Unaccredited Degrees and Success
Steve Levicoff
Sheils Danzig <shei...@aol.com> writes:
> Dennis Huber, Esq. raised some excellent points in his post, and
> identifying and separating the many segments of any discussion of
> non-accredited degrees is very important. Thanks for keeping us on
> track.
A-ha! A point on which Sheila and I agree! I think it's notable,
however, that while Dennis has taken courses from unaccredited schools
if they met his needs, all *ten* of his degrees are from regionally
accredited schools.
> Given a choice between the accredited and non-accredited degree, I
> believe the accredited is preferred. But not everyone can get an
> accredited degree, and a non-accredited degree can have its place in
> education.
Sheila, this might help you understand a small part of my motativation,
and it's a fact that any graduate from a legitimately accredited D/L
program will admit. I believe that, while there are exceptions like
yourself, most people do not choose unaccredited degrees because of
factors such as cost. They choose them because of time and an
unwillingness to put the energy into a program that's required, combined
with a need to be called "Doctor" that can best be described as ego
jollies.
One reason that graduates of regionally accredited D/L programs are so
concerned with defending the integrity of nontraditional education is
because of the bane of practitioners and graduates from degree mills who
tend to bring disrepute upon the field as a whole. In other words,
yahoo schools like American Coastline, LaSalle, etc. bring disrepute
upon regionally accredited schools like Nova, Union, Walden, et al.
insofar as a person who has had bad experiences, either personally or
in terms of an employee, tend to question *all* D/L credentials. If
that pisses off the graduates of the yahoo schools, so be it. The
criterion of regional accreditation may not be the best, but right now,
it's the best we've got.
I also can't help thinking that I've heard the line more than once, "I
would have preferred that my degree be accredited . . ." This is the
one regret that always comes through, even from *successful* graduates
of unaccredited programs. Of course, I never hear that type of regret
expressed by graduates of regionally accredited programs.
> As an employer, I would never think to "check" on a schools
> accreditation, not if the degree was real, except for my personal
> interest in the subject. One the other hand, larger firms very well
> might.
Remember, most employers are not aware of the inn's and out's of of
either D/L programs nor accreditation. Those that are aware of these
factors check out the credentials of prospective employees *very*
carefully, especially in the human services fields. Again, we're
talking about semantics. I can send the Universal Life Church $5.00
and get a "real" degree. What I cannot get for my five bucks is a
*legitimate* degree. As always, with ffew exceptions, I'll opt for
regional accreditation.
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
#`. . .. . | The above message, posted in a public #
# \`. : _|_ .. | newsgroup on the Internet, may piss #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | someone off. Under the Telecommuni- #
# \\\\`. .. . | cations Act, and in spite of the #
#----------------------------| First Amendment, it may, therefore, #
# Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. | be illegal. #
# 7662...@compuserve.com | #
########################################################################
Steve Levicoff is the author of "Name It and Frame It? New Opportunities
in Adult Education and How to Avoid Being Ripped Off by 'Christian'
Degree Mills," a guide to both accredited distance learning programs
focusing on religious and counseling professions and an expose of
religious degree and credential mills. For information, request an
e-mail brochure by sending a message to 7662...@compuserve.com.
Steve Levicoff
Kristin Evenson Hirst <Kristi...@UIowa.edu> writes:
> Much depends on your definition of success. I have an ALA-
> accredited MA in library science; I know that if it had not been
> accredited, I would not have gotten my first job in an academic
> library. Now I'm working not as a librarian, but using many of the
> information management skills I developed in library school -- now,
> having the knowledge & skills is the important factor, not whether
> my degree was from an accredited university.
Great illustration! For the person who seeks to be an entrepreneur
(e.g., Rita Laws or Sheila Danzig), accreditation may not be the bottom
line. But for the person who wants to enter an established field, or
one that is regulated by either state licensure or the internally within
the profession, accreditatio is a *must*. A similar situation exists
within the law, in which 43+ states require ABA accreditation, as well
as psychology, in which virtually all states require APA accreditation.
There may be ways skirting an accreditation requirement within a
profession, but the practitioner is never held in as high a regard as
his or her peers who graduated from accredited programs. Kristin also
provides an example of someone not working in the profession in which
she holds her degree per se, but at least she has the option of doing so
if *she* chooses, without the limitation of having an unaccredited
credential.
> If you want to successfully transfer credits from one program to
> another -- this can be difficult regardless of accreditation.
