot let Ray Chasse rest in peace and you want to grab me by
> the balls and disregard everything I have to say from this point on -- then
> don't offer me any advice on my particular queries for the moment.
>
> I'm not here to represent anything but myself.
>
Quinn Tyler Jackson
Why would I mind? I specifically said I'd open my WORK to scrutiny (not my
life or mind), and you've taken me up on my offer.
> May I ask how it is that Ray Chasse found himself qualified to evaluate your
> work for award of an MS and a Ph.D. in Computer Science?
[Note -- the B.A. and CS processes are mixed up in the following narrative ...
they were not at all in the process involved. Care was taken to absolutely
avoid "double dipping" -- the B.A. was challenged specifically to demonstrate
that a terminal undergraduate degree could be challenged, before challenging
the others, and nothing challenged in the B.A. was then
transferred/conferred/evaluated towards the others. I made a point of using
the TESC database for course descriptions/credit. I'd found courses at Yale
and Harvard that I could have challenged, but somehow, the TESC ones seemed
appropriate. That was my deconstructive sense of humor at play.]
I did not say that he and I were the only parties involved in the evaluation
of my work. Contrary to popular notion here, Ray Chasse was not ACU, even
though he may have been the vision behind it and the inspiration -- he is not
the sole mover and shaker. His role in my evaluation was in my preparing my
presentation, going over the semester hour values, supporting documentation,
answering questions regarding what was and was not appropriate for challenge,
and so on. It's too late now to know what a knack Ray had for this, but he
was extremely good at being able to quantify what such-and-such at least
should be categorized as.
Since the work had already been done as pertains to content, the majority of
my and his time was spent in laying out the groundwork for the portfolio, item
by item. (And no, my challenge was not rubber stamped. After I submitted it,
there were things in there that were NOT accepted, as well as things that were
adjusted.) Since there were transfer credits specifically (not all taken at
par, 20% of my documented transfer credits -- even though specifically in
computer science, were discarded), and graded memberships (I received 4
semester hours for my 3 years of voting membership in EAC -- which translates
to -- 17 edited books, among them a master's thesis, and no credit whatsoever
specifically for my graded IEEE membership, although that and my ACM
membership were entered into the record as supporting evidence. (Note: Member
Grade IEEE is granted to those with at least a bach. in a technical field, or
6 years experience in the field, and I was a Member Grade IEEE member before I
knew who Ray Chasse was, and that came from my supplying IEEE with my CV.) In
these cases, Ray deferred to the discernment of the EAC, IEEE, and ACM
membership committees -- although all of those combined were specifically only
granted 4 credits (for the EAC membership).
Certain things were not given as much credit as I may have pushed the envelope
to challenge. 9 original guitar compositions translated to 2 x 2
undergraduate courses in improvisational technique. (Four semester hours in a
guitar class -- can you do an improvisation on Bach, even with the odd
fingerslip?) Years and years of portraits (only some of which are displayed
on my site) were translated to 3 credits for intermediate art and 3 for figure
drawing. I challenge anyone to actually go to art school and in 6 semester
hours produce anything (maybe 4 portfolio pieces might come of it?) they'd
show their mom (after all, she's paying to put junior through art college, so
she should have one of the lovelies on her wall). And no, although my guitar
compositions were not Bach (just an inspired improvisation derived from Bach),
and although my art is not Picasso, I admit -- neither are they tiptoe through
the tulips and sidewalk chalk.
Review occurred through a network (Ray was legally blind, and someone else had
to look at the art, after all), and although I have no details as to the total
number of nodes in the ACU network, I can speak of one experience I had with
this network as an incidental part of it. (Well, actually, an incidental part
of the SUL network, which Ray also had a part in, but was not the sole node
of.)
Because of my experience with editing (was for three years a voting member of
EAC), I was consulted on someone's SUL dissertation regarding issues of form.
(The topic itself was not my specialty, and I was not at all asked to comment
on that -- that was the specialty of the person who asked me for my considered
opinion on the form of the dissertation. My role was to offer only an opinion
of the form of the dissertation.) I had strong reservations about certain
key items, and supplied citations and references to back up my reservations,
which were then forwarded, through the formal reviewer to the others in the
network. The candidate was then asked to revise his dissertation accordingly,
and it was a case of "dissertation accepted -- requires revisions of form."
So in that case, there were several changes of form that I was part of asking
for -- and that demonstrated clearly to me that Ray was not the sole authority
involved in that candidate's learning process or acceptance/evaluation.
> Are these more or less "vanity degrees" for you, for personal satisfaction?
> "Conforming to the law and worth the effort" doesn't quite spell out your
> motivation.
Okay -- here we go. I was already a member of IEEE and ACM before this whole
experience, and I already am a research programmer, in a position that
[typically] requires degrees, and my track record in the industry is already
established. I didn't need degrees in computer science. There were already
links to my research results from computer science sections of Cambridge UK
(two years before I even considered looking into distance education), and at
the time of my portfolio presentation, from Purdue, and just about the time of
conferral, from a site at Princeton. My reviews of the literature were
already part of an FAQ in my topic area, my software/FAQs/notes were already
being distributed on CD-ROM before I switched from Fido to Internet. I'd
already been given an opportunity (which I couldn't take) some years before to
pursue graduate studies in Europe in the topic area....
So WHY on earth did I take the time to put it all together into a huge
portfolio and present it to a state-licensed non-sectarian university?
