Greenwich University
K. Lyn
accredited? Am considering pursuing a Master's in nursing.
Thanks for your input.
Maxie
Greenwich has never been accredited in the U.S. It appeared on Australian
soil in January this year with immediate self-accreditation status through
an Act passed (the nine member legislative assembly passed it unanimously
and the Minister for Territories - Ian McDonald, assented to the
legislation) on the self-governing territory of Norfolk Island. There is
much furore in Australia over its status at the moment and it is being
reviewed by a committee set-up up by the Australian Qualifications Framework
Advisory Board (AQFAB).
Prime Minister John Howard promised the review would be ready by June - we
are still waiting. I am not going to hold my breath.
Maxie
K. Lyn <ker...@cypertrails.com> wrote in message
news:9XMv3.27$Xq7.89...@mick.cybertrails.com...
P J French
Maxie <ma...@aol.com> wrote in message news:37bf...@news.chariot.net.au...
> Don't you have any accredited Masters Degrees in Nursing in Phoenix
Arizona?
>
> Greenwich has never been accredited in the U.S. It appeared on Australian
> soil in January this year with immediate self-accreditation status through
> an Act passed (the nine member legislative assembly passed it unanimously
> and the Minister for Territories - Ian McDonald, assented to the
> legislation) on the self-governing territory of Norfolk Island. There is
> much furore in Australia over its status at the moment and it is being
> reviewed by a committee set-up up by the Australian Qualifications
Framework
> Advisory Board (AQFAB).
>
> Prime Minister John Howard promised the review would be ready by June - we
> are still waiting. I am not going to hold my breath.
>
light, or a special green light as a virtual university.
I have had my money on that for some time.
This is not a statement of my opinion, but the chances as I see them.
Then.....................
P J French
Steve Levicoff
>Anyone have any experience with Greenwich University? Are it's degrees
>accredited? Am considering pursuing a Master's in nursing.
>Thanks for your input.
Greenwich University is, IMO, a degree mill. Despite its very shady
reputation (having been discussed much here on the newsgroup, with
previous posts available on DejaNews at http://www.deja.com), one could
theoretically parlay even one of its mickey-mouse degrees to his or her
advantage in perhaps any field EXCEPT nursing, in which most
institutions require that degrees be notr only regionally accredited,
but also approved by the NLN. Needless to say, Greenwich has neither
accreditation nor NLN approval.
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
-----------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.tripod.com/~levicoff
-----------------------------------
Larry McQueary
point needs serious help. It's unfortunate that he feels the need to bring John
Bear down with Greenwich in this manner.
Larry
John Bear <jo...@ursa.net> wrote in message
news:john-29089...@coat27.ppp.lmi.net...
> "A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > The few faculty members at Greenwich whose publication records I have
> > examined all seem to have few or no publications in the peer-reviewed
> > academic literature.
>
> Oh, good: something verifiable. May we learn the names of those faculty
> members whose publication records you have reviewed?
>
> Many thanks.
>
> John Bear, who personally hired about
> 40 Greenwich adjunct faculty in 1990-1991,
> every single one of whom were full-time
> faculty at a regionally-accredited university,
> and who is really annoyed at feeling defensive
> about Greenwich. I am, as expressed here many
> times, uncomfortable with their present claims.
> But in my day, and that is what Mr. Fox refers
> to as well, it was a decent unaccredited school
> that never made a false or misleading claim, and
> met the very limited needs of a small number of
> students.
John Bear
Chip
I am certainly no fan of Greenwich in its present attempted "end run" to
gain legitimacy, but let's at least be *slightly* accurate:
> Greenwich Unviersity (Australia) is a degree mill. It has a long and
> checkered history of selling useless degrees by mail order and now over
> the internet.
Unaccredited, yes. Operating out of Hawaii, yes. But I'm convinced that, at
least at one time, the faculty that taught there was providing at least some
quality education.
>
> See the long customer review of a book by John Bear, former president of
> GU when it was a sham-accredited Hawaiian degree mill before it was
> stripped of accreditation by the Pacific Association of
> Schools and Colleges in 1995 (the year our "Dr." Saul got his "Ph.D."
from
> GU)
Methinks you're caught with your pants down relying on a questionable
secondary source without bothering to do your homework.
GU was never "sham-accredited". It never claimed accreditation at all. And
I'll be very interested to learn more about the stripping of accreditation
by the Pacific Association of Schools and Colleges, since no such
organization exists.
And if you're basing your statements on the "review" of Vaso Bovan, be aware
that the guy is a looney tune, someone that has displayed absolutely no
logical thinking skills in his short tenure here at a.e.d (where he got
laughed out of the forum almost instantly)
>
> GU offers "degrees" in such bogus "medical" fields as "Consciousness
> Studies," "Depth Psychology & New Mysticism," "Energy Medicine,"
All of which are offered at dozens of regionally accredited schools,
traditional and distance-based, that have programs in transpersonal
psychology.
> and "Applied Ecopsychology & Integrated Ecology."
Again, these are degrees that are offered by at least a handful of
regionally accredited schools. My guess is that you know nothing about any
of these fields, and condemn them without seeking to understand the academic
discipline behind them.
I will agree that the entire Norfolk Island situation reeks, and I *do*
think that the authorities were "caught with their pants down" ... and I
expect that when the actual evaluation of the school happens, it will be
found deficient compared to all of the established, legitimate Australian
schools. But let's *not* mix fact, fiction, unsubstantiated opinion and
ignorance in with truth.
Larry McQueary
Gee willikers, I don't necessarily find that to be 'standard usenet etiquette'.
I think most people would have sent you personal email if you had attempted to
smear them (inadvertently or otherwise).
Larry
A. Fox <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.990829...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Bear
>
> Please observe standard netiquette and send all replies to me to the
> newsgroup but not to my private email address. I get too much personal
> email as it is!
>
> I will try to post my reviews of several GU faculty CVs later this week.
>
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Aaron Fox
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, John Bear wrote:
>
> > (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> > alt.education.distance)
> ______________________________________________________________
> Aaron A. Fox
> Assistant Professor of Music (Ethnomusicology)
> Columbia University
> email: aa...@columbia.edu
> web: http://www.music.columbia.edu/~cecenter/afindex.html
>
>
>
Steve Levicoff
>Dear Mr. Bear
>
>Please observe standard netiquette and send all replies to me to the
>newsgroup but not to my private email address. I get too much
>personal email as it is!
>
>I will try to post my reviews of several GU faculty CVs later this
>week.
>
>Thanks and best wishes
>
>Aaron A. Fox
>Assistant Professor of Music (Ethnomusicology)
>Columbia University
> email: aa...@columbia.edu
> web: http://www.music.columbia.edu/~cecenter/afindex.html
Aaron, bubaleh, we are delighted to welcome you to our merry band of
degree-mill ball-busters. Your posts thus far, albeit a bit
anal-compulsive, seem to be right on in your analysis.
However, "standard netiquette" (a term that is usually defined in the
eyes of each beholder) be damned! John Bear has always engaged in the
courtesy of copying a post directly to the person to whom he responds,
and those of us who are at least as busy as you are appreciate that
courtesy, lest we miss a relevant post.
Moreover, the notion that you sent your personal note to John on a
public forum is not only gauche, it's tacky. Tacky, tacky, tacky.
Finally, as a an assistant professor at a major university, you should
certainly have the sense to engage in appropriate academic protocol
when addressing *Doctor* Bear. Hell, man, I' a first-name person all
the way, but when one uses the surname of a person with a Ph.D., he or
she should not add oil to the fire with a nonprofessional title.
Now, let's try again, shall we?
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
-----------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.tripod.com/~levicoff
-----------------------------------
Sent to the newsgroup *and* via
e-mail, just because Aaron needed to
have his own balls busted . . . once.
Dr. S.
netiquette. May I invite those interested to read some of Aaron's
postings on misc.health.alternative since, oh, August 13 or so?
