The best PhD dissertation there will ever be ...
carlyle
By Dr Duggle-Arse and presently available free of charge at
http://wwwlib.umi.com/pqdd-pdf/ed56eb550229c4623c449796413b0974/3081444
but will cost a donation to the Chip Mun[key] and Bear Foundation as from 1
January 2004.
Observe the depth of enquiry and breadth of understanding and .... that's
all folks.
Yen
"carlyle" <Car...@Celestial.com.au> wrote in message
news:3fd00763$0$31746$c30e...@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
Not that anyone really cares, but let's see your doctoral dissertation, so
we can have something truly excellent to campare against.
Byran Lee
Yen,
Actually, I care, and I don't think one needs to have written a
doctoral thesis to make a comment.
I'm not surprised at the "depth of enquiry and breadth of
understanding" issues that Carlyle mentioned. Union is a school that
offers Ph.D's in any mickey-mouse fields one can imagine. I find it
funny that a guy with business undergrad and graduate degrees end up
with a Ph.D. in nontraditional higher education, or simply, distance
education.
My 2-cents is that just as one can buy an easy, legal degree from
certain unaccredited schools, one can also get a cheesy accredited
degree from certain low-rank institutions like Union. Take a look at
the much touted Heriot-Watt MBA program. The Bears Guide notes that
HW MBA students were quietly given a 3rd try if they had failed the
same exam twice, and such a practice is now an official policy. The
concept is simple; if you're willing to pay, you'll end up with a
cheesy accredited degree. I only wish that I could fail an exam 2
times and write again for the 3rd time when I was in university.
Btw, I recently received a HW MBA prospectus. The brochure states
that HW does not participate in "unofficial" rankings. I think that's
the same as saying John Bear chose not to affiliate, own, or manage
any regionally-accredited schools.
Sorry for going off-topic. In reply to your need of a doctoral thesis
for comparison, well here's an example from my alma mater:
http://www.psych.ubc.ca/~mpreece/compdoc.pdf
Comparing disserations in different fields certainly has its own
limitations. I now refer back to Carlyle's point: Note the "depth of
enquiry and breath of understanding." Unlike other garbage, Dr.
Preece's disseration is a doctoral research paper, and does not sound
like a personal biography. But then again, unlike Union, my alma
mater's clinical psychology doctorates are APA (and CPA) accredited.
Regards,
Byran Lee, B.A.(University of British Columbia)
P J French
Ahhhh Mr. D , Thank you for attending this defense session to enlighten us
concerning the ten factors regarding the decision to pursue a master's
degree. This work coupled with your fascinating journey story in Distance
Learning is strong persuasion that we should confer upon you a Doctorate.
Please bear with our ignorance as we strive to understand your
contribution...
Just a few questions and this should be a done deal. The eminent Dr. B has
assured us there was no need to schedule a defense session but you know how
we must carrying on tradition no matter how stodgy...
Q1: You refer to using the Tukey-T test for post hoc comparison of your
results. Is this the same test referred to as the Tukey Studentized test? We
only ask since you did not include any sample calculations in your work for
use to use in repeating your results.
Q2. In your abstract you state that results indicate students picked the
school on the basis of the unique characteristics of each institution as
they related to the student's requirements. Could there be other factors
associated with the choice. We only ask since only the survey section II of
III relates to the uniqueness of the instructions. You do refer to a lot of
significance between choices in the other two sections but your abstract
seems to ignore these relationships. IT could have been easier to understand
your work if you would have used the usual abstract sections: Description
the Hypothesis, Describing the Methodology and the recapping the results in
a more easily discerned layout. Forgive us our stupidity in not being able
to follow this sections as you envisioned it.
Q3. You have describe a limitation of literature in the field for citations
in the Lit Survey. Could not his eminence Dr.B provide you with hard
literature citations? Couldn't he provide some DIPSCAM anecdotal evidence?
