AICS: A Degree Mill?
Steve Levicoff
on their responses to the "Mother of All Moratoriums" post. Talk about
pushing buttons . . .
Now I'd like to break my own moratorium with a brief comment on AICS.
As many readers know, several years ago I developed a set of criteria
that can be used to identify degree mills. Now consisting of 72 points,
the "NIFI Criteria" (the term comes from one of my books, "Name It &
Frame It") can be found at http://levicoff.tripod.com/criteria/htm. The
criteria are based, in large part, on the principle of using a school's
primary source materials to detect the "red flags" that would indicate
it is a degree mill.
Over the past week, I have reviewed AICS' web site (http://www.aics.edu)
somewhat extensively. From that review, and based on my own criteria, I
thought it appropriate to revisit the question, "Is AICS a degree
mill?" And the answer is . . .
No.
Now, don't get me wrong. The history of AICS alone has always led me to
believe that the school is somewhat sleazy, and that hasn't changed. I
am far from endorsing AICS, and would advise them not to hold their
breath.
However, based on their presentation, content, program outlines,
accreditation claims, and other factors inherent on their web site,
there is little that would indicate that, under the NIFI criteria, AICS
is a degree mill. There are still some major weaknesses in the school,
especially (1) that its administration has only minimal academic
qualifications, (2) that it does not appear to have a significant
*academic* administration at all, (3) that full credentials are not
listed for its adjunct faculty, and (4) that the illusion of its
"virtual campus" is a joke. However, the major indicators of AICS being
a degree mill - again, under the NIFI criteria - are simply not there.
Now, let's keep these comments in perspective. AICS is certainly *not*
what we could consider a college or university, and its degrees mill
never be viewed the the credibility of any established college or
university. AICS is a trade school, thus its degrees could be viewed in
the same framework as, say, those of ITT, ICS (now Harcourt), NRI,
DeVry, or other trade/technical schools. I don't expect someone to
become, say, a liberal arts scholar at any of the other schools,
regardless of time spent in residence or the accreditation claims of
those schools, but I wouldn't expect the same from AICS even if it
didn't have the sordid history of having been founded by the Clayton
gang.
In terms of its DETC accreditation, that's between them and DETC. DETC
has historically accredited trade and technical schools (remember the
"Draw Sparky the squirrel" ads? That school has been accredited by DETC
for many years). Perhaps, then, the key question is the value of DETC's
accreditation on NON-trade/technical schools such as AMU, U. St.
Augustine, or the several religious schools they accredit. (That's
merely a question presented for exploration. I have neither the time
nor interest in following up on it myself.)
In short, I believe that DETC's accreditation is meaningless. Are they
an accrediting mill? Of course not. Are they credible? Not in my
opinion - Mike Lambert's convoluted responses are the type of pure
bullshit that comes from many nonprofit adminstrators I have known for
years.
But back to the key question here: Is AICS, in its current incarnation,
a degree mill according to the criteria that I have used for several
years now? Afraid not, campers.
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://levicoff.tripod.com
------------------------------
pcovers
I’m happy to report that I have found something about which
Steve and I can agree. The AICS web page graphics are at best,
unfortunate. I mean…is it gothic..and if so, why? I just don’t
get it. Despite my support of AICS and its programs...they've
gotta make sure whoever had anything to do with the theme of
their web site has nothing to do with the next one.
>--
> ,-~~-.___.
> / | ' \
> ( ) 0
> \_/-, ,----'
> ==== //
> / \-'~; /~~~(O)
> / __/~| / |
> =( _____| (_________|
>------------------------------
Steve and I also agree on his choice of a mascot. Snoopy is
certainly a lovable character. And he’s drawn by a DETC
graduate. Yes, Charles Schultz was also apparently interested in
distance education. Not distance academia perhaps...but then
this ng is about education not academia, isn’t it.
Paul C.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Roland E. Pittman
Consider that there are many good regionally accredited colleges whose presidents do not hold earned doctorates. Compare this with the several degree mills whose presidents actually hold credibly earned doctorates. I am sure that you can immediately think of several. Need we mention the one man degree mills whose president holds numerous bogus doctorates?
I agree with Steve that AICS is comparible with ICS, CIE, etc. After all, is not this what DETC was designed to accredit? So, what is the big deal?