Why on earth? Vanity? If I were vainglorious, Ray would have smelled me
coming from a mile away. (Note: having a vocabulary and using it do not make
one vain. The precocious child is often seen as considering himself "better"
than others, or somehow worthy of "special" consideration, but having been a
precocious child, I assure you that this is not always the case.)
He reported to me that he's turned away people from ACU enrollment ... for
instance if they cannot make a clear statement of faith in good conscience
(ACU is a religious institution -- and although the statement of faith can be
broad, it is a requirement), or if they are not able to state why they would
want a degree, or if their reasons for wanting a degree [as stated] do not
demonstrate the candidate's understanding of the role of the professional.
(And vanity would not have been something he'd have considered a valid
reason.)
That aside and back to the question.
My membership in IEEE and ACM (and my conscience and personal sense of ethics)
preclude me from making claims of competence that I know to be inflated or
unwarranted. This is part of the professional CoE -- and therefore, if I were
in a situation that required me to make a discernment outside of my scope of
expertise, I would be acting in a way contrary to the other code: "Avoid harm
to others." To use my designations in any way that would imply an ability in
some field of computer science (such as risk analysis or strong numeric
analysis) would put others at risk, and is contrary to professional standards.
This is true regardless of whether or not one attains one degrees from India,
Hong Kong, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Purdue, state-licensed, or regionally
accredited, chartered or bartered.
Here is what I have to say on the topic in a book on research ethics that I
was commissioned to write -- but did not finish due to time constraints on my
part. Since it is lengthy, I will mark it with >> and << (Note: the other
author of this book [thus the "authors"] is a respected traditional Ph.D. who
knows allllll the details of my ACU conferral.) [Second Note: This is my
first draft of something that I could not continue... forgive the typos.]
>>
The ideals of academic inquiry have as their foundation the expectations of a
society that entrusts the graduate student with the responsibility of becoming
an expert in a field for the benefit of that society. The notions esteemed by
the scholarly originated from efforts to protect and serve the integrity this
calling. Though there are those who pursue advanced degrees solely to better
their economic condition, or to feed their hungry minds, it is not the
intention of the authors to question the motives of the individual student,
but rather to explain the underpinnings of the expectations of serious
graduate students, whatever the ultimate agenda.
However lofty the ideals, there are concrete benefits to investigating the
reasoning behind them, since understanding the principles will not only give
the learner an appreciation for the sobriety of the calling, but will also
provide the mortar for surviving the rigor of advanced studies. Confronted
with the task of providing meaningful citation in a dissertation, for
instance, the shallow will count citations per page, and perhaps become
overwhelmed, viewing it merely as a game of numbers. Those who understand why
citation is important, however, will certainly recognize what must be
supported or refuted, and will therefore be better prepared to utilize the
resources available to them to thoroughly support their contentions. When
striving to ascertain the appropriate means of gathering data, those who have
a cognizance of ethics in research will certainly not consider shoddy, lazy,
or questionable means of supporting their hypotheses. These principles, then,
not only benefit the researcher in an abstract sense, but lead to work that
tends towards excellence.
Mastery
“ Society rightly expects scientists to know the principles of their science,
not just their research specialties.” – John C. Reynolds
Graduate students engaged in research towards advanced degrees, whether in the
hard sciences, social sciences, or the arts, are learning the rudiments not
only of their specialization, but also of clear, rational, critical, and
precise modes of thinking, communication, and acquisition of knowledge. The
master of a discipline need not be a genius, but must be determined to conquer
the processes of knowing how to learn. It is no accident that we speak of
fields requiring great expertise as disciplines.
Every earnest scholar will consider his discipline a science, though many
aspects, even most, may still be called art, and will strive towards mastering
the principles, as well as the specifics. Clear comprehension of the basics
of a field is the foundation upon which the fluid abstractions are based.
Nothing remains static, all knowledge is in constant flux, and this has become
acutely the case in recent decades. The master maintains mastery when the
specifics fluctuate because the principles underneath the specifics rarely
change, and when they do, change slowly enough as to be manageable.
Credibility
“A man may write himself out of reputation when no one else can do it.” – Tom
Paine
Non-specialists and specialists alike are willing to put their trust in
credible people, and it is the duty of the graduate student to espouse high
standards early on, so as not to betray the confidence that others will one
day confer.
As it concerns academia, one of the primary reasons credibility is of such
importance is the concept of pedigree. Research is established on a
well-balanced hierarchy of ideas, paradigms, methods, and findings. Each
branch of the tree lends its credibility to each offshoot; if a branch is
rotten, the farther it is from the center of the tree, the more likely it is
the tree will continue to stand. The conscientious researcher seeks to
provide a strong foundation upon which future researchers in the field will be
able to continue to grow. He guarantees this solidity by being credible in
his methods, by adhering to standards of ethics, and by properly documenting
the pedigree of his own findings, so that those who follow can assure
themselves of the foundations upon which they are going to be basing their
credibility.
In the process of establishing her own credibility, the student also acquires
fluency in the subject matter. To properly and thoroughly question the
findings of others, one must first understand the predominant issues of the
topic area. To take firm grasp of the subject, the fledgling researcher must
undergo serious research of her own, even if this preliminary exploration is
at first simply a process of deferring to the wisdom of her predecessors.
Since many topics must be audited more hastily than one would like – the
explicit trust the student gives the credibility of those predecessors makes
it a matter of utmost importance that all is well and solid on the beaten
path. What applies to the apprentice researcher can be said of the trust
afforded the scholarly by society in general.