> Colleges & universities are tremendously territorial and jealous --
> you might find that three years of on-campus work at an accredited
> institution gives you little more transfer credit than a couple of
> online or correspondence courses from an unaccredited institution.
Also a good point. Traditionally, for example, most master's programs
limit to six the number of semester hours they will accept in transfer.
In terms of transfer of credit from unaccredited schools, accredited
institutions will look at factors such as the amount of work done in a
course, the degree of subject knowledge exhibited by the student, and
the credentials of the person who taught the original course.
> If you want your degree to qualify you for a particular job --
> better take a look at what typical employers in your field want.
> I've been on a couple of job search committees here -- I might well
> accept a BA from an unknown, unaccredited school as an entry-level
> qualification *and* then look at other factors as I consider
> applicants. If I see a BA from a school that I know to be
> questionable -- that might tip me towards tossing the resume in the
> reject pile.
A-ha: an affirmation! (Thanks, Kristin, I needed that.)
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
# \`. : _|_ .. | #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | We're here, we're queer, #
# \\\\`. .. . | and we're not going shopping. #
#----------------------------| #
# Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. | #
Steve Levicoff
Sheila Danzig <shei...@aol.com> writes:*
> Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
> > Nonetheless, American consumers seeking a distance degree should
> > be wary of *any* European school offering external studies, since
> > many of these are *not* chartered by their national or provincial
> > governments (and do not offer degrees in their local area, which
> > is how they get away with what they do).
>
> I have wondered if they are getting away with this by skirting the
> law, or is it LEGAL for them to be degree granting but not chartered
> if they do not offer degrees in their local areas?
For once, even though - as everyone knows - I am omniscient, you've
stumped me here. Perhaps John Bear is aware of the legal factors
regarding European degrees and will enlighten us when he returns next
month from copntemplating the meaning of life in Tibet.
* Hmmm . . . Perhaps I should turn this line into a macro.
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
# \`. : _|_ .. | take to change a light bulb? #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | Two: One to hold the giraffe, and #
#----------------------------| the other to fill the bathtub with #
# Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. | brightly colored machine tools. #
# 7662...@compuserve.com | #
########################################################################
Steve Levicoff
Ken Brownson <kenbr...@aol.com> writes:
> > If you want to go into nursing administration, get a B.S.N. and
> > continue if you can. But if you want to be the best nurse on a
> > floor *clinically*, you're often better off with a diploma from a
> > hospital-based nursing school's R.N. program.)
>
> Actually this isn't true anymore. Diploma schools are closing every
> day and there are very few of them left. Trying to get a BSN after
> having earned a 3 year diploma is much more difficult and time
> consuming than having earned a 2 year Associate Degree in Nursing.
> The powers-that-be have been working very hard for many years trying
> to make the BSN entry level for a Registered Nurse (and have
> succeeded in at least one state). The college programs generally
> have a much more highly educated faculty and can offer required
> nursing and science courses in regular university science labs.
>
> Not that diploma schools weren't good and some still are, but you
> will do much better going for a BSN (at the start or doing an
> Associate Degree that can easily be transferred into a BSN program).
> BSN grads do much better at being hired as first time nurses than
> diploma nurses for clinical jobs and BSN grads do better in any type
> of advancement from clinical, teaching, or nursing administration. I
> am a Registered Nurse in PA and DE and graduated from a local
> community college with an AAS in Nursing in 1978. Ken
A quick comment to note that I take no particular issue with Ken's
comments here, which are quite accurate. Prospective nursing students
should also be aware that:
1. The difference between attending a BSN or hospital-based diploma
program are largely a matter of preference, though for persons who
want to advance off of the floor (i.e., out of direct patient care
or into a highly specialized area such as critical care nursing),
the AAS or BSN is certainly the way to get there faster.
2. Hospital-based diploma programs have not disappeared altogether,
and the opinion that they offer better clinical training is a
subjective one on the part of many nurses. The primary difference
between diploma programs and degree programs is that the diploma
programs generally offer more and earlier exposure to patient care
since the programs themselves are hospital based.
3. Diploma programs have been reduced from their historic three years
to an average 21 months, in part because community colleges are
able to pull their programs off in two academic years.
4. The nursing profession as a whole, which was once a guarantee for a
job, is now somewhat depressed, and this trend is likely to
continue due to the increase in managed care insurance plans.