I must say that it is Dr. Bear who is entitled by his long and
gentlemanly posting history to do any remedial instruction, and that
our good friend Aaron may perhaps need some.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908291548200.19249-
100...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>,
"A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mr. Bear
>
> Please observe standard netiquette and send all replies to me to the
> newsgroup but not to my private email address. I get too much
personal
> email as it is!
>
> I will try to post my reviews of several GU faculty CVs later this
week.
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Aaron A. Fox
> Assistant Professor of Music (Ethnomusicology)
> Columbia University
> email: aa...@columbia.edu
> web: http://www.music.columbia.edu/~cecenter/afindex.html
>
>
--
References from the scientific literature on
vitamin/nutritional therapeutics at
http://www.doctoryourself.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dr. S.
>
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Gee willikers, I don't necessarily find that to be 'standard usenet
etiquette'.
> >
> > I think most people would have sent you personal email if you had
attempted to
> > smear them (inadvertently or otherwise).
> >
> > Larry
> >
>
either by
> my description of Greenwich University, (with which he seems to
concur) or
> by my use of the phrase "standard netiquette." As I have explained,
my
> understanding of netiquette includes the provision "reply to newsgroup
> postings on the newsgroup unless personal email is solicited." My
tone
> was meant to sound polite, not testy. I sincerely do not want to
receive
> a few dozen extra emails a day, and that's all I meant.
>
> If you examine the language of my post, you will see I was
> formal and polite and not sarcastic.
>
> Apologies for any offense caused -- it was certainly not intended.
>
> Aaron Fox (AF)
Dr. S.
moment.
His last two weeks' postings on other newsgroups, such as
misc.health.alternative, simply must be considered required reading at
this point.
Dr. S.
in.
To get fully informed on Aaron's less than rosy appraisal of Greenwich
University, may I refer you to his postings directly attacking
Greenwich graduates on misc.health.alternative.
In article <7qc0n3$36k$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
--
Dr. S.
My website http://www.doctoryourself.com is an alternative health/self-
care site. In addition to a fragment of my 170 page dissertation for
my er, ah, "degree mill" Greenwich PhD, I also post about 200
references in support and chapters from my two books, the most recent
of which received favorable review in the latest TOWNSEND LETTER FOR
DOCTORS AND PATIENTS (Aug-Sept 1999, p 151-2). The review is posted at
the site, also.
And again, Aaron, I teach at Genesee, not Geneseo; at SUNY Brockport it
was health science, not biology; and neither of these SUNY schools are
what we 'round here consider "podunck" (your word choice), as GCC has
an enrollment 4,000 full and part-timers and Brockport's enrollment is
over 10,000.
Golly, my friend, if you think these SUNY units are podunck, of course
you would have the most serious reservations about distance education.
Until Columbia does it right.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908281904390.26183-
100...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
"A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Aug 1999, Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
> > "K. Lyn" <ker...@cypertrails.com> writes:
> >
> > >Anyone have any experience with Greenwich University? Are it's
degrees
> > >accredited? Am considering pursuing a Master's in nursing.
> > >Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Greenwich University is, IMO, a degree mill. Despite its very shady
> > reputation (having been discussed much here on the newsgroup, with
> > previous posts available on DejaNews at http://www.deja.com), one
could
> > theoretically parlay even one of its mickey-mouse degrees to his or
her
> > advantage in perhaps any field EXCEPT nursing, in which most
> > institutions require that degrees be notr only regionally
accredited,
> > but also approved by the NLN. Needless to say, Greenwich has
neither
> > accreditation nor NLN approval.
>
> You are exactly right. Greenwich is and has always been a degree
mill.
> The ruse under which it has recently become a "self-accredited"
> institution on Norfolk Island, a godforsaken place in desperate need
of
> any economic development, is a veritable parable in con artistry. I
will
> post, following this message, some research I have done on Greenwich
> University.
>
> Of course, there is a character posting to this newsgroup who calls
> himself "Doctor" Andy Saul, and who claims to have a Ph.D. from
Greenwich,
> earned however in the years BEFORE GU was even "self-accredited" on
> Norfolk Island, and during the period when GU was being driven out of
> Hawaii by a reform of the degree mill business in that state. "Dr."
Saul
> has also claimed (on his website) to be (or have been, the claim
varies)
> an "Assistant Professor of Biology" at the State University of New
York
> (Brockport and Geneseo campuses) when it turns out (I have queried
both
> departments) he has never been anything more than an *Adjunct*
Assistant
> Professor, which is an entirely different thing. The chairs of both
> departments have explained to me that adjuncts need only have an MA,
which
> Saul apparently does have from a legitimate university (in
education), but
> that neither department has recognized his Greenwich U. "Ph.D." since
GU
> is not accredited from the perspective of US universities. "Dr."
Saul
> has also posted a portion of his "dissertation" on his website, which
> amounts to perhaps 10 double-spaced pages. Since GU does not file its
> dissertations with UMI, and because no work of "Dr." Saul's is
available
> in any university library catalog or database I have searched (which
is
> nearly all of them), it is unclear whether the "excerpt" published
on hiw
> website is most or even all of his dissertation or a small abstract or
> sample. He has refused to answer the question, or to send an
electronic
> copy of his entire actual dissertation to me or a neutral third party
to
> confirm that a "dissertation" in "human ethology" at "Greenwich
> University" is actually significantly more substantial than a
> badly-written ten page paper. In my experience, and I have served on
> several dozen dissertation committees at 5 major US universities, most
> dissertations (except in mathematics and physics and some engineering
> fields) should be at least 250 pages, and most are longer.
>
> The few faculty members at Greenwich whose publication records I have
> examined all seem to have few or no publications in the peer-reviewed
> academic literature.
>
> GU offers courses in a number of "disciplines" which have little or
no
> basis in modern science.
>
> The requirements for the various degrees at GU are minimla in terms of
> credit hours or subject coverage.
>
> Why would anyone waste his or her money on this, unless they wanted
to buy
> the dubious "right" to call themselves "Doctor X, Ph.D." on the
internet
> or among their more gullible friends and neighbors? The advanced
degrees
> from GU are otherwise of no professional value.
>
> I don't mean to sound elitist, and I have nothing in pricinple against
> distance learning, which is one of the most exciting possibilities
offered
> by new technologies (in fact, my university is actively working on a
DL
> program). But the fact is that a degree mill like
Greenwich "University"
> cheapens the value of all real degrees earned by sweat and tears at
real,
> accredited schools which require students actually to meet certain
> intellectual standards. So places like GU hurt legitimate DL
institutions
> and their degree holders just as much as they hurt the traditional on-
site
> institutions. A Ph.D. should not be as easy to get as a driver's
license.
>
> Aaron Fox
Larry McQueary
Does any of this take away from the fact that Greenwich is a degree mill?
Larry
Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com> wrote in message news:7qcmrp$pd1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Steve Levicoff
I happen to agree fully with your analysis of Greenwich University, and
have called them a degree mill since the first edition of my book "Name
It & Frame It." In fact, one of the first lawsuit threats I had was
from the distinguished (at least in name) John Walsh of Branaugh. (As
usual, I laughed my ass off at him, and never heard from him again.)
Nonetheless, I do have a question in light of the fact that virtually
*all* of your posts here address Greenwich (which has been addressed on
the newsgroup on a regular basis over the years): Why?
Nothing personal, dude, but Greenwich seems to be an obsession with
you. The notion that the school is a degree mill is well established,
and most newsgroup readers (including me) concur. But why harp over
this one measly, insignificant school?
Dr. S.
I think the tactics of detractors says something of their biases.
A call from Aaron Fox for nettiquitte from John Bear or others who send
him personal emails seems odd when Aaron literally, and publically,
launched a personal attack against me pretty much because of
Greenwich.
How, then, to have an honest discussion?
In article <ajly3.15898$vu2....@news.rdc1.tx.home.com>,
Dr. S.
confined himself to public denouncements and muckraking personal
letters to my past and present college chairperson and/or dean!