Credibility can take years to build, but can be destroyed overnight. Caught
in a lie, an authority loses the respect of peers and society in general
before the words reach the opposite side of the room. Having been lazy in his
methods, a researcher may find expenses run far over budget due to needless
detours down blind-alleys. Society has a right to expect the authorities they
subsidize and rely upon for guidance and expertise to conduct their work to
the highest standards, with the least possible waste of human and material
resources.
Methodology
“A man must be orthodox upon most things or he will never have time to preach
his own heresy.” – G. K. Chesteron
Although it is tempting to think of those who are methodical as pedantic
bores, devoid of life, one must remember the importance of method in the
proper functioning of a sane society. What benefit to taking a ride in a taxi
to wherever the whim of the driver is inclined? Who would trust a clerk who
asks for a sum to balance an account, without the clerk’s offering up the
figures so that it can be determined that all is well with the addition?
Method is the thread with which the garment of research is sewn. Every stitch
should be well placed and tightly secured, so that the thing does not fall
apart at the seams. One must not, however, put form before substance, since a
beautiful gown stitched with spider webs will not weather the rain of
rebuttal. The most acceptable methodologies, applied imprecisely or
inappropriately, can lead to erroneous but superficially convincing
conclusions, and the researcher must consider the consequences of methodology
upon the work specifically, and the discipline in general.
Besides being important to the soundness of the work itself, method is also
the preliminary route by which anyone outside of the research is able to
approach the findings. If the means towards the end are well considered,
accepting that the findings are accurate becomes more manageable. Even the
most controversial contentions, if well presented and well supported by data
interpreted using some acceptable methodology, become more acceptable to those
who do not have the resources to determine for themselves what is truly the
case, but who accept the means by which the conclusions were drawn. In this
sense, method lends credibility to work that presents truly novel results,
which becomes especially important for those pursuing doctoral work, due to
the usual requirement that doctoral candidates contribute to their field some
tangibly novel way.
For these reasons, methodology is highly regarded by both theoreticians and
practitioners alike. Indeed, it is the lingua franca that speaks across all
disciplines, though the methods of psychologists and literature professors
will not be those of accountants, nor will the importance of certain branches
of statistics be the same for computer scientists as for meteorologists.
Despite the specific differences, all of these fields place great trust in
proper methodology.
<<
That said and done ... again, back to the question.
I pursued my degrees with ACU for several reasons:
1) My research had already been done, reviewed over years by scientists
via email, and I could not claim
to a committee at another university in good conscience to meet the "We
Want You To Start From Scratch
and Do it All Here" hurdle.
2) I wanted to crystallize the results, findings, papers, software,
notions, contributions that I had attained
in some way that was in keeping with my desire to compartmentalize a phase
of my life as a researcher,
so that I could consider my work "done" and then go into other fields
eventually (in my case, I'm strongly
inclined towards an M.A. in Educational Psychology -- any pointers in this
regard are welcome, although
for this phase of my pursuits -- the institutions must be GAAP, since,
unlike my CS credentials, my
Ed. Psych. credentials must transfer to an "eventual" career with gifted
adults in higher education in a local
traditional university setting.
3) I wanted to "bend the iron ceiling." If you wish to know what this
means, email me privately and I'll
explain.
4) I developed a trust and respect for the ideals, goals, and methods of
ACU as pertains to those who
are interested in pursuing "recognition of contribution" as opposed to
"facilitation of entry."
5) ACU granted me full waive on fees. I have a family to support, a life
to maintain, and pursuit of
1-3 while paying fiscally through the nose would have been vainglorious.
6) All of the work included in my CS challenges was off-hours research
(not credit for having
worked in CS for pay -- original research done in addition to all the
usual stuff one does in the CS
field.)
7) I was offered the opportunity at 14 years of age to enter university
directly, and my parents
couldn't afford it -- so I wanted to convert my sigma four intelligence
into something besides being
able to read a set of encyclopedias cover to cover volume to volume in one
summer.
> Out of curiosity, over what period did Ray evaluate your learning?
I only know how many man-hours I put into the portfolio and presentation. I
put 11 years into it. Unlike many (I'm assuming everyone doesn't keep notes
and write papers just to keep track of off hours findings). Even upon leaving
SFU after one semester on my counselor's advice that I'd do better as an
autodidact given my sigma four -- I had some notion in my head that one day,
these notes would come in handy.
Don't get me wrong -- I know that I'm what is called in the S4 communities as
an outlier. (Dr. Bear, care to explain what an outlier is?) I don't expect
everyone to understand my rationale, whatever. I don't say that everyone who
holds an ACU degree supplied 1,300 pages of documentation. (Although I have
read some ACU dissertations that have been ratified. They do exist -- though
not perhaps in UMI.) I'm not particularly interested in the fine details that
some seem to love to accentuate -- RA versus state-licensed.
None of the games, behind the scenes conferences, monikers, frames,
infighting, bullshit, one-upmanship, pissing contests, title usage, hosing,
smearing, cheek spreading hogwash appeals to me.
Ray (and others) evaluated my learning, my ethics, my character, and so on.
Upon conferral, I told the details of the conferral to my contacts of many
years (all who hold traditional doctorates). I will not reveal their names or
identities or credentials here in AED because I do not wish their judgment to
be challenged by games, conferences, monikers, frames, infighting, bullshit,
one-upmanship, pissing contests, title usage, hosing, smearing, cheek
spreading hogwash. I have fostered long term relationships with people who
have been my mentors, guides, what have you, and these people have FORMED my
adulthood -- and I frankly don't trust some people enough to honor boundaries.