5. A note of caution to those who are not already licensed or
registered nurses: be wary of correspondence or D/L programs that
claim to qualify you for the nursing boards. (TriSmith College in
North Carolina is an example of this. They offer a correspondence
program for LPN's which is apparently good for licensure in North
Carolina. Even though they advertise nationally, they do not
disclose that their program will not qualify persons to sit for the
NCLEX-PN exam in other states without appropriate clinical
experience.) Best best if you're looking at the distance learning
option and not already licensed/registered: check with your own
state *carefully*.
When counseling prospective nursing students, I normally recommend the
community college/AAS or BSN route. Current diploma-based nurses,
however, should remember that they still have academic options open, and
can earn a BSN (largely by challenging and testing out of courses)
through such schools as Thomas Edison, Regents College, and the
University of Phoenix. Needless to say (as any registered nurse already
knows), NLN (National League for Nursing) accreditation is a *must* in
the profession, and they now accredit both hospital and community
college-based programs, as well as the three D/L programs listed in this
paragraph.
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
# \`. : _|_ .. | #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | Apparently you've mistaken #
# \\\\`. .. . | me for your therapist. #
#----------------------------| #
# Steve Levicoff, Ph.D. | #
# 7662...@compuserve.com | #
########################################################################
Rita Laws
S. Levicoff wrote:
"... most people do not choose unaccredited degrees because of
factors such as cost. They choose them because of time and an
unwillingness to put the energy into a program that's required, combined
with a need to be called "Doctor" that can best be described as ego
jollies."
Can you prove this insulting statement? If so, please do. My experience
is totally contrary to this. I don't know of any studies, or I would
quote them, but it is my experience that most people go unaccredited
because they don't need the added cost and trouble of an accredited
degree. An accredited doctorate can cost eight to ten times more money,
and in my field, I could not find a school that was totally DL.
Accredited school almost always- rare exceptions- require seminars, week-
ends on campus, etc. Like many parents, I had no choice. Scholarships for
mature adults with an income who attend DL schools (accredited or not)
with no set semester dates- are as rare as hen's teeth. Also, can you
prove the statement that CCU does not require as much work as its
accredited equivalents? I can prove you're wrong because I compared my
first course from them with the same course at the accredited University
of Oklahoma. A friend who lives near there actually audited the course
and brought me the syllabus and course materials. Both schools used the
same textbook (latest version) and the same tests (provided by textbook
author.) The CCU course actually had more coursework requirements. Many
of my CCU exams exceeded 100 typed pages, and all of the professors come
from accredited universities and seem bent on making us work harder than
we would have in traditional programs. :> I have taken graduate courses
from an accredited Oklahoma university and from CCU. CCU was tougher. It
took me 3 years working full-time to finish, and I mean full time. I had
to follow strict APA guidelines in my dissertation- I re-did it six times.
Furthermore, the state of CA states in writing that CA state approval
standards are equivalent to accreditation standards, and they are. In
some cases, they exceed them, IMHO. Why don't you take a closer look at
the schools you put down? CCU is always improving its program. It's
tougher now than when I was enrolled, and it is getting tougher still. I
know because I keep in touch with one of the professors, who is a friend
of mine. I rarely discuss the name of my alma maters, one accredited, one
not, because I do not want anyone to consider a school because I used it.
Individual needs vary too greatly. But you keep picking on CCU, and
several other schools, and I know you don't have your facts straight
about CCU. Rita
SheilaD1
Rita Laws wrote:
>>S. Levicoff wrote:
"... most people do not choose unaccredited degrees because of
factors such as cost. They choose them because of time and an
unwillingness to put the energy into a program that's required, combined
with a need to be called "Doctor" that can best be described as ego
jollies."
Can you prove this insulting statement? If so, please do. My experience
is totally contrary to this. <<
Rita - you know Steve will not back up his statements with facts. That
might confuse the issue. Steve offers his opinions only as fact, (as law
if he could). If Steve added "In my experience" or "IMO" or "I believe"
before his statements it would at least reduce the amount of arrogance
that jumps off my screen each time I read his posts.
Rita, you have proven IN LIFE that you are successful (and I am not
talking about money), and you have contributed tremendously to this
newsgroup, so if we are having a contest here, there is no question that
you have beaten Steve hands down.
-Sheila Danzig
Marshall Rice
In article <4nem2d$d6i$3...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Steve
Levicoff <7662...@CompuServe.COM> writes
....<SNIP>
>There may be ways skirting an accreditation requirement within a
>profession, but the practitioner is never held in as high a regard as
>his or her peers who graduated from accredited programs.
....<SNIP>
Ever heard of Brahms? Or Freud? Or Nietzche? Or Pasteur? Or Einstein?