I apologize for being suprised at such behavior.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908292330440.21215-
100...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu>,
"A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Dr. S. wrote:
>
> > I was particularly moved by Aaron Fox's call to John Bear to use
better
> > netiquette. May I invite those interested to read some of Aaron's
> > postings on misc.health.alternative since, oh, August 13 or so?
> > I must say that it is Dr. Bear who is entitled by his long and
> > gentlemanly posting history to do any remedial instruction, and that
> > our good friend Aaron may perhaps need some.
>
> Since Aug. 13, you mean, when I began to out you as a purveyor of
dubious
> if not fraudulent "academic" credentials, in order to sell highly
suspect
> "medical" advice. In all that time I have not sent you personal email,
> even though your friend has sent me attacking personal email.
>
> AF
Dr. S.
their "doctoral" (the quotes are for you) dissertation requirements
actually are? Innuendo is fun, but could you not manage an email to
ask the organ grinder, and not the monkey?
And why indeed, would academics that even you might respect ever
associate themselves with a wacko degree mill?
The knawing possibility that Greenwich is actually something more
continues to raise its head, and will not go away simply because of
your denial of it.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9908291814200.19249-
100...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>,
"A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, A. Fox wrote:
>
> > > "A. Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The few faculty members at Greenwich whose publication records
I have
> > > > examined all seem to have few or no publications in the peer-
reviewed
> > > > academic literature.
> > >
> > > Oh, good: something verifiable. May we learn the names of those
faculty
> > > members whose publication records you have reviewed?
> > >
> > > Many thanks.
> > >
> > > John Bear, who personally hired about
>
> Let's look at a four faculty members listed on the GU website. Not a
> single peer-reviewed publication among them, that I can find in the
major
> databases at least:
>
> William B. Collinge, who has a Ph.D. from U. Cal Berkeley, and is
listed
> as a faculty member at Greenwich in "Behavioral" and "Intergrative"
> Medicine, is a licesned CSW, and the author of several pop books on
> Chronic Fatigue and self-empowerment. Such publications, of course,
are
> meaningless in an academic context. I have done an extensive
literature
> search on several databases, including Psychinfo and Medline, and
found a
> single citation to Dr. Collinge, specifically to his dissertation
> abstract, from 1989.
>
> Rasjidah Franklin, it is claimed, has a Ph.D. in the anthropology of
> education from Berkeley, and is listed as a faculty member in
> "Education, Women's Studies, Folklore Youth Development
> and it is further claimed that she has "been responsible for many
selected
> presentations, publications and exhibits in her field." I ran a
search:
> No articles listed on Anthropological Literature or Anthropological
Index,
> or Education Abstracts. Just a dissertation abstract (via UMI's
> dissertation abstracts database) for 1985. 13 years and no significant
> publications?
>
> Tara Lumpkin, who teaches (get this) "Consciousness Studies
> Anthropology, International Development Environmental Journalism,
> Creative Writing, Shamanism Indigenous Knowledge Systems Community
> Conservation," and has an impressive history of NGO and foundation
work,
> listed as having a PhD in anthropology from Union Institute (which
> doesn't appear to actually offer one of its mail-order PhDs in that
> field) and I can't find a single reference to a peer-reviewed
publication
> by Dr. Lumpkin in Anthropological Literature or Anthroplogical Index
> databases. Leads me to wonder about the veracity of the impressive
> employment history.
>
> Or how about JOHN MOSHER, B.A., M.A., Ph.D., listed as faculty
in "Biological
> Sciences, Anthropology, Organic-Biological Agriculture Ecology
> Ethology, Consciousness Development, Sociobiology." This is the
guy our
> local GU grad "Dr." Saul claims as a mentor, and his GUbio caims he
has
> taught at SUNY Brockport, Cornell, U. Cal. Davis, and "The Maharishi
> Institute." However, he has no articles indexed on theBiological and
> Agricultural Index. There are two co-authored papers listing a John
> Mosher as a co-author on the Anthropological Index, but both deal with
> paleoenvironments in Maine, and are published in very obscure little
> journals. I don't think this could be the same John Mosher. Of
course,
> there are no John Mosher articles on Medline. And I assume he isn't
the
> John Mosher who has published on art in Nazi Germany. Now I don't
know
> about the Maharishi institute, but I do know U. Cal Davis (I am on a
> dissertation committee there, both of my brothers are B.Sc. from
Davis,
> and I have an uncle on the faculty) and I don't think anyone with
such a
> thin or non-existent record would be appointed to a full-time tenure
or
> tenure track faculty position there.
>
> I could go on. There are clearly some people listed as Greenwich
faculty
> who do have publications in the peer-reviewed literature, as well as
the
> usual spate of pop self-help and often self-published books and
articles
> in non-peer-reviewed sources. Some of the faculty are, from their
> descriptions, quite impressive, though I have discovered a significant
> tendency for GU to over-inflate these descriptions so that I don't
know
> what to trust. I wonder, in passing, why someone with a serious and
> successful career at a real, accredited major university, holding a
decent
> Ph.D., and with a good publication record would WANT to affiliate
with a
> dubiously accredited or non-accredited degree mill in the South
Pacific.
> In fact, every academic appointment contract I am familiar with
prohibits
> a faculty member at one institution from holding other than an
honorary
> appointment at another institutution, although we can of course serve
on
> dissertation committees (thus I serve at committees at U Washington, U
> Penn, Cal Davis, etc.). So what's the deal? Dr. Bear, perhaps you
can
> explain what the terms were under which you hired GU faculty members
who
> held appointments elsewhere?
>
> What brings these people to Greenwich? It sounds like failure to
publish
> is at least one reason these folks are not tenured at real
universities.
>
> I'd also like to know if anyone can tell me the standards for
a "doctoral
> dissertation" at Greenwich. I have reason to believe that a ten or
> fifteen page paper will suffice. Since GU dissertations ar enot
indexed
> by UMI, as are most English-language dissertations, there's no way to
> check up on this.
>
> Thanks
Steve Levicoff
>I have explained this. I am new to this newsgroup, and really am just
>passing through. I just discovered "Greenwich University" existed
>when I discovered "Doctor Andy Saul" posting to another newsgroup to
>which I have belonged for 5 years or so, pretending to be someone he
>isn't (the falsification and inflation of academic and clinical
>crednetials is a huge problem in the shyster-ridden world of
>"alternative medicine"). I am working on an internet web resource on
>internet health fraud, and "Dr." Saul makes an interesting case of one
>type of con working these streets.
Explanation accepted.
>In the course of exposing "Dr." Saul's pretense, I dug up what I now
>know about Greenwich. YOU may be convinced it's a degree mill, but
>others, including John Bear on this list, seem unconvinced. And
>certainly, "Dr." Saul is counting on visitors to his website and
>buyers of his self-published books slamming scientific medicine not to
>know about Greenwich.
Well, John and I have somewhat different toleration levels when it
comes to unaccredited schools, but you should be aware that he is *the*
authority on distance education. His book is well worth reading and
would provide you with lots of background information on both
legitimate programs *and* degree mills.
>"All my posts" address GU because I have only posted for a couple of
>days here and I began doing so to discuss the GU case, which is
>clearly in a more interesting moment as the AQF inquiry is heating up.
>No doubt I'll find something else to discuss in the future, if I stick
>around here. The USENET, of course, is a public forum, and as far as
>I can tell this group is unmoderated, so I see no reason to diversify
>or fall silent just yet.
No problem with that. Besides, we like people here with brass balls,
and you certainly seem to have them.
>I have done similar research on one other school, the "Clayton College
>of Naturopathic Medicine," which appears to be in the business of
>handing out N.D. degrees for a price to anyone willing to pretend to
>enroll. I would be very grateful for any additional dirt I can
>discover on this mill.