But, that said, I will offer the fact that these traditional doctorates, who
know of my work, my research, my ethics -- have accepted my state licensed
degrees at par with their own. (Remember a post a while back where I said:
"Three peers and a candidate enter a room for the defense, and four peers walk
out."?)
Contrary to the Americentric, Cult of Amen-RA notions that are so rampant
here, the GAAP of scholarly life (not necessarily the GAAP of socio-economic
climbers who NEED, I admit, RA or equiv. degrees) is to have one's conferral
accepted by one's peers [the metaphysical instrument] and to have it ratified
by legal authority [the legal instrument].
Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, offer not available in Quebec.
Respectfully,
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
Kevin Stewart
Larry McQueary wrote in message ...
snipped
>Many things confuse me, but pray tell what it is that you refer to here?
Whatever makes you think I'm "cryptic", of course! My last post for
instance!
Kevin
toar-litman
IL
Quinn Tyler Jackson
Larry:
My original reply, upon rereading was odiferous of evasion, though that was
not my intent. I apologize, and will remedy that now.
DISCLAIMER: Please remember that I make no representation of having been
conferred with an entrance credential in computer science. Ray Chasse
believed strongly that the doctoral degree is a degree of contribution, rather
than a degree of entrance. Therefore, I state only that my degrees are
state-licensed degrees of contribution. I was as qualified before having been
conferred as after, and there was no specific contribution made during the
period of my challenge preparation and evaluation. I won't insult your or
anyone else's intelligence by making any other representation.
That said, here are the rough statistics of the portfolio that was eventually
entered into the ACU record on CDROM: (Just rough... summarized messily)
1324 pages (if printed out)
Including, but not limited to:
234 page deconstructionist novel (challenged not as a novel, but broken down
into specific topic areas such as Iran-Iraq war
275 page novel (challenged not as a novel, but as a study of intercultural
issues and Succubus Sea - 275
5 page contract (challenged not as a contract, but as equiv. to understanding
publishing law)
50 page paper
50 page paper
27 pieces of art
11 pieces of art
18 pieces of art
20 page literature review
20 page paper
8 page paper
12 page paper
12 page paper
10 page paper
9 screen shots with descriptions of software functionality
28 miscellaneous pages of documentation
75 pages estimated of system documentation
LPM Source - 250 pages (12475 lines @ 45 lines/page)
150 pages of further supporting evidence (not specifically challenging
anything, just corroborating claims)
Examples of Supporting documentation included:
IEEE Member Grade Membership Card
ACM Professional Member Membership Card
EAC Voting Member directory listing -- which lists specific areas of expertise
Transcript of 2 year programming diploma (20 exams)
Scores of 12 exams of computer science diploma (taken in French)
Working software that demonstrated my original contributions (ask me what this
is if you really want to know)
Scans of published articles
Scans of letters to the editor praising my ability as an exceptional
acquisitions editor
Scans of my university credits
RealAudio recordings of my guitar compositions
Evidence of links from the CS depts. to my work from Cambridge UK, Purdue,
Royal Holloway university of London (NOTE: These do not imply endorsement by
these universities -- these were merely to substantiate claims that I had
submitted my work to review of those with an interest in the topic and made it
available -- although in the case of Cambridge UK -- they linked to the site
on their own, as did a Princeton professor and Lunds [but those came a bit
later and I only found them by]).
Lists of specific foreign language books studied
Translation of a poem by Omar Khayyam (supporting evidence of ability to
understand and translate Farsi at some level).
Production of university literary radio program (16x45 min episodes)
I did not include any reference to my commercial work in computer science,
since this was not a "professional experience and life experience equals a
degree" situation and I did not want it to become one.
Total time from formal acceptance of my proposed challenge (which came some
time after faculty had reviewed my preliminary exhibits -- I made sure they
were doing that by peeking in the HTTP logs) to the time of conferral -- 60
days (I can write a novel in seven days if I'm in the mood). Like I already
said -- there was no course work done -- this was a challenge of contribution
and documented ability -- not an entrance credential. Total number of email
exchanged during that period with ACU: 86 total number of email during that
period exchanged with advisors, et cetera, about 100 (They're not in one
folder)
--
Total papers accepted for publication since then: 4 (one of which was reworked
from the ones I included in my challenge). Two of these papers are
specifically on the theoretical aspects of the contribution made (as opposed
to the practical implementation demonstrated in the software.) If you would
like to read PDF versions of these papers -- please feel free to request them
via email and I will send them your way. I will also gladly send you my
deconstructionist novel (not a CS credit, I know, but it speaks to the B.A. in
literature -- hey -- you might like it anyway)
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
"Stavo ben, ma per star meglio, sto qui."
Quinn Tyler Jackson
determination as to my claim that such a beast even exists.
Quinn Tyler Jackson
>
> work for award of an MS and a Ph.D. in Computer Science?
>
> "Conforming to the law and worth the effort" doesn't quite spell out your
> motivation.
>
>
> Larry
And Larry -- please -- I don't know what it is about the way you word pointed
questions to people ... I have no problem with answering those of your
questions that don't cross any personal space boundaries -- but why is it that
when you ask a question, it reads as if (to me at least) you're looking over a
pair of horn rimmed glasses, with a pad of paper, taking notes for the
Federales or something. "And may I ask" and "if you don't mind" -- well,
those are loaded expressions.