--
Marshall Rice
Dick Adams
PAU...@prodigy.com (Rita Laws) writes:
> S. Levicoff wrote:
>> "... most people do not choose unaccredited degrees because of
>> factors such as cost. They choose them because of time and an
>> unwillingness to put the energy into a program that's required,
>> combined with a need to be called "Doctor" that can best be
>> described as ego jollies."
> Can you prove this insulting statement? If so, please do. My
> studies, or I would quote them, but it is my experience that
> most people go unaccredited because they don't need the added
> cost and trouble of an accredited degree. An accredited
> doctorate can cost eight to ten times more money, and in my field,
> I could not find a school that was totally DL.
I have a somewhat different viewpoint. The choice of unaccredited
versus accredited is one of functional utility. Since the purpose
of education is to modify the production function of the student,
the first question is whether or not a specific program of study
will effectively modify your production function? The second
question is whether or not there are regulatory or employment
standards your evidence of completion (degree) must meet?
Accredited Universities regularly issue honorary degrees if for no
other purpose than as a stipend for being the convocation speaker.
Want an honorary degree from an accredited Unversity? Just prepare
a terrific graduation speech and shop it around!! You can hold
yourself out as a Ph.D. (even in Florida if they ever rewrite the
statute that got declared unconstitutional). But don't try to slide
it passed a regulatory licensure board or an employer with education
requirements because it may be accredited, but it ain't got nothing
to do with being educated.
Coming back to my viewpoint. I think most people who go unaccredited,
do so because they don't want to bite the bullet of changing their
lifestyle to cope with the scheduled structure generally found in
accredited schools. Also unaccredited schools have a more open-door
policy.
Is unaccredited good or bad? I don't know because I've never been to
an unaccredited school. I can tell you though that taking Accounting
courses from an unaccredited school to meet the education requirements
of the CPA Exam is a real high risk idea!! And taking law school
courses to meet the education requirements for the Bar Exam (other
than in California) is NOT recommended!!
But remember that most CPA Exam review courses and Bar Exam review
courses are conducted by unaccredited organizations. And taking Tax
courses for an unaccredited school to prepare for the Enrolled Agents
Exam is not a bad idea at all.
Dick
Steve Levicoff
Danny Prosser of UBC <dann...@macon.mindspring.com> writes:
> . . . I have narrowed my choices to 5 schools: Fielding, Cal Coast
> Univ, Antioch, Saybrook, and Inst Transpersonal Pys. Of those 5, 3
> are accredited (Fielding, Antioch, and Sabrook) One is a candidate
> for accrediation (ITP) and one is not accredited (Cal Coast) . . .
Danny,
I can speak highly of the three accredited schools (Fielding, Antioch,
and Saybrook). Both Fielding and Saybrook have doctoral programs, and
their master's programs traditionally lead into the doctorate.
HOWEVER, at least in the academic world, it's considered best to have
diversity in your education. Therefore, if you want to get a doctorate,
you should get your master's elsewhere. (As an example, note how many
faculty listings in legit college catalogues list three, not just two,
institutions from which each person has graduated.)
Fielding and Saybrook have more stringent residency requirements, and
their curricula are more "canned" in terms of required core courses.
Antioch offers maximum flexibility and can lead into programs at both
Fielding and Saybrook, as well as Union, Walden, et al. Antioch also
has a minimal residency - a few days for an initial orientation session.
However, Antioch is a bit heavy on the paperwork. You may also want to
check out Goddard College (Plainfield, VT) and Vermont College of
Norwich University. In terms of the least number of people you need on
your academic committee, Goddard is the best; however, they require a
nine-day residency at the beginning of each semester, and reports to be
mailed to your one and only faculty advisor about every three weeks.
Vermont College requires meetings with your local field faculty advisor
(a person you choose from outside the college), with only an annual
colloquium on campus and, if you live in an area where they are held,
occasional one-day interdisciplinary seminars.
(Incidentally, I visited the campuses of Antioch, Goddard, and Vermont
College prior to enrolling, applied and was accepted to both Antioch and
VC, and ultimately chose Vermont College. Good move, since their
program model was closer to that of The Union Institute's Ph.D.
program.)