Easy - Do a search on DejaNews for "AICS," or "American Institute of
Computer Science." Ditto "Chadwick University." They have been the
object of much discussion here, and the school is owned by a guy named
. . Clayton. (And housed at the same location of CCNM, a/k/a Clayton
School of Natural Health. Clayton has his hands in several pots.)
>In fact I came here to learn more about these sorts of degree mills,
>GU in particular, but the entire phenomenon in general. And I am
>indeed learning something. So thank you all. If my posts are
>annoying anyone, please feel free not to read them.
Well, perhaps obsessive-compulsive, but hardly annoying. (Rule #1
about the newsgroup - you need a sense of humor.)
Seriously, you might find the piece "The NIFI Criteria, or How to Spot
a Degree Mill in 72 Easy Steps" helpful - it's on my home page.
Larry McQueary
Your attitude is certainly welcome... thanks for the invitation to not read your
posts. I'll hold that in reserve for now.
If you haven't heard of it already, there's a site called QuackWatch
(www.quackwatch.com) which would seem to overlap greatly with what you are
trying to do. You may want to start there, as far as online resources go.
Good luck and Godspeed.
Larry
A. Fox <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.990830...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu...
> On 30 Aug 1999, Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
> > A note to Aaron . . .
> >
> > I happen to agree fully with your analysis of Greenwich University, and
> > have called them a degree mill since the first edition of my book "Name
> > It & Frame It." In fact, one of the first lawsuit threats I had was
> > from the distinguished (at least in name) John Walsh of Branaugh. (As
> > usual, I laughed my ass off at him, and never heard from him again.)
> >
> > Nonetheless, I do have a question in light of the fact that virtually
> > *all* of your posts here address Greenwich (which has been addressed on
> > the newsgroup on a regular basis over the years): Why?
> >
> > Nothing personal, dude, but Greenwich seems to be an obsession with
> > you. The notion that the school is a degree mill is well established,
> > and most newsgroup readers (including me) concur. But why harp over
> > this one measly, insignificant school?
>
>
> I have explained this. I am new to this newsgroup, and really am just
> passing through. I just discovered "Greenwich University" existed when I
> discovered "Doctor Andy Saul" posting to another newsgroup to which I have
> belonged for 5 years or so, pretending to be someone he isn't (the
> falsification and inflation of academic and clinical crednetials is a huge
> problem in the shyster-ridden world of "alternative medicine"). I am
> working on an internet web resource on internet health fraud, and "Dr."
> Saul makes an interesting case of one type of con working these streets.
> In the course of exposing "Dr." Saul's pretense, I dug up what I now know
> about Greenwich. YOU may be convinced it's a degree mill, but others,
> including John Bear on this list, seem unconvinced. And certainly, "Dr."
> Saul is counting on visitors to his website and buyers of his
> self-published books slamming scientific medicine not to know about
> Greenwich.
>
> "All my posts" address GU because I have only posted for a couple of days
> here and I began doing so to discuss the GU case, which is clearly in a
> more interesting moment as the AQF inquiry is heating up. No doubt I'll
> find something else to discuss in the future, if I stick around here. The
> USENET, of course, is a public forum, and as far as I can tell this group
> is unmoderated, so I see no reason to diversify or fall silent just yet.
>
> I have done similar research on one other school, the "Clayton College of
> Naturopathic Medicine," which appears to be in the business of handing out
> N.D. degrees for a price to anyone willing to pretend to enroll. I would
> be very grateful for any additional dirt I can discover on this mill.
>
> In fact I came here to learn more about these sorts of degree mills, GU in
> particular, but the entire phenomenon in general. And I am indeed
> learning something. So thank you all. If my posts are annoying anyone,
> please feel free not to read them.
>
> AF
>
>
Dr. S.
get full information on Prof. Mosher right from SUNY Brockport,
wouldn't it? In your earlier posts, you have already offered your low
opinion of him, seemingly as if he MUST be so if he was affiliated with
Greenwich. But rather than shoot first and ask questions later, give
SUNY Brockport (that you described as a "podunck school") an inquiry.
Dr. S.
versa."
That statement says a great deal.
Bill Dayson
> These students are very interesting, and
> perhaps GU should change its name to "Hard
> Luck University." There are good reasons why
> solid universities hold their students
> accountable to the terms of their approved
> dissertation proposals, do not offer financial
> support or admission to many students past
> retirement age, or are not sufficiently
> accomodating of the lifestyles or medical
> problems of certain students. A Ph.D. is not
> an entitlement. You earn it. There are -- or
> should be -- standards for such a thing.
Well, sure. Of course degree programs should have standards. But
shouldn't they be *relevant academic* standards? Is there any reason why
Dr. Bear's "Student L" should not be admitted to a doctoral program
somewhere? Certainly, I can see a highly competitive program with more
qualified applicants than places rejecting a 72 year old. A younger
applicant probably will have a longer career and contribute more to his
field over time. But how does that imply that "Student L" is
intellectually and academically inferior? Or that any degree program
accepting him is lowering its standards?
You rightly say that degrees are earned. So, why are 72 year olds
incapable of earning degrees? You say that "solid universities" have
"good reasons" for rejecting such a student. What are those reasons?
> In any case, your examples do not make a
> case for unaccredited schools, in general.
> Presumably the same concessions to
> infirmity, age, and inconvenience could be
> made by an accredited distance-learning
> institution, just as they are (in fact) made at
> many accredited traditional universities.
True. Unfortunately, there are no regionally accredited distance
education alternatives in many disciplines. DL graduate programs seem
heavily weighted towards MBA's and other programs that schools see as
cash cows.
The problem I have with Greenwich is that it seems never to have sought
academic respectability. One argument for why they didn't is that WASC
refuses to accredit stand-alone distance ed schools. My question is, why
didn't Greenwich relocate to the territory of the North Central
Association, which has shown an openness to distance education. I
believe that Walden successfully made a similar trip from the territory
of the Southern Association. Seeing as how both the Greenwich student
body and faculty are geographically distributed, that journey would just
entail moving some administrative functions. The only answer I've ever
heard to that question is that Mr. Walsh enjoys living in Hawaii (and/or
Norfolk, I guess). So it seems like Walsh is running Greenwich as a
personal hobby, and is unwilling to put the institution's good before
his own.
> One could interpret your stories less
> charitably as implying that GU was (and
> remains) in the business of rubber stamping
> the failures from legitimate universities.
Not without interpolating some imaginary premises of your own. Certainly
there doesn't seem to be anything about Dr. Bear's second two examples
that would justify terming them "failures". A man who is 72. A man whose
job makes on-campus residency impossible. For all you know Aaron, both
of these individuals were excellent scholars. In both cases, their
access problems were non-academic.
> I'm sure a GU Ph.D. makes these poor souls
> feel better. It won't, however, help them get
> an academic job in the U.S., or Europe or
> Australia, for that matter.
That's why I think that seeking regional accreditation was so important
for Greenwich, and why it is so troubling that they apparently never
seriously pursued it.
> I say any unaccredited school has no right to
> issue advanced degrees.
Why not extend that to *all* degrees? Certainly the argument would apply
at the bachelor's level, perhaps more so. All degrees imply that public
standards have been met, both by the student earning the degree and by
the institution granting it. So I'll actually take a harder line than
you on that point.
Of course, there would have to be provision for new institutions. But if
a school has been in existence for 25+ years without making any move
towards accreditation, it probably shouldn't be issuing degrees at all.
> My question remains -- if the school is really
> so good, why can't it go through the
> accreditation process, like thousands of other
> schools, good, mediocre, and in some cases
> bad have done?
That's the thing. I believe Dr. Bear, and think that Greenwich has, or
at least once had, a lot of promise. It could have provided academic
opportunities that are not readily available. The problem I have with
Greenwich is not so much that I think it is a sham. That would be easy,
just dismiss it. The problem is that it does seem to have some value,
and perhaps overlaps some of the worst regionally accredited schools in
quality. It was on the cusp, and sadly seems to have decided to join the
"dark side". I'm disappointed that what could have become a quality
institution is being so badly managed.