You are never going to pursue a degree from ACU or SUL -- you now it, we all
know it. You have stated that you have heard of Ray's "scholarships" in
quotes (indicating perhaps that you don't want to be accused to associating
"scholar" and "Ray" in the same word). The information that you are gathering
with your mental notebook is not so that you can make some determination as to
whether or not ACU is the alma mater for you.
I do respect your critical thinking, and your willingness to explore -- and
hey, I don't know -- possibly even make the odd concession that perhaps all is
not as certain people make it seem. Hey, I don't know what your agenda is.
You and I both make our daily bread in computer fields of some sort -- and
you're possibly even qualified to evaluate my work in computer science -
however long on however quickly you want -- hey, I don't know your work as
much as I am perfectly willing to let you know mine. And that's what it's
about man, not motivation.
We agree on some things, possibly disagree on others, but now I've put my
cards on the table, man -- and now's the time to see if my magic has any
spark -- it's time for you to do the same and stop speakin' English to me.
"Discredit" my work in the field if you feel you must, it won't make the work
go away.
I'm the dude this newsgroup has been waiting for -- the litmus test -- so
don't go wasting the opportunity. I got my degrees by challenge alone, and
I'm willing to stand up and have my work scrutinized man. When was the last
time that happened in here? I'm here to look for some pointers on something
else that interests me at the moment -- but hey, I've played fair -- now's
your turn.
--
Quinn Tyler Jackson
"What is the difference between method and device?
A method is a device which you use twice." - Gyorgy Polya
Quinn Tyler Jackson
> don't go wasting the opportunity. I got my degrees by challenge alone, and
> I'm willing to stand up and have my work scrutinized man. When was the last
> time that happened in here? I'm here to look for some pointers on something
> else that interests me at the moment -- but hey, I've played fair -- now's
> your turn.
Larry -- I apologize for flying off. There's more rational ways to get to the
center of this whole issue of the "q" of my degrees than to have me kick my
leg when you hit it with your hammer. I'm responding to the pain of loss
still, and that's the only reason I took my original whack at Levicoff's
brutal bullshit in the first place.
But, that is not what this newsgroup is here for. I'm not a regular here --
so I should respect the boundaries of others as I would have them respect
mine.
The offer to put my WORK to the test stands.
To keep it in the spirit of "distance learning" and on topic -- I will even
setup up my ICQ so we can have "group" conferences (logged for public scrutiny
afterwards) at some regular interval -- virtual residence if you will. I'll
defend each and every of my claims. I don't really have the time -- but I
put 11 years into the work that earned me the degrees, so what's a little bit
of time more? They didn't get me where I am today. I'm only claiming that
they're state-licensed, legitimate degrees that are representative of my
standing in the field of computer science, and that I'm willing to have my
work scrutinized.
I wouldn't be happy with just saying: "The work they represent is of the
lowest common denominator in the field." Not everyone with a Ph.D. credential
writes a dissertation -- but my portfolio challenge specifically addresses
each component expected of a dissertation and provides support.
Of course, this requires starting from square one -- and defending the B.A.
first, then the M.Sc., and then the Ph.D. -- in that order -- because that is
how the degree challenge was orchestrated with ACU.
Again, I apologize for the outburst. I was mostly getting irritated at MYSELF
for having been so boneheaded to think I could get Dr. Bear some info. without
prying eyes trying to figure out the encoded URL -- and your "May I ask ifs"
triggered an inappropriate reaction.
Figure out whether you have the time to even bother with a small fish like me
and let me know either way.
yada yada yada
Larry McQueary
> > A few questions, if you don't mind:
> >
> > May I ask how it is that Ray Chasse found himself qualified to evaluate your
> > work for award of an MS and a Ph.D. in Computer Science?
> >
> > Are these more or less "vanity degrees" for you, for personal satisfaction?
> > "Conforming to the law and worth the effort" doesn't quite spell out your
> > motivation.
> >
> > Out of curiousity, over what period did Ray evaluate your learning?
> >
> > Larry
>
> And Larry -- please -- I don't know what it is about the way you word pointed
> questions to people ... I have no problem with answering those of your
> questions that don't cross any personal space boundaries -- but why is it that
> when you ask a question, it reads as if (to me at least) you're looking over a
> pair of horn rimmed glasses, with a pad of paper, taking notes for the
> Federales or something. "And may I ask" and "if you don't mind" -- well,
> those are loaded expressions.
No, they're not loaded, they're merely my attempt to ask pointed questions in a
polite way that doesn't sound "demanding".
As for taking notes for the Federales -- I take a lot of notes on things that
interest me in this newsgroup, but they're mostly notes about people or things
that I think are deceptive. I find nothing deceptive about you, Quinn, and was
merely asking some questions to get some better insight into ACU. I admit that
I am perplexed at how ACU (and others of its ilk) find themselves qualified to
evaluate life experience and grant a degree in Computer Science simply because
the State of Louisiana took their $25 license application and granted it (to
oversimplify).
I have always been impressed by your contributions to the newsgroup, and by your
work (some of which I have perused on the Internet) -- there's no question that
you are an exceptionally bright person who has made significant contributions to
the/our (CS) field. However, I am equally perplexed at those who knowingly seek
and receive a degree which is not (and will not be) recognized by any serious
person or institution. I think that your peers were already your peers, Quinn,
and that getting a Ph.D. from American Coastline University did nothing to
change that status. If it did, you must question whether it is your work or
your credentials that are valued by those peers. If it's the latter, then they
clearly don't understand the nature of ACU. However, it seems certain that it's
the former.