If you're looking at transpersonal psych. as a major, you can do this at
Antioch, Goddard, or VC because of their emphasis on individually-
designed majors. Fielding and Saybrook tend to be more traditional
(Fielding because of its APA accreditation, and Saybrook because it's
historically rooted in Rollo May's school of humanistic psych.). I'm
not familiar enough with ITP to pass judgment on them (an expression on
which I *know* some people in the newsgroup will pick up), but can speak
for California Coast, having seen their "campus" (such as it is - a
small corner building with hardly a window) at the corner of 7th & Main
in beautiful downtown Santa Ana - they're about as Mickey Mouse as it
gets (no relation to Mickey and his relatives in nearby Anaheim).
Hope all is going well with you.
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
#`. . .. . | #
# \`. : _|_ .. | #
# \\\\`. .. . | Cats have answering machines. #
Steve Levicoff
Sheila Danzig <shei...@aol.com> writes, in response to Rita Laws:
> > S. Levicoff wrote: "... most people do not choose unaccredited
> > degrees because of factors such as cost. They choose them because
> > of time and an unwillingness to put the energy into a program
> > that's required, combined with a need to be called "Doctor" that
> > can best be described as ego jollies."
> >
> > Can you prove this insulting statement? If so, please do. My
> > experience is totally contrary to this. <<
>
> That might confuse the issue. Steve offers his opinions only as
> fact, (as law if he could). If Steve added "In my experience" or
> "IMO" or "I believe" before his statements it would at least reduce
> the amount of arrogance that jumps off my screen each time I read
> his posts.
should be able to see, it's your experience against mine. And my
experience affirms the fact that unaccredited schools and degree mills
(not to mention ordination and certification mills) prosper because
people are looking for the easy way to a title. Let's face it: the
person who is *truly* concerned about his or her credibility will
ultimately choose a regionally accredited program so people like me
won't be able to trash their credentials. So let's stop playing
semantic games, kids, if there were no such thing as *fact* that comes
from years of professional and academic experience, we would all have to
say, "Two plus two equals four . . . IMHO." The informed consumer will
have to admit that I'm right on this one, even if I am arrogant. And,
hell, it's better to be talked about in vain than not at all. :-)
(For lack of a better example, I may not agree with all of Rush
Limbaugh's politics, but I love his attitude. Obnoxious but lovable -
just like me.)
Incidentally, Sheila, what contribution have you made to society? I
wish you and Bill the best in terms of your financial jollies, but your
degrees still have no academic credibility. Let's call things as they
are: I obnoxiously defend the legitimacy of regionally accredited
credentials. You and Rita obnoxiously defend unaccredited credentials.
I have already taught in M.A. programs at two regionally accredited
graduate schools, acted as a program advisor in two more, and served as
visiting lecturer and/or consultant at still others. Et vous?
The point is simple, and no amount of apologetics (look it up) will
change the facts (IMHO, sweetie!): There will *always* be limitations to
unaccredited degrees. And, since we spend much of our time in this
newsgroup providing information to prospective students who haven't yet
made the mistake of choosing an unaccredited program without being fully
infomed about the ramifications of doing so, both financially and in
terms of professional credibility, that's still the bottom line. It's a
matter of consumer protection. And if you seem to spend a lot more time
defending your degrees than I spend defending mine, perhaps there's a
more acute need for you to do so. :-) I trust that, in the middle of
our arguments, our fellow readers will get the point - money's a honey
and cash has flash, but when the rubber meets the road, credibility is
*everything*.
> Rita, you have proven IN LIFE that you are successful (and I am not
> talking about money), and you have contributed tremendously to this
> newsgroup, so if we are having a contest here, there is no question
> that you have beaten Steve hands down.
success as entrepreneurs, and I'm delighted to have both of you
providing counterpoint in the newsgroup. But let's not get too
philosophical and kissy-face-huggy-bear about this. This mutual
admiration society between y'all is starting to sound like a joint
stroking scenario around here.
(By the way, Rita - Don't feel too neglected by me. As you may know,
not all Usenet posts get through to every network, and most of your
posts don't come through to CompuServe.)
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
#`. . .. . | #
# \`. : _|_ .. | #
# \\\\`. .. . | cheese with your whine? #
Steve Levicoff
Quoting me, Marshall Rice <msr...@demon.co.uk> writes:
SL > > There may be ways skirting an accreditation requirement within
> > regard as his or her peers who graduated from accredited
> > programs.
>
> Or Einstein?
Dear, dear Marshall . . . Surely you can't be serious in proposing this
argument to rebut my point.
Nonetheless, since it's evening as I write this here in the States - a
nice, civil time - I won't destroy your argument with my usual smugness
but, instead, will simply present the refutation of your logical fallacy
for the benefit of our other readers who may not have taken a course in
critical thinking, persuasion, or philosophy...