> I also submit, respectfully, that your reply did
> not meet the challenge my post set. I claimed
> that the GU faculty did not pass muster as a
> worthy graduate faculty.
Aaron, are you claiming that Greenwich's faculty is inferior to *all*
regionally accredited faculties? That might be a hard claim to defend.
Or are you implying that some regionally accredited schools that offer
advanced degrees are not "worthy" to offer them either? I get the
feeling that you are overstating your case. Your shotgun blasts are apt
to hit more than Greenwich.
Not every faculty in regionally accredited universities are as
impressive as Columbia's. I'd be willing to bet that some "low end"
faculties aren't really any more impressive than Greenwich's. What one
should conclude from that is unclear.
What's more, regarding the four faculty with (arguably) inadaquate
publication records: Greenwich offers bachelor's and master's degress as
well as doctorates. Is there any indication that these four have handled
any doctoral candidates? If so, I think Aaron may have a point. If they
have only taught courses to bachelor's degree candidates or to graduate
students in other fields, perhaps Aaron is being too fastidious.
Bill Dayson
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:
> newsgroup and on the web claiming to be a Ph.D. and an Assistant Professor
> at SUNY/Brockport, both of which are at best half-truths. You used these
> misrepresentations to buttress absurdly anti-scientific ideological
> positions and to advertise your product in a group in which advertising is
> prohibited by charter.
Yes, yes, he's a bad boy, but to contact his past/current employers? More
than just a little over the top. Clearly someone who has far too much time on
his hands.
Tom Nixon
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:
>
> By the very virtue of their affiliation with GU, I am predisposed not to
> respect said academics. I suspect most are affiliated with GU because
> they have failed to flourish in more mainstream careers.
>
And I would suspect that they're doing it for the money.
Tom Nixon
--
Thomas Nixon
Editor, TEFL Connection
Teach English Overseas? http://www.TeachEFL.com
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:
>
> Would you prefer that I not check my facts before criticizing someone? I
> did, you will recall, ask you directly about your affiliations, and you
> chose not to answer me in a timely manner.
>
> AF
Oooh, you didn't answer him in a timely manner! The idea of taking
information gleaned from a newsgroup and to begin stalking a person (yes,
stalking!) are absurd in the extreme. Anybody that takes usenet that
seriously should have his head examined.
Tom Nixon
Larry McQueary
time.
By percentage, I wonder just how many of Greenwich's students are in a Ph.D.
program, vs. masters and bachelors. I have to imagine that the vast majority
are in the Ph.D. program.
Larry
Bill Dayson <cis...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14379-37...@newsd-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
[ snip ]
>What's more, regarding the four faculty with (arguably) inadaquate
>publication records: Greenwich offers bachelor's and master's degress as
>well as doctorates. Is there any indication that these four have handled
>any doctoral candidates? If so, I think Aaron may have a point. If they
>have only taught courses to bachelor's degree candidates or to graduate
>students in other fields, perhaps Aaron is being too fastidious.
[ snip ]
John Bear
<Termin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting question that has been in the back of my mind for some
> time.
>
> By percentage, I wonder just how many of Greenwich's students are in a Ph.D.
> program, vs. masters and bachelors. I have to imagine that the vast majority
> are in the Ph.D. program.
That would be interesting to know. However: during my tenure (and for the
prior 18 years as the IIAS in St. Louis), there were no Bachelor's
degrees, in large part because I simply do not think it makes sense to do
an unaccredited Bachelor's degree anywhere, any time. However, there were
an awful lot of letters received from people wanting to do a Bachelor's,
and so eventually GU implemented one. But I have no idea if we're talking
5% or 95%.
--
John Bear, Ph.D. (Michigan State University, 1966)
Co-Author, Bears' Guide (13th edition) described
at http://www.degree.net, and sold at www.amazon.com
or www.bn.com, bookstores, and www.tenspeed.com.
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:You stated the reasons. Ph.D. programs exist for the benefit
of the
> disciplines and of human knowledge in general, not for the benefit of
> individual students. They are a meritocracy. An essential criterion of
> quality is *can you make a contribution?* By sheer virtue of age, a 72
> year old just beginning a doctoral program, which might take 5 or 7 years
> to finish,can be predicted, in strict actuarial terms, not to make the
> same contribution to the discipline an *equally* qualified younger student
> could make. Take my Ph.D. program. We get approximately 40 applicants
> who meet the minimum admission standards, but award only 3 five year
> fellowships each year. We use a multi-variate system for assesing the
> best few candidates. Our mission is not to serve all comers who are
> *minimally* qualified. It is to *maximally* serve the best few
> candidates. We owe nothing to the rest, because we aren't an entitlement
> program. Life is competitive, and competition breeds quality in
> scholarship and other areas of human endeavor. Our sole obligation is to
> the discipline and only in that narrow sense to our chosen few students.
I quite agree. Just because someone possesses the skills to get a Ph.D. in
no way means that they should. When I was considering getting a doctorate, I
was accepted at several schools (coincidentally Columbia being one of them).
Ultimately I opted not to get one at all primarily because there was no reason
to do so and in my field there are few jobs at the doctoral level. For
someone with a family it didn't make sense.
Tom
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:
>
> Not really. We have too many PhD programs giving out too many PhDs to
> people who should never have considered the doctorate. Hence we have
> inflationary pressure on the value of degrees and a high unemployment rate
> among PhDs.
YES!!! One of the big reasons that I ended up not getting one is that it is a
hell of a lot of work for what was probably not a good outcome. My particular
field has way to many people with doctorates but without jobs. I decided it
made no sense to become one more of that group.
In some ways it would make a lot of sense to have fewer programs or more
limited enrollment.
Tom Nixon
Bill Dayson
> You stated the reasons. Ph.D. programs exist
> for the benefit of the disciplines and of human
> knowledge in general, not for the benefit of
> individual students. They are a meritocracy.
> An essential criterion of quality is *can you
> make a contribution?*
I get the feeling that a flexible definition of 'merit' is in play here.
Didn't this thread start out as a criticism of Greenwich? And wasn't one
of the arguments against it that it enrolls substandard students? What
you termed "failures"? Certainly that carries with it the implication of
ignorance and incompetence.
I think the example of the 72-year-old is a good illustration of a sort
of student who is *not* ignorant or incompetent, for whom traditional
doctoral programs may be inappropriate. A student for whom a place like
Greenwich, had it successfully pursued accreditation, might have been a
fine option.
I'm *not* arguing that Columbia is wrong in preferring younger
applicants. I *am* arguing that you are wrong in attacking other
programs for enrolling those sorts of students. Especially if you are
subtly trying to suggest that they are academically incompetent as well.
> By sheer virtue of age, a 72 year old just
> beginning a doctoral program, which might
> take 5 or 7 years to finish,can be predicted, in
> strict actuarial terms, not to make the same
> contribution to the discipline an *equally*
> qualified younger student could make.
Fine. I'm glad to see you put that "equally qualified" in there. Once
again, I'm not criticizing Columbia's policy of preferring younger
students. I am questioning your criticism of schools that enroll older
students.
> Our mission is not to serve all comers who
> are *minimally* qualified. It is to *maximally*
> serve the best few candidates. We owe
> nothing to the rest, because we aren't an
> entitlement program. Life is competitive, and
> competition breeds quality in scholarship and
> other areas of human endeavor.
There you go again. It was "equally qualified" a few sentences ago, now
it's slipped to "minimally qualified". It's gonna be "unqualified"
next....
This is all a red herring. Nobody is arguing that Columbia University
become an "entitlement program". The issue is your claim that nobody
should be earning doctorates except your students, and those just like
them.
> The premise that anyone who CAN get a
> Ph.D. SHOULD be able to get a Ph.D. is a
> bad one,
Why? I disagree with that, at least in some cases.