> You are never going to pursue a degree from ACU or SUL -- you now it, we all
> know it. You have stated that you have heard of Ray's "scholarships" in
> quotes (indicating perhaps that you don't want to be accused to associating
> "scholar" and "Ray" in the same word). The information that you are gathering
> with your mental notebook is not so that you can make some determination as to
> whether or not ACU is the alma mater for you.
Quinn, you're sounding a tad defensive. Given this is your fourth or fifth
reply to my single post, and your interpretation of both my wording and
punctuation, it's hard not to draw this conclusion. However, I can safely say
that you read far more into my comments and placement of quotation marks than
there is to be found. My placement of quotation marks was merely my way of
generalizing the concept that Ray was willing to be flexible in terms of tuition
and/or payment thereof.
The information that I am gathering is so that I can gain a clearer picture of
ACU. In fact, you could say that I am looking for reasons to not bash ACU.
I've actually found some over time. Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues on
this newsgroup, with whom I agree on a wide variety of topics, I am not
convinced that ACU is in quite the same category as the various degree mills
that we discuss here. However, there's nothing like a first hand account from
someone who's done it -- namely, and vocally, YOU.
> I do respect your critical thinking, and your willingness to explore -- and
> hey, I don't know -- possibly even make the odd concession that perhaps all is
> not as certain people make it seem. Hey, I don't know what your agenda is.
> You and I both make our daily bread in computer fields of some sort -- and
> you're possibly even qualified to evaluate my work in computer science -
> however long on however quickly you want -- hey, I don't know your work as
> much as I am perfectly willing to let you know mine. And that's what it's
> about man, not motivation.
I agree that the work's what it's all about (man). As someone who held no
degree at all until a couple of months ago, you won't find me disagreeing. And
that's why I'm interested in motivation. Everyone is different, with a
different agenda, and I suppose that mine is simply to understand the motivation
of others, particularly those who have been or are in same boat that I am, but
went in a different direction.
> We agree on some things, possibly disagree on others, but now I've put my
> cards on the table, man -- and now's the time to see if my magic has any
> spark -- it's time for you to do the same and stop speakin' English to me.
> "Discredit" my work in the field if you feel you must, it won't make the work
> go away.
I don't feel the need to discredit your work in the field!
> I'm the dude this newsgroup has been waiting for -- the litmus test -- so
> don't go wasting the opportunity. I got my degrees by challenge alone, and
> I'm willing to stand up and have my work scrutinized man. When was the last
> time that happened in here? I'm here to look for some pointers on something
> else that interests me at the moment -- but hey, I've played fair -- now's
> your turn.
There's no litmus test -- I would gladly have granted you a McQueary University
diploma on the basis of your work - the problem being, just like with an ACU
diploma - what the heck does that count for? Why was the degree important at
all, if it's not one that the majority of educational institutions and/or
employers would recognize?
But again, this goes back to my earlier question about your peers.
Larry
Larry McQueary
[ snip ]
> The offer to put my WORK to the test stands.
No need, as I've explained -- that's not the issue I'm interested in, exactly.
> To keep it in the spirit of "distance learning" and on topic -- I will even
> setup up my ICQ so we can have "group" conferences (logged for public scrutiny
> afterwards) at some regular interval -- virtual residence if you will. I'll
> defend each and every of my claims. I don't really have the time -- but I
> put 11 years into the work that earned me the degrees, so what's a little bit
> of time more? They didn't get me where I am today. I'm only claiming that
> they're state-licensed, legitimate degrees that are representative of my
> standing in the field of computer science, and that I'm willing to have my
> work scrutinized.
I'm sure your work stands up to scrutiny - it's just that your degrees and ACU
really don't, and therefore - why bother? Your work *does* stand up on its own,
Quinn. I think I've made this clear in other posts.
> I wouldn't be happy with just saying: "The work they represent is of the
> lowest common denominator in the field." Not everyone with a Ph.D. credential
> writes a dissertation -- but my portfolio challenge specifically addresses
> each component expected of a dissertation and provides support.
>
> Of course, this requires starting from square one -- and defending the B.A.
> first, then the M.Sc., and then the Ph.D. -- in that order -- because that is
> how the degree challenge was orchestrated with ACU.
>
> Again, I apologize for the outburst. I was mostly getting irritated at MYSELF
> for having been so boneheaded to think I could get Dr. Bear some info. without
> prying eyes trying to figure out the encoded URL -- and your "May I ask ifs"
> triggered an inappropriate reaction.
I'm sorry to hear that all this set you off. And as for prying eyes, well, see
my other post on that matter... I think you have unnecessarily vilified the
"inquisitive".
> Figure out whether you have the time to even bother with a small fish like me
> and let me know either way.
On the contrary, Quinn, you're a big fish in a small pond. A big fish with an
impressive background.
> yada yada yada
That's what I was thinking :-)
Larry
Roland E. Pittman
- The progress of DL is retarded in legitimate and recognized schools being forced to wait on the RA to change its viewpoint on various DL issues or methods.
- Innovation and experimental DL methods are stiffled in fear of losing traditional accreditation.
- Some highly innovative programs fall outside acceptable traditional methodology so that some promising schools eventually go the way of degree mills (i.e. CPU, CCU, etc.). I think this is a matter of economics after awhile. They cannot achieve recognition and they need a cash flow to operate. Hence, they lower their standards to attract students and cash.