Steve Levicoff wrote:
<snip>
As many readers know, several years ago I developed a set of criteria
that can be used to identify degree mills. Now consisting of 72 points,
the "NIFI Criteria" (the term comes from one of my books, "Name It &
Frame It") can be found at http://levicoff.tripod.com/criteria/htm. The
criteria are based, in large part, on the principle of using a school's
primary source materials to detect the "red flags" that would indicate
it is a degree mill.
<snip>
However, based on their presentation, content, program outlines,
accreditation claims, and other factors inherent on their web site,
there is little that would indicate that, under the NIFI criteria, AICS
is a degree mill. There are still some major weaknesses in the school,
especially (1) that its administration has only minimal academic
qualifications, (2) that it does not appear to have a significant
*academic* administration at all, (3) that full credentials are not
listed for its adjunct faculty, and (4) that the illusion of its
"virtual campus" is a joke. However, the major indicators of AICS being
a degree mill - again, under the NIFI criteria - are simply not there.
<snip>
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
------------------------------
GCM
than just cutting and pasting the same old WAUC blather. Your
last sentence, "Afraid not, campers" reinforces what's been
pretty obvious - that AICS bashing is a popular pasttime around
here, practiced regularly by those with no firsthand knowledge
of AICS.
Steve Levicoff
> >AICS is a trade school, thus its degrees could be viewed in
> >the same framework as, say, those of ITT, ICS (now Harcourt), NRI,
> >DeVry, or other trade/technical schools.
>
> I don't know about that Steve. DeVry is regionally accredited now and has an
> affiliated graduate school (Keller). I'm guessing that their rep is a little
> better than ICS, NRI, etc.
I'm not sure about that, Leon, as there were some negative articles
about DeVry's operations in Canada (I think) a while back that appeared
in both the press and on teh Internet. You might be able to get more
information on this through one of teh search engines.
Nonetheless, my comment is based on the fact that DeVry, like the
others, is geared toward vocational careers. In some states, I would
imagine that they were (or still are) accredited by a trade agency (such
as AATTS) rather than an academic agency, and their primary focus is on
technical and computer careers. Thus, it appears more accurate to group
them with the vocational degree-granting programs than with, say,
liberal arts colleges or universities.
Leon1969
Andy
> others, is geared toward vocational careers. In some states, I would
> imagine that they were (or still are) accredited by a trade agency (such
> as AATTS) rather than an academic agency, and their primary focus is on
> technical and computer careers. Thus, it appears more accurate to group
> them with the vocational degree-granting programs than with, say,
> liberal arts colleges or universities.
>
Why do you continue to segment DETC as inferior to RA? In an era where more
people need higher education and the costs are increasing your views are not
helping to create new alternatives to life long learning that are cost
efficient and attainable to many more people.
Think of what increasing access could do for all people as their is more
understanding and tolerance of other cultures and ideas? I am not saying
knowledge and learning of itself increases wisdom but rather that it can
help us to grow and solve many problems that we as a civilization face.
Andy
Bill Highsmith
Andy wrote in message ...
Hi (I'm not Steve, but:)
Are you assuming that DETC programs are less expensive than RA programs, or
have you researched this? On average, I would expect RA to be more
expensive, but that does not mean that there are not many low-cost RA
alternatives. There have been several extensive threads on this NG about
low-cost RA degree programs. (You don't have to go to Duke; you can go to
Amber.)
Regarding your second paragraph: what does culteral tolerance have to do
with DETC vs. RA? DETC has no lock on cultural sensitivity, as far as I
know. The large, state universities have bent over backwards and sideways
not to be called "insensitive." DETC does accredit some non-U.S. schools,
but that does not make the individual schools more sensitive.
Your question does not make much sense to me. Assuming for the sake of
argument that DETC schools ARE inferior, will they become better because
some sensitive souls choose to overlook their weaknesses? I think that
thoughtful criticism and market forces will compel DETC to improve, not
tolerance of their inferiority.
Regards,
Bill Highsmith
Steve Levicoff
> > Nonetheless, my comment is based on the fact that DeVry, like the
> > others, is geared toward vocational careers. In some states, I would
> > imagine that they were (or still are) accredited by a trade agency (such
> > as AATTS) rather than an academic agency, and their primary focus is on
> > technical and computer careers. Thus, it appears more accurate to group
> > them with the vocational degree-granting programs than with, say,
> > liberal arts colleges or universities.
>
> Hi Steve,
> Why do you continue to segment DETC as inferior to RA?