> Our society has only a limited demand for any
> specialized form of labor, no matter how
> many people would like to participate in this
> form of labor.
So this is just a labor issue? Keep down the competition for jobs?
As a faculty member at a distinguished university, you *must* realize
that many people are motivated by interest in, and love for, their
academic subjects. Is that an inappropriate reason to seek higher
education? Even if the number of teaching posts in a particular
discipline is limited, individuals who are trained for scholarship can
still undertake research, publish papers and otherwise contribute to
their disciplines. Is that harmful in any way?
Doesn't this undercut your argument? A 72-year-old doctoral student is
probably not going to compete for a scarce teaching post. So he's not
competition. And assuming that he is not taking a student spot that
would otherwise be taken by a younger candidate, isn't he contributing
to his discipline? He is probably publishing papers. He will produce a
dissertation. And perhaps most importantly, he is contributing to
discussions and adding his presence to a community of scholars. Is that
*bad*? Would his discipline be better off if he were not there?
> On the other hand, this same free market
> ideology does lead me to say that in principle
> I cannot oppose the argument that there
> should be as many Ph.D. granting institutions
> as the market will support, as long as certain
> minimum standards for such programs are
> met.
OK, then. Perhaps we agree after all.
> The way such minimum standards are
> decided and enforced is modern societies is
> called an "accreditation" system. As much as I
> may dislike some low quality PhD programs, if
> they are legitimately accredited and can scare
> up tuition paying suckers I have no objections
> to their existence.
Oops, spoke too soon. Is every doctoral program that would consider
enrolling students that don't fit your "young academic careerist"
profile one that operates at minimum standards? Are all students that
would consider such a thing "suckers"?
Admittedly, Greenwich lends itself to such characterizations and worse.
But Aaron, are you even able to accept that a non-traditional doctoral
program might enroll students like the 72-year-old without lowering
standards? Or that such a student may not be a "sucker"?
> We have too many PhD programs giving out
> too many PhDs to people who should never
> have considered the doctorate. Hence we
> have inflationary pressure on the value of
> degrees and a high unemployment rate
> among PhDs.
The labor issue argument again. Of course, it doesn't apply to those.
like the 72-year-old that don't intend to compete with younger graduates
for jobs.
Aaron, assuming that you even acknowledge that people enter academic
fields for intellectual reasons and not merely to get a job, what would
*you* suggest?
What would you suggest for a person who wants to pursue a subject at the
graduate level for personal interest? If such a person ends up doing
doctoral level work, why should they be denied a doctorate?
What about a person like the 72-year-old in the example, who is
publishing papers and doing good work, but who is not getting the
recognition that such accomplishments usually bring, because of lack of
graduate credentials? Should he just shut up and continue deferring to
his betters?
Bill Dayson
Bill Dayson
> We have too many PhD programs giving out
> too many PhDs to people who should never
> have considered the doctorate. Hence we
> have inflationary pressure on the value of
> degrees and a high unemployment rate
> among PhDs.
Would somebody explain who should, and who shouldn't consider the
doctorate?
Tom Nixon says:
> In some ways it would make a lot of sense to
> have fewer programs or more limited
> enrollment.
OK Tom. I'll ask you what I asked Aaron in my last post: assuming that
you acknowledge that people sometimes enter academic fields for
intellectual reasons and not merely to get a job, what would *you*
suggest?
What would you suggest for a person who wants to pursue a subject at the
graduate level for personal interest?
There's kind of a slippery slope argument here. If you read deeply in an
academic subject, you may find that necessary guidance, or even informed
conversation itself, is only available in an academic context. Is such
an academic interest wrong in the first place, if it is not part of a
career plan? Would it be inappropriate to admit such a student into
graduate courses? (Assuming that prerequisites are met, of course.)
If such a student performs well in graduate courses, should the
intellectually driven student be denied the opportunity to earn a
degree? Are master's degrees OK?
How would it help solve the Ph.D. glut to restrict Ph.D. candidates to
young vocationally driven careerists? How would restricting access to
high level scholarship in a particular discipline serve the interests of
that discipline?
Wouldn't it make more sense to make educational opportunities available
which make it possible to simultaneously contribute intellectually *and*
hold a job in a different, less impacted, field?
Personally, I would like to see more resources for independent scholars.
Perhaps unpaid fellowships of some kind, that allow people to maintain
an institutional affiliation. Some place like the Union Institute could
do that, and quickly be putting out a lot of publications with the Union
name on them. That would help raise the school's profile at almost no
cost. It would also harness a lot of underutilized brainpower. (How many
English lit majors are out there, working in bookstores and things?)
Fellows could be screened to keep out cranks, and it would provide an
extended intellectual comunity surrounding the school. Perhaps some
could be brought in to consult with graduate students in the same area,
things like that. I've always thought that a distance education graduate
program would be a natural to devolop such a thing. I can imagine Aaron
starting to boil, given his comments about the "Greenwich four", so let
me hasten to say that these fellows need not be considered graduate
faculty (except as qualified and needed), just a wider circle of
colleagues for students to talk to.
But I guess my thinking is diametrically opposed to opinion among
university faculty... I'd like to open up higher education, not further
restrict it to elites.
Bottom line: Must higher education always be a means to an end (making
money), or may scholarship sometimes be an end in itself?
Bill Dayson
Thomas Nixon
intellectual gain or to use in less impacted (and conveniently, never even
hinted at such). I also could care less about how old a particular person
is when getting a doctorate. My concern is with all of the other doctorate
seekers.
However, we clearly have too many people getting Ph.D.s with the idea that
they will be able to work in academia. For example, in my field,
Linguistics and TESOL, there are probably 10 times as many people getting
doctorates in those fields as will ever be able to find jobs in academia.
I'm not sure about the honesty of letting people into programs and stringing
them along with the idea that someday they will be a professor, when the
odds are so remote.
Tom Nixon
Bill Dayson wrote:
--
Lawrie Miller
As long as students are willing to pay the full cost of the program,
few, other than those who would benefit from a closed shop, would
disagree with you.
You're not thinking of having the working stiff subsidize
DL Ph.D. programs? Say it ain't so, Bill.
Bill Dayson wrote:
SNIP
> .But I guess my thinking is diametrically opposed to opinion among
John Bear
>>I think the example of the 72 year old is a red herring
(and continues to call the Greenwich degree worthless).
I have been suggesting a Turing Test for years. I suggest it again.
I challenge A. Fox of Columbia and J. Walsh of Greenwich each to select
five dissertations in the same field of study. Five from Columbia, five
from Greenwich. Remove identifying marks and scars. Let a committee of
five tenured professors at major universities in this field rate them or
rank them or even see if they can decide which are which.
Will you participate in this exercise, A. Fox? In a private Email (since
one cannot, it seems, read newsgroups on Norfolk) I am asking J. Walsh the
same question.
Do let me know. It could be fun.
Robert Moldenhauer
than Greenwich itself. PhD dissertations vary in quality and substance at all
universities. A. Fox seems to have a fixation on size, the more paper the
better the dissertation, this simply isn't true.
I've been doing research in the University of Wisconsin Dissertation stacks.
There are some absolutely brilliant disertaions of 100 pages and some horrible
"degree mill" style ones than run 500+ pages. There are, to be fair, big,
well written ones as well, but the point is that there is more to a
dissertation than size.
I find that spelling and gramatical errors are common place in those
disertations. Often they lack a significant number of references. The
University of Wisconsin is suppose to be one of the best in the US, yet often
substandard work is approved by their faculty. What does this say? Is the
University of Wisconsin a "degree mill?" If this is happening at the UW then
what about those American Unis that barely make acreditation? American
Acreditation is notoriously low. Many accredited American Unis wouldn't be
able to make it under the AQF of Australia, yet they award US accredited
degrees, are they "degree mills?"
----
But I do wonder if A. Fox checks the credentials of everyone on his list or
only those he doesn't agree with...