1. The general issue that has been under discussion in the newsgroup is
the regional accreditation of non-traditional U.S. higher education
programs. Brahms, Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein were all
European, as was their schooling. Since accreditation is unique to
the States (as European universities are generally chartered by
their national or provincial governments), your examples are moot.
In short, Marshall, you're comparing apples with oranges.
2. Assuming for a moment that these four leaders in their fields were
American, all (except for Einstein) received their educations - and
performed most of their major accomplishments - prior to the firm
establishment of accreditation. The six regional accrediting
associations that are recognized by the U.S. Department of
Education, for example, were established between 1885 and 1924,
after most of their education and/or accomplishments took place.
3. Except for Brahms (who studied with prominent musicians such as
Marxsen and Schumann before developing his own style) and Freud (who
studied with leading thinkers in the *still-young* field of
psychology such as von Brucke, Meynert, Breuer, and Charcot), their
university educations were also European: Nietzsche at Bonn and
Leipzig (from which he received his doctorate in 1869), Pasteur
through the Lille Faculty of Science, and Einstein at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (the Zurich Polytechnic) and the
University of Zurich (from which he received his doctorate in 1905).
4. You have also obviously not taken into consideration the fact that,
in their time, primary education was far more comprehensive and
scholarly in both Europe and the States than it is today. When
Freud was still a youngster, for example, he *already* had a
comprehensive understanding of English, Greek, Latin, French, and
German classics. (I'm sure you would know, Marshall, that in
Freud's day students read these works in their original languages.)
Even here in the States, during colonial times one had to be able to
speak, read, and write English, Latin, and Greek in order to be
admitted to a university. (Hell, I didn't even have to take a
modern language in college, let alone a classical language.)
So, Marshall, since it's obvious that I have, indeed, "heard of" Brahms,
Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein, let me turn your question back
to you with a new angle . . .
If Brahms, Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein were young adults in
the United States today, would they still be able to received as sound
an education, teach at the university level, and ultimately make the
contributions to the world that each of them made if they did *not* opt
for regionally accredited institutions?
I hardly think so.
And, even if one looks at some of today's successful "stars" whose names
have popped up in this newsgroup and who do not have accredited degrees,
whether the computer advances of a Steve Jobs, the entrepreneurial
skills of a Don Lapre, or the motivational and counseling success of a
Barbara DeAngelis - one must admit that they are the exceptions, not the
rule, and that none of them have made the same contributions to the
world, its culture, and its science as those you have cited.
########################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | #
#`. . .. . | #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | #
#----------------------------| "Nietzsche is dead." -- God #
Jonathan Whatley
In article <4nh0ca$1q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, PAU...@prodigy.com
(Rita Laws) wrote:
> S. Levicoff wrote:
> "... most people do not choose unaccredited degrees because of
> factors such as cost. They choose them because of time and an
> unwillingness to put the energy into a program that's required, combined
> with a need to be called "Doctor" that can best be described as ego
> jollies."
>
> Can you prove this insulting statement? If so, please do. My experience
> is totally contrary to this. I don't know of any studies, or I would
> quote them, but it is my experience that most people go unaccredited
> because they don't need the added cost and trouble of an accredited
> degree.
Then that's a credit to your social circle.
The key question here is whether there are there more graduates of
"diploma mills," who we can all agree often aim for 'ego jollies'
than of legitimate unaccredited schools. Of course the number of
diploma mill grads is what criminologists call a "dark figure,"
but as an entirely general picture of a polarised whole, it would
be interesting to have an idea. Any insight, folks?
> An accredited doctorate can cost eight to ten times more money,
> and in my field, I could not find a school that was totally DL.
The esteemed Universities of London and South Africa offer state-
sponsored, authorised in the fasions of their countries, doctorates
across a whole curriculum. Noting from a CCU alumni newsletter sent
to me as promotional material that your field is Psychology, the only
accredited non-resident doctorate in the U.S. ever was in Psychology
from the California Institute for Integral Studies.
In any event, California Coast is ~not~ totally DL at the doctoral
level, as all students are required to travel to their California
offices for the defense of their dissertation. Other schools might
offer somewhat longer residencies perhaps on a more frequent basis,
but then again they could be closer to your home than Santa Ana.
> Furthermore, the state of CA states in writing that CA state approval
> standards are equivalent to accreditation standards, and they are. In
> some cases, they exceed them, IMHO.
How can a "standard" exceed another "in some cases?" This is a very
akward statement.