Hmmmmmmmm . . . I am not aware of any connection the quoted statement
has to DETC at all. Nonetheless, to address your question directly,
"Why do you continue to segment DETC as inferior to RA?" Because DETC
*is* inferior to RA. (Thank you. Thank you very much.)
Seriously, Andy, the issue is not what *I* think of DETC, but what otehr
academic institutions and potential employers think of DETC. And DETC
has never had the status of regional accreditation in either circle.
With that in mind, remember that I used to endorse DETC, albeit pointing
out its limitations in terms of credit transfer and use of
DETC-accredited degrees as a credential for graduate school admission.
There are simply not as many *academic* options to persons with DETC
degrees as there are for those with RA degrees. That's not a moral
judgment, it's simply a fact. It does not mean that DETC is inferior,
merely that its universal acceptance level is less than RA.
And, having said that, I have adapted my opinion of DETC in light of its
accreditation of institions that have historically been degree mills, as
well as its potential abuse by institutions that commit sins of omission
rather tha sins of commission (such as paralegal programs that neglect
to mention that many professional positions require graduation from an
ABA-approved program).
> In an era where more people need higher education and the costs are increasing
> your views are not helping to create new alternatives to life long learning
> that are cost efficient and attainable to many more people.
Of course my views are not helping to create new alternatives; that has
never been the goal of my views. I am a consumer advocate - I point out
the things that are bad, puff the things that are good, and encourage
consumers to make their own *informed* decisions. As to alternatives,
they have always been there - one need only look.
> Think of what increasing access could do for all people as their is more
> understanding and tolerance of other cultures and ideas?
Ummmmmmmm . . . Nice philosophical statement. And meaningless in the
context of discussing DETC. C'mon, Andy, we're talking about intrinsic
program quality, not multiculturalism and philosophy.
> I am not saying knowledge and learning of itself increases wisdom but rather
> that it can help us to grow and solve many problems that we as a civilization
> face.
So, have you ever thought of calling yourself "The Sermonator?" By the
way, if you won't say it, I will: knowledge and learning *do* increase
wisdom.
kg...@my-deja.com
"Andy" <An...@RemoveThis.com> wrote:
>
> Think of what increasing access could do for all people as their is
> not saying knowledge and learning of itself increases wisdom but
> rather that it can help us to grow and solve many problems that we as
> a civilization face.
Didn't I see this in the Modern Gun School's catalog?
Tommy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Huffman
Andy <An...@RemoveThis.com> wrote in message
news:UhOl4.32590$up4.5...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > Nonetheless, my comment is based on the fact that DeVry, like the
> > others, is geared toward vocational careers. In some states, I
would
> > imagine that they were (or still are) accredited by a trade agency
(such
> > as AATTS) rather than an academic agency, and their primary focus is
on
> > technical and computer careers. Thus, it appears more accurate to
group
> > them with the vocational degree-granting programs than with, say,
> > liberal arts colleges or universities.
> >
> Hi Steve,
more
> people need higher education and the costs are increasing your views
are not
> helping to create new alternatives to life long learning that are cost
> efficient and attainable to many more people.
>
more
> understanding and tolerance of other cultures and ideas? I am not
saying
> knowledge and learning of itself increases wisdom but rather that it
can
> help us to grow and solve many problems that we as a civilization
face.
The obvious and simple answer to, "Why do you continue to segment DETC
as inferior to RA?" is that DETC is inferior to RA. I'm not trying to be
combative but, it's the way it is. If you placed the reputations of all
the RA schools on a scale with all the DETC schools wouldn't the vast
majority of RA schools be above the DETC schools? To me that means that
DETC is inferior to RA.
Joseph Wang
Bill Huffman <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>The obvious and simple answer to, "Why do you continue to segment DETC
>as inferior to RA?" is that DETC is inferior to RA. I'm not trying to be
>combative but, it's the way it is. If you placed the reputations of all
>the RA schools on a scale with all the DETC schools wouldn't the vast
>majority of RA schools be above the DETC schools?
I've got several problems with this statement.....
1) You are phrasing this as a question, which suggests that you
haven't done the experiment.
2) The vast majority of RA schools don't have a broadly known
reputation. What for example is the reputation of Austin Community
College. Chances are that most people outside of Texas haven't
heard of it, which makes it really difficult to compare with say
Central Florida Community College.