"A. Fox" wrote:
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Thomas Nixon wrote:
> >
> > However, we clearly have too many people getting Ph.D.s with the idea that
> > they will be able to work in academia. For example, in my field,
> > Linguistics and TESOL, there are probably 10 times as many people getting
> > doctorates in those fields as will ever be able to find jobs in academia.
> > I'm not sure about the honesty of letting people into programs and stringing
> > them along with the idea that someday they will be a professor, when the
> > odds are so remote.
> >
>
> As a fellow linguist, I heartily concur. We need to trim the Ph.D. rolls
> by more than half, and soon.
>
> AF
It's a sad state of affairs for the profession, but you are absolutely correct. I
don't know how we deal with it, but clearly something has to be done. I have
greatly discouraged people from getting Ph.D.s in Ling/TESOL unless they get
accepted to a top program *or* wish to teach outside the U.S.
Tom
Bill Dayson
> As long as students are willing to pay the full
> cost of the program, few, other than those
> who would benefit from a closed shop, would
> disagree with you.
> You're not thinking of having the working stiff
> subsidize DL Ph.D. programs? Say it ain't so,
> Bill.
I think we agree on that, Lawrie.
I have no problem with these doctoral students paying their own way. The
taxpayers needn't pay anything.
It shouldn't be terribly expensive either. As a cost comparison, CSUDH's
external humanities MA is self-supporting, offered through the school's
extension division. It charges $140 per semester unit. Given a 30 unit
MA, and a 5 year time limit, I've calculated that you can do it for less
than a thousand dollars a year, books included.
Even if you factor out advantages they might derive from their
association with a state university (probably rent-free office space,
perhaps some work-study student clerical staff paid out of other funds),
and add in some internally-funded research support (these being doctoral
programs we are talking about), you could still have an affordable
product. Certainly no more expensive than the many private proprietary
DL programs out there.
Bill Dayson
Joseph C Wang
advocate less education rather than more education. There is IMHO,
too much talk about lowering the supply of Ph.D.'s rather than looking
at the other side of the equation and figuring out ways of increasing
demand.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang Ph.D. Globewide Network Academy
pres...@gnacademy.org FREE Distance Education catalog database
http://www.gnacademy.org Over 15,000 courses and degrees
Bill Dayson
> I have been suggesting a Turing Test for
> years. I suggest it again.
> I challenge A. Fox of Columbia and J. Walsh
> of Greenwich each to select five dissertations
> in the same field of study. Five from
> Columbia, five from Greenwich. Remove
> identifying marks and scars. Let a committee
> of five tenured professors at major
> universities in this field rate them or rank them
> or even see if they can decide which are
> which.
I have a comment on that. Columbia University is pretty clearly one of
America's leading research universities. I'm a bit worried that if the
panel of readers does manage to tell the difference between Columbia and
Greenwich dissertations to some significant statistical degree, that
fact may be over-interpreted as proof Greenwich is hopeless.
I'd like to suggest that dissertations from a range of universities be
used. If that would make the reader's task too large, at least add one
additional university. That should be a low-end accredited school. I
could suggest some, but that might needlessly offend people, so I'd
suggest consulting the Gourman report or something. You could probably
select and order the dissertations randomly from UMI or whatever it's
called. That might be a good way to select the Columbia dissertations
too, to eliminate possible selection bias. Too bad that Greenwich
doesn't deposit dissertations there.
Even if Greenwich dissertations can be distinguished from Columbia
dissertations, I'd be interested in whether they are distinguishable
from those produced by less prestigious departments. In other words,
even if Greenwich isn't an Ivy, perhaps it overlaps the regionally
accredited universe.
5 dissertations x 2 universities = 10
4 dissertations x 3 universities = 12
3 dissertations x 3 universities = 9
So it seems practical, if anyone thinks it's a good idea.
Bill Dayson
Larry McQueary
[ snip ]
> original. A case can be made for a dissertation of almost any length. I
> merely report, from my years in the trenchses (5 years so far) serving on
> dissertation committees in anthropology, linguistics, geography, music,
> and American Studies, that I have never seen a dissertation of fewer than
> 250 pages pass muster.
Just so I interpret this correctly, do you mean that you have never been
presented with a dissertation that is less than 250 pages in this category? Or
do you mean that you have been presented with dissertations of less than 250
pages that were sub-par and therefore rejected?
Larry
Lawrie Miller
I was truly stunned by one or two of the posts. I'm confident DL and
The Market will have the last word. Few will shed tears for A.F. et
al, come that reckoning.
I mean that with great respect, of course. Not a personal attack.
Lawrie Miller (Care Bear)
nf
> John Bear says:
> So it seems practical, if anyone thinks it's a good idea.
>
> Bill Dayson
>
Great idea. I like it.
Who's coordinating this whole thing?
Bill Dayson
> The issue is your claim that nobody should be
> earning doctorates except your students, and
> those just like them.
Aaron Fox says:
> Strike the "just" and you have stated my
> position, and I suppose we'll have to disagree.
> There is an economy of scarcity at work here,
> and we cannot have an infinite number of
> Ph.D.s without collapsing the entire system...
You talk about large numbers of Ph.D.'s "collapsing the entire system".
How could that happen? I don't really see any harm in it at all. I've
listed several arguments for why more Ph.D.'s is better at the end of
this post.
The system is going to be competitive, no matter how you look at it. You
seem to be arguing for intense competition at the beginning, excluding
all those talented individuals for whom future jobs may not exist. I'm
arguing for admitting everyone who is academically qualified, then
allowing that competition to occur after graduation.
> We're looking for smart but quirky people,
> people who are obsessed with something like
> Javanese music, Chinese funeral rituals, etc.
> No two alike, as Butch Hancock might put it.
> many "highly qualified" Ph.D. applicants
> couldn't think an original creative scholarly
> thought if they had to, let alone because they
> want to. Such people SHOULD NOT BE
> SCHOLARS. It's that simple. We don't need
> more carbon copy boring work. We need
> brilliant, quriky, original work from Ph.D.s,
> certainly in the humanities and social
> sciences (perhaps less true in the natural
> sciences).
People who couldn't think an original scholarly thought if they had to
shouldn't be scholars? That's a tautology isn't it? I don't think anyone
would disagree.
Can you reliably recognize those who will only produce "carbon copy
boring work" *before* they embark on a graduate program? Wouldn't it
make more sense to let a larger number of qualified people in, and then
select based on their real contributions, their publication record and
so on?
Seems to me that actual accomplishments are a better indicator of
scholarship than is divination.
I said:
> So this is just a labor issue? Keep down the
> competition for jobs?
Aaron said:
> Absolutely. That's the bottom line in ANY
> specialized discipline.
But what happened to this?
> Ph.D. programs exist for the benefit of the
> disciplines and of human knowledge in
> general, not for the benefit of individual
> students. They are a meritocracy. An
> essential criterion of quality is *can you make
> a contribution?*
It *would* be pretty convenient if the number of those who can make a
contribution exactly matched the number of anticipated future faculty
openings. But I doubt that it does. I think that it's probably larger,
at least in fields in which job opportunities for Ph.D.'s are scarce.
What would happen if somebody suddenly developed an insatiable desire
for Ph.D's? Would the number of truly talented individuals magically
rise to meet the demand? Or would universities simply adjust their
elastic definition of who can contribute?
This is dragging on too long, so I'll just list some reasons why the
*more* Ph.D.'s, the better.
**Creating more opportunities for advanced education will result in a
better educated population, which is a social good.
**It will permit individuals to better realize their personal
potentials, which is good.
**It will increase the number of people trained in, interested in, and
able to make contributions to a discipline. Which will further the
discipline if means are developed to keep those not employed in academia
plugged in.
**It may result in more Ph.D's unable to land a job in their discipline,
but is that any worse than non-Ph.D.'s unable to land a job in it?