- Traditional accreditation (RA) has fallen behind modern DL methods and technology. In other words, the accreditors have not figured out how to measure outcomes other than monitoring the methods (i.e. process vs. product). How do you measure quality in education? This is the problem.
John Bear wrote:
<snip>But only one non-mainstream accreditor has even made serious attempts at
recognition: the National Association for Private Nontraditional Schools and
Colleges in Colorado. I have spent some time with their most recent
application, roughly 2,000 pages, and there is a lot of impressive stuff in it.
But after 7 rejections in 21 years, and a very hostile letter written (and
widely distributed) by the head of NAPNSC to the head of the accreditor
approval office, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything positive from
this situation. The only other contender is GATE, the Global Alliance for
Transnational Education, the heavily-funded effort started by Mr. Jones of
Jones International U (www.gate.org). But even though it quacks like an
accrediting agency and walks like one, it hasn't quite yet declared that it
plans to be one.John Bear
www.degree.net>
>
> John Bear wrote in message <38E128B6...@ursa.net>...
> >Kevin Stewart wrote:
> >
> >>>>I still haven't heard what makes accreditation real
> >
> >Put 1,000 randomly-chosen registrars or human resources executives in a
> room,
> >and I'd bet that 99 to 100 percent of them would agree that the answer to
> Mr.
> >Stewart's question (for US-based schools) is: "Recognized by the Council on
> >Higher Education Accreditation."
> >
> >Now you've heard.
> >
> >John Bear
> >www.degree.net
> >
John Bear
> The case of the NAPNSC is a sad one. If anyone deserved recognition
> as a legitimate accreditor, I think they did.
I have wondered, over the years, if the NAPNSC suffered from the
albatross syndrome. We've discussed here how DETC obviously ignored the
American Institute for Computer Science's less-than-wonderful years, and
presumably looked at them as they were at the time of the application.
NAPNSC has its albatrosses: the original founders (not the Heussers) had
their doctorates from a highly questionable school; the NAPNSC offices
were shared with the school these people + Heusser was running, Western
Colorado University, which also had their accreditation, etc. It could
be that the Dept. of Education people have a longer memory and/or more
concerns about these matters, even after 20+ years, than DETC did.
John Bear
www.degree.net
trodgon
education, and with the increasing length of time it takes to complete a
degree at state schools, it could just be that more and more people will
head for the unaccredited schools, picking the best schools in the litter.
It could just happen that if people with degrees from unaccredited schools
get into management positions, including HR, they might just be more
receptive to hiring others with those same types of degrees. This is really
part of what happened with those "working adult" schools. When they first
started, most companies would not pay for their employees to go there. They
were considered the armpit of education. Employers would pay for
traditional programs, but not for the "quickie" degree programs. Now,
though, with a significant number of people in management obtaining degrees
from these "working adult" schools, more and more people are getting hired
who also have them. It stands to reason. If a manager with one of those
degrees won't hire someone who has the same degree, what does that say about
the confidence the manager has in the quality and value of his own
education?
The above is something that we might want to take into consideration.
Tony Bonet
Rich Douglas wrote in message <38EEB18C...@erols.com>...
...>With the developing scene of DETC schools awarding the doctorate, we
will
>have witnessed the creation of a parallel degree-granting system for
>distance schools. ("Separate but equal"?) Some distance schools will
dwell
>in the RA arena, while others hang out with DETC. Personally, I doubt the
>wall between the two will come down soon. As the more powerful of the two
>systems, the RAs may, again, simply choose to ignore the whole DETC issue.
>BUT, will consumers?...
Rich Douglas
I wonder, though, if it was just easier to ignore NAPNSC rather than deal
with the whole matter of accrediting distance (or other nontraditional)
schools. The regionals always seemed confident in their ability--even if
they didn't always show a willingness--to accredit these schools, thus
rendering NAPNSC moot. Further, I believe the whole matter of DETC (nee
the National Home Study Council) accrediting academic, degree-awarding
schools snuck up on the regionals. For the longest time, it was just a few
associate-level programs and two bachelor's (the now defunct LaSalle and
Grantham). Then, BOOM, the name change to DETC and a whole bunch of schools
offering only degree programs (as opposed to the trade schools under the old
NHSC that sometime's offered specialized associate degrees) emerged. I
don't think the regionals know what's hitting them, and will choose to
ignore the DETC (and their schools' graduates trying to transfer credits and
degrees), hoping it will all go away. Look at Regents, the one schools
that, above all others, led the way to legitimizing the whole deal. They'll
award gawdawful amounts of credit for their "special assessments" or GRE
Advanced tests, but won't accept credits and degrees from DETC schools.
With the developing scene of DETC schools awarding the doctorate, we will
have witnessed the creation of a parallel degree-granting system for
distance schools. ("Separate but equal"?) Some distance schools will dwell
in the RA arena, while others hang out with DETC. Personally, I doubt the
wall between the two will come down soon. As the more powerful of the two
systems, the RAs may, again, simply choose to ignore the whole DETC issue.
BUT, will consumers?
Rich Douglas
John Bear wrote:
> "Roland E. Pittman" wrote:
>
> > The case of the NAPNSC is a sad one. If anyone deserved recognition
> > as a legitimate accreditor, I think they did.