3) My experience has been that there is not that strong a correlation
between reputation and educational quality.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang Ph.D. Globewide Network Academy
pres...@gnacademy.org FREE Distance Education catalog database
http://www.gnacademy.org Over 20,000 courses and degrees
pcovers
apples with practical oranges. In my experience and research, it
appears that the educational objectives of most DETC schools is
focused on providing an outcome that is practical in nature.
Many RA schools focus on an outcome that is academic or
scholarly in nature. These are completely different objectives.
Not better or worse, but different.
Look at the various definitions of academic and one finds
descriptions such as *formalistic and conventional. One
definition says of academic that it is *scholarly to the point
of being unaware of the outside world* and another says
*theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or
intention.
Using these qualifiers, are the academic exercises of RA schools
and the practice over theory bent of DETC schools comparable?
Many might say, thankfully not.
Paul C.
kg...@my-deja.com
pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> It seems this RA is better than DETC argument is mixing academic
> apples with practical oranges. In my experience and research, it
> appears that the educational objectives of most DETC schools is
> focused on providing an outcome that is practical in nature.
> Many RA schools focus on an outcome that is academic or
> scholarly in nature. These are completely different objectives.
> Not better or worse, but different.
>
I couldn't agree more.
> Look at the various definitions of academic and one finds
> descriptions such as *formalistic and conventional. One
> definition says of academic that it is *scholarly to the point
> of being unaware of the outside world* and another says
> *theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or
> intention.
>
> Using these qualifiers, are the academic exercises of RA schools
> and the practice over theory bent of DETC schools comparable?
> Many might say, thankfully not.
>
Agreed again. But "computer science" IS an academic discipline (unlike
PC repair or programming or network administration or any of the other
"practical" areas of study that prospective students think are computer
science). Its practice-over-theory bent is precisely what makes DETC
the wrong accrediting organization for a "real" CS program, especially
at the bachelor's level.
Regards.
Andy
> never been the goal of my views. I am a consumer advocate - I point out
> the things that are bad, puff the things that are good, and encourage
> consumers to make their own *informed* decisions. As to alternatives,
> they have always been there - one need only look.
Thanks for showing me your true opinions. That is what what a healthy
discussion is about.
> > Think of what increasing access could do for all people as their is more
> > understanding and tolerance of other cultures and ideas?
>
> Ummmmmmmm . . . Nice philosophical statement. And meaningless in the
> context of discussing DETC. C'mon, Andy, we're talking about intrinsic
> program quality, not multiculturalism and philosophy.
Were talking about breaking the monopoly that RA has and increasing access
and quality beyond
physical space and time for more people. Learning occurs in the mind not at
a place. Intrinsic Program Quality can happen
over a distance. I appreciate you being a policeman of schools that do not
live up to high standards but you must also show us
how with new technologies that we can live upto the intrinsic program
quality's that you are talking about.
In otherwords start using your imagination and stop constantly criticizing
which is the opposite of creativity to come up with
solutions how we can increase access to more people affordably. I would be
very interested in a system that you can come up with.
I am not talking about DETC or RA here. I am talking about learning in new
ways that is recognized by society.
Its a new millenium, Let's try to think of new structures and use this
newsgroup to build them and not tear them down.
>
> > I am not saying knowledge and learning of itself increases wisdom but
rather
> > that it can help us to grow and solve many problems that we as a
civilization
> > face.
>
> So, have you ever thought of calling yourself "The Sermonator?"
Personal Attacks are your hallmark in this ng- you must have a lot of
wisdom.
You don't need to personally attack me steve to make your point. I never did
that to you.
I try to imagine things that don't exist yet and try to work towards them to
make them come true.
Its called being a visionary. I know from experience that being too
analytical and narrow minded many times is the opposite of creativity and
leads to tunnel vision
and that it never helpes one see new possibilities and solutions.
>By the
> way, if you won't say it, I will: knowledge and learning *do* increase
> wisdom.
Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.
I agree with you that it can help if you can somehow still stay open minded
towards new ideas and things.
Information overload is not going to make us more wiser as a society in
general-It has not to date.
Joseph Wang
pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>It seems this RA is better than DETC argument is mixing academic
>apples with practical oranges.
IMHO the academic versus practical distinction is a false distinction
that is the remnant of an obsolete class structure. Basically
"gentlemen" studied philosophy and abstract things while leaving it to
the lower class "technicians" to actually get their fingers dirty.
It's amazing to me that we still keep these obsolete nineteenth
century class distinctions and beliefs in the 21st century.