Q4.The committee doesn't understand your statement on Page 64 concerning the
Scope of your work being limited to graduates of "nontraditional degree
programs." Isn't this phrase in the title of your work? We don't understand
why this is limitation since the target audience for your survey was
Nontraditional Education graduates. Could you please clarify your statement?
Q5. You do state in your Limitations on Page 65 that no pilot study was
conducted. Could you please verify to us how your constructs in your survey
questions were validated?
Q6. We noticed the results of your ANOVA tests were quite impressive along
with the Tukey post hoc testing. One of the issues with ANOVA concerns the
Normality assumption. It is recognized in textbooks on Business Statistics
that the assumption of normality is more sensitive to incorrect results when
sample sizes are equal. We see you have avoided that problem with unequal
sample sizes. However we note that your sample size from William Lyon and
Newport are only 17 and Century is 31. Could you please explain why you feel
these are Normally distributed samples to assure reliable results form your
ANOVA. Could you perhaps show us the results of maybe the Chi-Square
Goodness of Fit to demonstrate results are from Normally distributed
populations?? We understand that 30 seems to be the magic number for
assuming normality but we a bit uncomfortable with this value. Could you
please explain your confidence I accepting 31?
Q7 We are certainly trying to understand your results but we are having
trouble with these small samples. Could you please explain how you
determined a 95% Confidence interval by demonstrating your calculations for
the "Power of the Test" in avoiding Type I errors?
Q8. Please excuse our stupidity again, but we are confused about your lack
of control over survey audience. Did the schools you requested survey
dispersment from control the process and return you results of did the
individuals actually return the results to you? Also, What percentage of the
graduating classes represent at these institutions to warrant your selection
of 100 surveys to be sent out?
Well Mr. D, your response to our questions by calling us shit heads and
morons is appreciated. We agree you have demonstrated knowledge beyond our
compression and recommend you for a doctorate.
byr...@hotmail.com (Byran Lee) wrote in message news:<5a4b18f5.03120...@posting.google.com>...
Rich Douglas
I look forward to encouraging UMI/Proquest to send you the same
cease-and-disist letter they will send the purchaser of the link you
posted to this newsgroup.
As for doctoral education, I'll look forward to discussing such
matters with you when you earn one.
(PS: That isn't my dissertation. Hope you enjoyed reading my Program
Summary.)
Rich Douglas, Ph.D.
On 8 Dec 2003 12:20:41 -0800, car...@celestial.com.au (P J French)
wrote:
toughnut
> Mr. French:
>
> I look forward to encouraging UMI/Proquest to send you the same
> cease-and-disist letter they will send the purchaser of the link you
> posted to this newsgroup.
>
> As for doctoral education, I'll look forward to discussing such
> matters with you when you earn one.
>
> (PS: That isn't my dissertation. Hope you enjoyed reading my Program
> Summary.)
>
> Rich Douglas, Ph.D.
You didn't do any dissertation shit for brains. All you did was drag
you're useless shilling ass back from the mill you worked for after
they couldn't hand you a life experience degree. What's wrong your
buddies at MIGS couldn't pay off enough Mexicans to get barely legal?
So you had to go back to a third rate college, do a piss poor
dissertation ,and your buddy Bear shoves it down their throat.
CONGRATULATIONS MR. Ph.D., you should be very proud of your work. If
you're so damned smart Suckle Ass, why did it take you 17 years and a
trip to MIGS before you got a half-assed degree from Union? (UNION)
the MIGS of the RA world.
Roy Tumak
1. Rich Douglas' program summary was hundreds of pages long, including
some questionable research methodologies and data that were NEVER
intended for the public.
2. When a poster (with two Masters degrees from the well-known
University of New England in Australia) challenged "Dr."
Douglas'assertions on his paper,
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=23332c7d.0312081220.1c0b6e0b%40posting.google.com
"Dr." Douglas desperately tried to get UMI/Proquest to pull his
"doctoral-level" paper in the hopes of avoiding issues, humiliation,
and mockery. http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lpkatvof1r2cv6ifnc7ksib5m01i6eqtdg%404ax.com
3. "Dr." Douglas desperately tried to downplay the credibility of
Richard Suhar, but failed miserably. Suhar has an M.Eng from very
well-respected Lehigh University. And if holding an unaccredited
credential is a concern, John Bear, who owned, promoted and endorsed
various unaccredited schools, should be the first one to be
investigated.