> Why don't you take a closer look at the schools you put down? CCU is
> always improving its program. It's tougher now than when I was enrolled,
> and it is getting tougher still.
Ah, but he saw their campus, an office which had relatively few windows!
IMHO, if Steve applied a bit more of his very rigorous and thorough inquiry
towards curriculum he'd have no enemies (well, no "legitimate" ones <grin>).
Of course, he's coming from the perspective of Christian religious education,
wherein curriculum from school to school can be different possibly beyond
the potential for worthy comparison.
Jonathan Whatley <mailto:io...@interlog.com>
Sheila Danzig
> Incidentally, Sheila, what contribution have you made to society? I
> wish you and Bill the best in terms of your financial jollies, but your
> degrees still have no academic credibility. Let's call things as they
> are: I obnoxiously defend the legitimacy of regionally accredited
> credentials. You and Rita obnoxiously defend unaccredited credentials.
> I have already taught in M.A. programs at two regionally accredited
> graduate schools, acted as a program advisor in two more, and served as
> visiting lecturer and/or consultant at still others. Et vous?
So now this is a personal attack on me? I need to list my contributions
to society to appease you? I am very satisfied with my personal
contributions. If you think that acting as paid program advisor or
visiting lecuturer is a contribution to society THINK AGAIN. It is a
job that I may question the value of, given your past performances here.
Personally, I am suspect of anyone who brags of their contribution to
society - which I personally feel is best done with neither pay nor
listing. My mother taught me that it is for others to tell us how good
we are, not for us to tell others.
Odd that a person so short of common manners can boast of your
contributions to society.
Feel free to call me obnoxious, but please do not call Rita obnoxious.
She is anything but. (Frankly, from my private email, the readers think
you have cornered the market on obnoxious).
> There will *always* be limitations to
> unaccredited degrees.
No one, including myself, has disagreed with you here. I have
repeatedly agreed. Yet you keep writing as if I have not. In the
Danzig book of ethics THAT falls under lying.
> And if you seem to spend a lot more time
> defending your degrees than I spend defending mine, perhaps there's a
> more acute need for you to do so.
I don't recall *defending* my degree.
All I have EVER said about unaccredited degrees is that they can serve
the purpose for SOME but that an accredited degree is generally
preferable if it can be completed. That is my position, and I would
prefer that you not state, imply, nor infer anything other than that.
> when the rubber meets the road, credibility is
> *everything*.
Performance is everything. Not credibility. There are crackpot quacks
out there with MD's from top schools. Full of credibility, but hurting
others.
I suspect ALL That you have is credibility, thus the soke screen to make
credibility the only thing that matters.
> Hey, guys, I've complimented you both - Sheila and Rita - on your
> success as entrepreneurs, and I'm delighted to have both of you
> providing counterpoint in the newsgroup. But let's not get too
> philosophical and kissy-face-huggy-bear about this. This mutual
> admiration society between y'all is starting to sound like a joint
> stroking scenario around here.
>
I don't know Rita, and only recently have we exchanged private email. I
guess no one has ever posted anything nice about you Steve, so that
makes it wrong.
At best Steve, you will wear us down and we will let you parade around
as an expert in this group. But you will never get the respect you seem
so desperate for. Or is it the book sales that you are so desperate
for?
-Sheila
Marshall Rice
In article <4nojuk$284$1...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Steve
Levicoff <7662...@CompuServe.COM> writes
>Quoting me, Marshall Rice <msr...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> SL > > There may be ways skirting an accreditation requirement within
> > > a profession, but the practitioner is never held in as high a
> > > regard as his or her peers who graduated from accredited
> > > programs.
> >
> MR > Ever heard of Brahms? Or Freud? Or Nietzche [sic]? Or Pasteur?
> > Or Einstein?
>
>Dear, dear Marshall . . . Surely you can't be serious in proposing this
>argument to rebut my point.
>
>Nonetheless, since it's evening as I write this here in the States - a
>nice, civil time - I won't destroy your argument with my usual smugness
>but, instead, will simply present the refutation of your logical fallacy
>for the benefit of our other readers who may not have taken a course in
>critical thinking, persuasion, or philosophy...
>
>1. The general issue that has been under discussion in the newsgroup is
> the regional accreditation of non-traditional U.S. higher education
> programs. Brahms, Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein were all
> European, as was their schooling. Since accreditation is unique to
> the States (as European universities are generally chartered by
> their national or provincial governments), your examples are moot.