>In my experience and research, it appears that the educational
>objectives of most DETC schools is focused on providing an outcome
>that is practical in nature. Many RA schools focus on an outcome
>that is academic or scholarly in nature. These are completely
>different objectives.
So is a distance learning degree in military history from American
Military University somehow less academic and scholarly than a
distance learning degree in transmission repair from the regionally
accreditted Northwestern College?
kg...@my-deja.com
j...@confucius.gnacademy.org (Joseph Wang) wrote:
> In article <10daaaa1...@usw-ex0102-083.remarq.com>,
> pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> >It seems this RA is better than DETC argument is mixing academic
> >apples with practical oranges.
>
> IMHO the academic versus practical distinction is a false distinction
> that is the remnant of an obsolete class structure. Basically
> "gentlemen" studied philosophy and abstract things while leaving it to
> the lower class "technicians" to actually get their fingers dirty.
>
> It's amazing to me that we still keep these obsolete nineteenth
> century class distinctions and beliefs in the 21st century.
>
The obligation of "academic" institutions to to add to different bodies
of knowledge is still a real distinction from "practical"
institutions. It's the "gentlemen" at universities who invent Internet
protocols, web browsers, parallel operating systems and whatnot and the
lower-class "technicians" at Microsoft, Netscape and the computer
manufacturers, for example, who adapt them for the public and market
them.
John Bear
> Why do you continue to segment DETC as inferior to RA?
My reply is that it *is* demonstrably inferior in acceptance in the
academic community. Evaluating DETC's standards is subjective and subject
to debate. But not their acceptance in the academic world.
The simple fact is that Regents College and Thomas Edison State College,
the two most prominent regionally-accredited distance learning schools, do
not accept credit and degrees from DETC-accredited schools.
I happen to disagree with this policy; others clearly support it. But in
terms of the usefulness of DETC, it cannot be ignored.
--
John Bear, co-author, Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees
Non-Traditionally
pcovers
>
>Agreed again. But "computer science" IS an academic discipline
Just because the word *science* is used does not necessitate
that it is more academic than practical. This is a matter of
semantics and there is wide latitude in the application of its
use.
> (unlike
>PC repair or programming or network administration or any of
the other
>"practical" areas of study that prospective students think are
computer
>science). Its practice-over-theory bent is precisely what makes
DETC
>the wrong accrediting organization for a "real" CS program,
>especially at the bachelor's level.
I'm intrigued by the use of the word *wrong*, as in *wrong
accrediting organization*. What do you see in the DETC
accreditation standards and procedures that identify its
inability to assess what you define as a *real* CS program?
kg...@my-deja.com
pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> >Agreed again. But "computer science" IS an academic discipline
>
> Just because the word *science* is used does not necessitate
> that it is more academic than practical. This is a matter of
> semantics and there is wide latitude in the application of its
> use.
>
As far as "science" is concerned, I guess so. There is a good deal of
consensus about the definition of "computer science," though, and a
good deal of misuse.
> > (unlike PC repair or programming or network administration or any of
> > the other "practical" areas of study that prospective students
> > think are computer science). Its practice-over-theory bent is
> > precisely what makes DETC the wrong accrediting organization for a
> > "real" CS program, especially at the bachelor's level.
>
> I'm intrigued by the use of the word *wrong*, as in *wrong
> accrediting organization*. What do you see in the DETC
> accreditation standards and procedures that identify its
> inability to assess what you define as a *real* CS program?
>
First let me repeat what I've said on other threads that I'm only
talking about baccalaureate-level programs. I have no problem with DETC
accreditation of certificate or master's programs.
My beef with the DETC standards in BSCS programs in particular is
pretty well summed up by your first paragraph. In the DETC world there
IS wide latitude in the use of the term "computer science," to the
point that its definition is a marketing decision. It can mean anything
the school owners say it means so long as the program is "educationally
sound" and "up-to-date."
In the RA world, "faculty governance" standards ensure that this
decision is made by faculty. The two major models that they build on
are the "Proposed Criteria" of the Computer Sciences Accreditation
Commission
and "A Model Curriculum for a Liberal Arts Degree in Computer Science"
from the Liberal Arts Computer Science Consortium (a 1996 draft is
available at
http://www.math.grin.edu/~walker/model-curriculum.txt.
Other versions are available in the journal _Communications of the ACM_
over the years.) The CSAB/CSAC standard is pretty rigid and engineering-
oriented while the Liberal Arts Computer Science Consortium program is
less so. The typical program falls somewhere in betwen the two.