>
Got It Done
> Food for thought: with the continuing sky-rocketing costs of a college
> education, and with the increasing length of time it takes to complete a
> degree at state schools, it could just be that more and more people will
> head for the unaccredited schools, picking the best schools in the litter.
>
The cost issue has always surprised me. I would have expected costs to drop as
the RA schools competed with each other due to a lessened need for brick and
mortar, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps the newer
schools/programs that are emerging will consider this into their cost structure.
From what I've observed in DL, the more traditional RA schools are the ones who
have surged into the DL scene, offering many more options for consumers. I'd be
curious to see a market trend analysis broken down by year - students in non-RA
compared to students in RA schools. Back in the 'old' days of the early '80s,
there weren't near the options there are today. My suspicion is that RA
programs are far outdistancing the non-RA - in terms of enrollment. People are
simply becoming more educated on the subject of accreditation. However, this is
just a hunch since I haven't seen any enrollment comparisons. Has anyone else?
>
> It could just happen that if people with degrees from unaccredited schools
> get into management positions, including HR, they might just be more
> receptive to hiring others with those same types of degrees. This is really
> part of what happened with those "working adult" schools. When they first
> started, most companies would not pay for their employees to go there. They
> were considered the armpit of education. Employers would pay for
> traditional programs, but not for the "quickie" degree programs. Now,
> though, with a significant number of people in management obtaining degrees
> from these "working adult" schools, more and more people are getting hired
> who also have them. It stands to reason. If a manager with one of those
> degrees won't hire someone who has the same degree, what does that say about
> the confidence the manager has in the quality and value of his own
> education?
Interesting point. However, larger corporations have developed a fairly evolved
perspective on accredited verses non-accredited degrees. HR professionals are
leading the way in this. For example, a large corp. I know will acknowledge
that an individual has a non-RA degree, but lists it as "other" on the
employee's records. From this, most everyone knows the degree is not RA. This
company checks out degrees and knows the schools that are RA - and those that
are not. My experience is that corps. are limiting the holders of non-RA
degrees, causing people to move towards RA schools.
It seems to me that the opposite trend has been occurring. As corps., etc. have
come to better understand the value of DL (and various learning styles) AND RA
schools have exploded into the DL market, the emphasis on the requirement of RA
has increased. It seems to me that corps. have loosened up some since RA
schools have offered a flood of DL programs. In the 'old' days, a person might
be able to 'slip' by with a non-RA degree. Thanks to corps. improved
understanding, the work of advocates / authors like Bear, Thorson and Levicoff,
and much more exposure by the media, my hunch is that non-RA schools will
continue to struggle for acceptance. DL RA programs are not running into such
problems.
>
>
> The above is something that we might want to take into consideration.
>
> Tony Bonet
>
> Rich Douglas wrote in message <38EEB18C...@erols.com>...
> ...>With the developing scene of DETC schools awarding the doctorate, we
> will
> >have witnessed the creation of a parallel degree-granting system for
> >distance schools. ("Separate but equal"?) Some distance schools will
> dwell
> >in the RA arena, while others hang out with DETC. Personally, I doubt the
> >wall between the two will come down soon. As the more powerful of the two
> >systems, the RAs may, again, simply choose to ignore the whole DETC issue.
> >BUT, will consumers?...
DETC's history of accrediting questionable schools will continue to haunt them.
JMcAulay
It's difficult for me to believe that your scenario has genuine
likelihood of coming to pass. You have set up an "if-cubed"
starting point. First: "it could just be that..." then: "It could just
happen that if..." and finally: "they might just be..." Every one
of these must come true for your conjecture to play out.
It is all too true that some state schools are having difficulty
meeting their demands for classes, thus many students can't
get the classes they need at the times they need them, forcing
them into a five-year Bachelor's degree. While this is a truly
terrible situation, some schools also offer fixed after-hours
class schedules for working adults, so that educational
advancement can be accomplished on a real timetable
(unless the hapless student misses out on one or more
courses, which certainly can make it tough). And while
schooling costs more these days, I wonder if the cost of a
Bachelor's degree today has shot past inflation relative to,
say, fifty years ago. Perhaps someone has data handy.
I personally think that we may be in for more programs at
schools accredited by DETC, let's say, which may develop
increased popularity. What the RA schools don't offer, some
other school will. We see frequent enquiries about schools
such as Grantham and AICS. Those schools offer what may
appear to be the best alternative to some people who just
can't seem to find what they want at RA schools. And if an
alternative school has DoE recognized accreditation, it has
a great leg up on the unaccredited ones for several reasons.
Just one of those reasons is that students may be eligible for
a loan program which is government sponsored.
So basically, I do not envision a great upswing in popularity
of unaccredited programs.
You also mentioned:
>This is really
>part of what happened with those "working adult" schools. When they first
>started, most companies would not pay for their employees to go there.
They
>were considered the armpit of education. Employers would pay for
>traditional programs, but not for the "quickie" degree programs. Now,
>though, with a significant number of people in management obtaining degrees
>from these "working adult" schools, more and more people are getting hired
>who also have them.
Please advise just what you mean by "those 'working adult'
schools." What schools do you specifically mean? What
"quickie degree" programs do you mean? If you refer to
accredited schools such as University of Phoenix, I strongly
disagree with your statement "when they first started, most
companies would not pay for their employees to go there."
If you referto unaccredited schools, I also disagree with
your contention that "a significant number of people in
management" are obtaining degrees from such schools.
Unless your concept of "significant" is far removed from
mine.
Regards,
John