4. "Dr." Douglas then asked for the support of the usual bunch of
non-achieving unknown individuals with unknown credentials. This
include "Uncle Janko," "Dave Hayden," "Oxpecker," "Bill Grover," and
"Gus Sainz." Ironically, these are the same bunch of losers of
unknown background who have been giving unproven advice on academic
degrees. One major coward is even too frightened to list his source
of "multiple degrees," and many of the same losers either have no
degrees themselves, or they're getting degrees that aren't even
related to their employment. Clearly, none are qualified to comment
on degree utility and acceptance issues.
5. The same bunch of non-achieving degree cravers were misled by
"Dr." Douglas into thinking a crime was committed, especially when the
download was made FREE by UMI, suggesting the little value "Dr."
Douglas' paper was worth. With the advent of Internet, interesting
research is passed between academics. The incident was nothing
special, and UMI is certainly not going to send any stupid "cease and
desist" letter to anyone. What we have here is a case of the blind
leading the blind, and clearly, "Dr." Douglas is not in the academia
and certainly not in the research business since he obviously doesn't
know what's cooking, and too ashamed to reveal his "ground-shaking"
work.
6. Union also made the incredibly stupid blunder of supplying
University Microfilms with his program summary, not his dissertation.
The submitter probably has a degree from the degree mill MIGS (Rich's
former affiliation), the unaccredited Virginia International
University (Rich's current employer) or John Bear's previously owned
and managed unaccredited Greenwich University, unaccredited Fairfax
University, or the unaccredited Columbia Pacific University (defunct).
7. Site owner Chip White of the Degreeinfo bookstore removed "Dr."
Douglas' posts and his cries for sympathy. Apparently, "Dr." Douglas
cried and only a few of his fuck buddies gave a shit.
8. It seems that when one buys a dissertation online from UMI, the
link is available for three days. And there seems to be no restriction
on how many times it can be downloaded during those three days. "The
cease and desist" comment was clearly stupid.
9. People on AED, John Bear's former free-advertisement wonderland,
were very interested in "Dr." Douglas' "research," since Douglas was
employed by the unaccredited "Greenwich University," and then later
endorsed and worked at a second degree mill MIGS as a research
assistant and claimed a bogus doctoral candidacy there, and now
employed with another unaccredited business, Virginia International
University.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=8v4b50%24lvf%241%40bob.news.rcn.net
http://viu.edu/aboutviu/facultystaff.html
agus...@care2.com (toughnut) wrote in message news:<f859c42.03120...@posting.google.com>...
P J French
In and out of the Air Force.
In and out of a marriage.
In and out of Greenwich.
In an out of Union.
In an out of MIGS.
THAT is SOME set of experiences!
So Union picked him up again? ...with Richard Crews ex CPU as a part
of his panel? ... and they completely stuff the whole publication
thing up .... :-))
WOW! ... that really caps it off....
Just keep your shirt on and wait for 'the product' - he has crowed
about it for long enough and put everyone else down he could to his
own advantage at every turn ... but has forgotten that it is a long
road that has no bend in it. People are waiting in every forum he has
strutted his stuff in to see just how good this fellow really is ...
agus...@care2.com (toughnut) wrote in message news:<f859c42.03120...@posting.google.com>...
subman
> GIVE THE POOR BLOKE A GO!
>>
French, you're a sad excuse for a human being. Who knows what
motivates such a sorry person. Pack it in. Give up. Go away. Save
yourself the added humiliation.
William Thomas
William Thomas
"subterfuge
n : something intended to misrepresent the true nature of an activity;
"he wasn't sick--it was just a subterfuge"; "the holding company was
just a blind" [syn: blind]"
subte...@arabia.com (subman) wrote in message news:<c51ab66f.03121...@posting.google.com>...