Not being an owner of a DETC-accredited computer science program, MY
definition of a "real computer science" curriculum doesn't count for
much. FWIW I'd say it would look pretty much like the AICS BSCS program
with the math and laboratory science put back in.
pcovers
>Yes...what else needs to be said, except maybe: "go ahead and
pound nails
>into your head while you wait for the world to love DETC."
>
>Bill Highsmith
>
Bill, two questions:
Who is it that represents the *world*?
What's *love* got to do with it?
Joseph Wang
Bill Huffman <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote:
>Generally two things are desired when earning a
>degree. An education and the ability to leverage the degree by adding it
>to one's credentials. For the latter use reputation of the school
>paramount. I believe that the reputations of the schools with DETC
>accreditation are as a whole lower than the reputations of the schools
>with RA.
I think this strongly depends on the school. If, for example, one
were applying for a job as an intelligence analyst, a degree in
military history from American Military University would be much more
useful than an associate degree in general studies from a regionally
accreditted university.
Now if your point is that credits and degrees from DETC institutions
are less transferable than credits and degrees from regionally
accreditted institutions, I agree with you, and someone putting
together an educational program should take this matter into account.
However, I do think that its a mistake to assume that this difficulty
in transferability represents anything more than snobbery or is a sign
of inferiority in any educational sense.
Joseph Wang
>The obligation of "academic" institutions to to add to different bodies
>of knowledge is still a real distinction from "practical"
>institutions.
It's a really fuzzy one. A lot of "pure research" is done by
corporations. Universities are starting to encourage people to start
their own companies.
>It's the "gentlemen" at universities who invent Internet
>protocols, web browsers, parallel operating systems
Not so clean. A lot of the work on protocols and operating systems
were done by AT&T.
>and what not and the lower-class "technicians" at Microsoft, Netscape
>and the computer manufacturers, for example, who adapt them for the
>public and market them.
So you think that Bill Gates is lower-class than Tim Berners-Lee for
example.
Joseph Wang
Bill Highsmith <bhigh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yes...what else needs to be said, except maybe: "go ahead and pound nails
>into your head while you wait for the world to love DETC."
Probably not such a long wait. There is a huge amount of pressure
from government and industry to find some mechanism to deal with the
transfer credit problem. If WGU succeeds then one can start taking
courses at AICS with a view toward getting a credential from WGU.
(In fact, this might be a good option right now.)
kg...@my-deja.com
j...@confucius.gnacademy.org (Joseph Wang) wrote:
> In article <87ag24$97e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <kg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >The obligation of "academic" institutions to to add to different
> >bodies of knowledge is still a real distinction from "practical"
> >institutions.
>
> It's a really fuzzy one. A lot of "pure research" is done by
> corporations. Universities are starting to encourage people to start
> their own companies.
>
> >It's the "gentlemen" at universities who invent Internet
> >protocols, web browsers, parallel operating systems
>
> Not so clean. A lot of the work on protocols and operating systems
> were done by AT&T.
>
Well, Bell Labs anyway. And of course a lot of new stuff was done by
the various "PARC" groups from Xerox, Sun and others. But my
understanding was that most of these were separate entities from the
operating businesses.
I'm still pretty sure that the "bleeding edge" for Windows NT, for
example, was Carnegie Mellon's Mach, and that Netscape and Explorer are
enhancements of U of Illinois NSCA's early web browsers. When I log on
to my HP-UX system, I see copyright notices from HP, Sun, Novell, DEC
and Motorola, but also from University of California, MIT, Cornell,
Maryland and Carnegie Mellon. The few times I've been deep enough into
the operating system to see which stuff is whose, the corporate
copyrights have tended to be on implementation-specific versions of
standard Unix (??) features.
> >and what not and the lower-class "technicians" at Microsoft, Netscape
> >and the computer manufacturers, for example, who adapt them for the
> >public and market them.
>
> So you think that Bill Gates is lower-class than Tim Berners-Lee for
> example.
>
Well, I'm pretty sure Tim Berners-Lee is a gentleman. ;->
Joseph Wang
pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
>I'm intrigued by the use of the word *wrong*, as in *wrong
>accrediting organization*. What do you see in the DETC
>accreditation standards and procedures that identify its
>inability to assess what you define as a *real* CS program?