> In short, Marshall, you're comparing apples with oranges.
>
Your comment was specific to professional accreditation, which is
certainly NOT unique to the 'States, and to the professional credibility
of those who have not graduated from accredited (or, presumably,
otherwise recognised) programmes.
>2. Assuming for a moment that these four leaders in their fields were
> American, all (except for Einstein) received their educations - and
> performed most of their major accomplishments - prior to the firm
> establishment of accreditation. The six regional accrediting
> associations that are recognized by the U.S. Department of
> Education, for example, were established between 1885 and 1924,
> after most of their education and/or accomplishments took place.
>
See above.
>3. Except for Brahms (who studied with prominent musicians such as
> Marxsen and Schumann before developing his own style) and Freud (who
> studied with leading thinkers in the *still-young* field of
> psychology such as von Brucke, Meynert, Breuer, and Charcot), their
> university educations were also European: Nietzsche at Bonn and
> Leipzig (from which he received his doctorate in 1869), Pasteur
> through the Lille Faculty of Science, and Einstein at the Swiss
> Federal Institute of Technology (the Zurich Polytechnic) and the
> University of Zurich (from which he received his doctorate in 1905).
>
Your will, I am sure, forgive me if I do you an injustice, but it appers
to me that you have copied that data from a cheap encyclopaedia.
I wondered how much you knew about the history of non-traditional
education and if, as appears to be the case, you are ignorant of the
significance of those individuals to the field, you must know very
little.
I will give you a starter; Nietzsche was awarded his doctorate by the
University of Leipzig on the basis of past work and without examination,
and only AFTER he had been appointed to the chair of Classical
Philosophy at Basel (although by your definitions, that makes Nietzsche
a fraud, Leipzig a diploma mill and as for Basel...well!)
Let's see what, if anything, you can do with the others.
>4. You have also obviously not taken into consideration the fact that,
> in their time, primary education was far more comprehensive and
> scholarly in both Europe and the States than it is today. When
> Freud was still a youngster, for example, he *already* had a
> comprehensive understanding of English, Greek, Latin, French, and
> German classics. (I'm sure you would know, Marshall, that in
> Freud's day students read these works in their original languages.)
> Even here in the States, during colonial times one had to be able to
> speak, read, and write English, Latin, and Greek in order to be
> admitted to a university. (Hell, I didn't even have to take a
> modern language in college, let alone a classical language.)
>
Of what relevance is that?
>So, Marshall, since it's obvious that I have, indeed, "heard of" Brahms,
>Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein, let me turn your question back
>to you with a new angle . . .
>
>If Brahms, Freud, Nietzsche, Pasteur, and Einstein were young adults in
>the United States today, would they still be able to received as sound
>an education, teach at the university level, and ultimately make the
>contributions to the world that each of them made if they did *not* opt
>for regionally accredited institutions?
>
My examples were deliberately historic; it is becoming easier, not
harder, to attain academic and professional goals by unconventional
pathways, and those who do so are more readily accepted now than
hitherto.
>I hardly think so.
>
>And, even if one looks at some of today's successful "stars" whose names
>have popped up in this newsgroup and who do not have accredited degrees,
>whether the computer advances of a Steve Jobs, the entrepreneurial
>skills of a Don Lapre, or the motivational and counseling success of a
>Barbara DeAngelis - one must admit that they are the exceptions, not the
>rule, and that none of them have made the same contributions to the
>world, its culture, and its science as those you have cited.
They, together with those I have cited, are all exceptions to your
sweeping and misleading generalisations. How many more will it take
before you moderate your tone?
--
Marshall Rice
wdh...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Marshall Rice <msr...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
*****
>
>I wondered how much you knew about the history of non-traditional
>education and if, as appears to be the case, you are ignorant of the
>significance of those individuals to the field, you must know very
>little.
>
>I will give you a starter; Nietzsche was awarded his doctorate by the
>University of Leipzig on the basis of past work and without examination,
>and only AFTER he had been appointed to the chair of Classical
>Philosophy at Basel (although by your definitions, that makes Nietzsche
>a fraud, Leipzig a diploma mill and as for Basel...well!)
>
>Let's see what, if anything, you can do with the others.
>
Marshall,
The way I see it is those individuals whom you refer to were *already*
outstandng in their fields. They had already proven their great contributions.
I can hardly compare them to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill graduate of
unaccredited institutions. Your logic is faulty because you are relying on the
fact that those great individuals received non-traditional education, that
non-traditional education makes great individuals.
Dennis Huber