I'm curious about that statement too. It seems to me that neither
DETC nor regional accreditors have the expertise to evaluate a CS
program based on content. So neither try. In both the DETC and
regional accreditation case, the evaluations are based largely in
institutional procedures under the theory that good procedures lead to
good outcomes.
I don't see anything in the DETC procedures that would make it more
suitable for "practical" schools rather than "academic" ones. If this
were the case, then why are regional accreditors evaluating community
colleges and high schools?
I should point out that when I hear people talk about "academic" and
"vocational" schools being equal, I'm reminded of the phrase "separate
but equal" which was used to justify segregation in the old South.
People will talk about how academic and vocational tracks are equal,
but if you look at where the money, power, and prestige go, and the
implicit messages that are being sent out (how many high school
guidance counselors would recommend that a straight-A student go into
transmission repair), this equality is a sham.
kg...@my-deja.com
j...@confucius.gnacademy.org (Joseph Wang) wrote:
> In article <09d3506c...@usw-ex0102-083.remarq.com>,
> pcovers <pcovers...@usa.net.invalid> wrote:
> >I'm intrigued by the use of the word *wrong*, as in *wrong
> >accrediting organization*. What do you see in the DETC
> >accreditation standards and procedures that identify its
> >inability to assess what you define as a *real* CS program?
>
> I'm curious about that statement too. It seems to me that neither
> DETC nor regional accreditors have the expertise to evaluate a CS
> program based on content. So neither try. In both the DETC and
> regional accreditation case, the evaluations are based largely in
> institutional procedures under the theory that good procedures lead to
> good outcomes.
>
I agree with all of that. My reservations about DETC accreditation
arise from the ultimate authority of school owners to determine
curriculum, as opposed to the authority vested in faculty curriculum
committees by RA accreditation.
None of this is to say that all RA BSCS programs are superior to all
DETC BSCS programs (there are only two or three of the latter -
Grantham, AICS and maybe CNU). But I do think that faculty, especially
in consensus, are less likely than proprietors to dumb down a program
in response to market demand. That's only an opinion, of course.
> I don't see anything in the DETC procedures that would make it more
> suitable for "practical" schools rather than "academic" ones. If this
> were the case, then why are regional accreditors evaluating community
> colleges and high schools?
>
> I should point out that when I hear people talk about "academic" and
> "vocational" schools being equal, I'm reminded of the phrase "separate
> but equal" which was used to justify segregation in the old South.
> People will talk about how academic and vocational tracks are equal,
> but if you look at where the money, power, and prestige go, and the
> implicit messages that are being sent out (how many high school
> guidance counselors would recommend that a straight-A student go into
> transmission repair), this equality is a sham.
>
I have no idea what I'm doing in the "academic vs. practical"
discussion, at least as far as computer science is concerned. I have no
idea what "practical computer science" would be. In fact, IMO the
phrase is oxymoronic.
kg...@my-deja.com
Bill Highsmith
pcovers wrote in message <15b5d307...@usw-ex0102-083.remarq.com>...
>news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Bill Highsmith"
>
>>Yes...what else needs to be said, except maybe: "go ahead and
>pound nails
>>into your head while you wait for the world to love DETC."
>>
>>
>
>Bill, two questions:
>
>Who is it that represents the *world*?
Good question, pcovers. The one above isn't much of a song title...may I
suggest changing it to, oh, "We Are the World." However, I really like the
one below:
>What's *love* got to do with it?
Got to do with it?
What's *love* but a second hand e-mo-tion....
chri...@my-deja.com
levi...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Leon1969 wrote:
>
> > >AICS is a trade school, thus its degrees could be viewed in
> > >the same framework as, say, those of ITT, ICS (now Harcourt), NRI,
> > >DeVry, or other trade/technical schools.
> >
and has an
> > affiliated graduate school (Keller). I'm guessing that their rep is
a little
> > better than ICS, NRI, etc.
>
> about DeVry's operations in Canada (I think) a while back that
appeared
> in both the press and on teh Internet. You might be able to get more
> information on this through one of teh search engines.
>
>> Just read my posts from the past and present to get the skinny on
>> Devry. Charged for loan fraud. Paid $6.9 Million. Loans issued in
>> 1995/1996 1871. LOANS ISSUED 1996/1997 only 381. 2/3 less. Like I
>> said look at my past post and then respond in you like.
Larry McQueary
<kg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87ct53$v6n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[ snip ]
> Well, I'm pretty sure Tim Berners-Lee is a gentleman. ;->
Of identifiable patrilineage :-)
Larry