Obviously students would have to be warned early about the job picture,
and allowed to decide for themselves whether the effort to earn the
degree is worth it.
**But competition among Ph.D.'s will lead to more selective pressures
favoring those with contributions and publications. So employed Ph.D.'s
will be more talented and productive by objective measures.
**More graduate enrollments mean more academic jobs for Ph.D.'s.
Sometimes academics forget that it's the students that keep them in
jobs.
**Reducing the number of Ph.D.'s being produced in a discipline to the
anticipated replacement rate for faculty would mean cutting many
departments and terminating others. That would lead to increased
academic unemployment, as well as eliminating the future positions,
leading to more still more cuts. If Aaron Fox wants to talk about
"collapsing the entire system", there you have a prescription for how to
do it.
Bill Dayson
Lawrie Miller
I'm getting a pain in my neck listening to that intellectual elite above
who think they know what's best for me.
Why aren't you teaching English in grade school, then? Oh, it's
others that should be doing so, I see.
"A. Fox" wrote:
>
>
> I think I am advocating *different* educational emphases, not "less
> education." I'm all for increasing the demand for Ph.D.s, but let's face
> it . . . specialists in Algonquian languages, or Renaissance music, or
> even string theory physics are always going to be the icing on the
> educational cake. We have a far greater need for qualified teachers who
> specialize in teaching general science, literacy, and arts to children and
> adolescents. When the majority is educated to a uniformly high standard,
> the demand for specialized experts will naturally increase. Until then,
> our society remains shaped like a peculiar hourglass, with a heavy bottom
> of uneducated and poorly educated people and an extremely specialized
> elite intellectual class, much like our economic class structure.
>
> AF
Thomas Nixon
"A. Fox" wrote:I reiterate that I am talking about dissertations in the social
sciences,
> humanities, and applied/clinical sciences, not in the natural sciences,
> engineering, or math. Different standards apply there. Different
> standards also apply for doctorates in the arts (in which in fact I do not
> believe), where a student may produce a single large artwork -- a
> composition, a painting, etc., and a short essay commenting upon the
> influences or processes involved in that work. I think that doctorates in
> the arts are absurd, however, and will not serve on, for example, DMA
> committees.
>
> AF
>
Just out of curiosity, why would you think that doctorates in the arts are absurd?
What would you advocate as an alternative?
Tom
Thomas Nixon
Bill Dayson wrote:
>
> **It may result in more Ph.D's unable to land a job in their discipline,
> but is that any worse than non-Ph.D.'s unable to land a job in it?
> Obviously students would have to be warned early about the job picture,
> and allowed to decide for themselves whether the effort to earn the
> degree is worth it.
But this doesn't happen and likely wouldn't happen for a number of reasons,
most related to job security. For example, in my field, TESOL (Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages), there is a dearth of MA holders.
Many, many of the people in the field work part-time at two or more
institutions in order to make a living.
Shouldn't somebody be warning these people that jobs are not available and
that it is likely that most of them will never find full-time work in this
field? Well, it doesn't happen. What does happen is that *more* programs
have opened in the last decade. Why? Because it has become a fairly
popular and appealing major for people, so departments have discovered that
they can get students to enroll. There are at least 3 new programs in
Northern California alone.
What it boils down to is a lack of ethics on the part of academia to at
least be honest about the possibilities for future employment. Guess what?
An MA TESOL is a highly specialized master's degree and enables people to do
little else with it besides teach.
My field is far from alone in this. Few disciplines actually need Ph.D.
holders. Name one discipline that has lots of openings for professors. I
can't. Arguably, the largest discipline that hires, Education, also has the
most applicants to draw from.
Tom Nixon
John Bear
One more Greenwich story in this context. Another student from my era was
a senior fellow at quite a prestigious psychological research institute.
MA from Columbia as it happens. His Institute had approved and agreed to
pay for his Greenwich Ph.D. program. When his dissertation proposal was
written, it proposed a work of 100 to 120 pages. While his principal
adjunct faculty (tenured professor at a regionally accredited university)
was OK with this, I intervened to express some concern that this might be
too short. The student countered with his belief, based on evidence, that
this was well within traditional parameters.
As it happened, we were both going to be in Berkeley a few weeks hence. We
agreed to meet at the Ed-Psych library on campus, and examine Ph.D.
dissertations in psychology, solely for length, not content or merit. I
still have my notes. Of the first 100 on the shelf, one was 49 pages, 12
were between 80 and 100 pages, 21 were between 101 and 125, 38 were
between 126 and 150, and 28 were longer.
John Bear
jo...@ursa.net
John Bear
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990901...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>, "A.
Fox" <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> For any committee on which I have served, I have rarely seen a student
> submit a draft of fewer than 250 manuscript (double-spaced) pages as a
> completed MS for evaluation.
When my wife was given dissertation guidelines at Vanderbilt, with length
counched in "pages," I did the following exercise: I created a spectrum of
pages, such that by varying margins, type size (between 10 and 14), font,
kerning, and leading, I was able to create satisfactory-looking pages
ranging from 170 words to 600 words per page. This provoked the philosophy
department to revise its guidelines to state, quite specifically, the
margins, font, point size, and leading to be used. But through judicious
use of kerning and something like PageMaker's "tight" and "loose" options,
as well as fudging (could they really tell an 11.5 from a 12 point font?),
there is still a lot of wiggle room.
Larry Flegle
opportunities...Anyone know of other schools hiring?
Larry Flegle
Atlanta
P.S. BTW, I received my MA from Pepperdine Univ. at an extension campus in
Dade County, Florida in 1975....Real innovative for back then...
John Bear wrote in message ...
>In article
><Pine.GSO.4.10.990901...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>, "A.
Russ Blahetka
I thought dissertations were rated on weight. I was planning to use 60 lb
bond for mine when the time came.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Russ Blahetka
http://www.blahetka.com/school.shtml
Learn the rules then break some.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On 2 Sep 1999, Steve Levicoff wrote:
> jo...@ursa.net (John Bear) writes:
>
> >As it happened, we were both going to be in Berkeley a few weeks
> >hence. We agreed to meet at the Ed-Psych library on campus, and
> >examine Ph.D. dissertations in psychology, solely for length, not
> >content or merit. I still have my notes. Of the first 100 on the
> >shelf, one was 49 pages, 12 were between 80 and 100 pages, 21 were
> >between 101 and 125, 38 were between 126 and 150, and 28 were longer.
>
> Is it my imagination, or is the measurement of one's size -
> dissertation size, that is - sort of an academic form of cocksmanship?
>
> (Not that I'm worried, since my own dissertation was 328 pages.)
>
> ,-~~-.___.
> / | ' \
> ( ) 0
> \_/-, ,----'
> ==== //
> / \-'~; /~~~(O)
> / __/~| / |
> =( _____| (_________|
> -----------------------------------
> Steve Levicoff
> levi...@ix.netcom.com
> http://members.tripod.com/~levicoff
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
>
John Bear
that someone -- the inventor of rayon or nylon or some such -- had
submitted a three-word doctoral dissertation in chemistry: "Patent number
1,387,224" (or whatever). I sort of hope it's true, but I rather doubt it.
John ("282 pages") Bear
Thomas Nixon
Thomas Nixon wrote: there is a dearth of MA holders.
Obviously I should learn to think before I type. What I meant was an abundance
of MA holders.
Tom Nixon
John Bear
levi...@ix.netcom.com(Steve Levicoff) wrote:
> And not only did I use 24 lb. bond for my dissertation, but acid-free,
> 100% cotton-content. Specifically, Crane's Crest, made by the same
> company that makes the paper used in U.S. currency. A subtle touch of
> elegance, if I do say so myself . . .
I'll see that, Steve, and raise you this: I was the first person on earth
to submit my dissertation copies as Xerox copies, rather than carbon
copies. How do I know? Because I was, at the time, the
advertisement-writer for Xerox's ad agency in New York, PKL, which had the
only working Xerox prototype, outside of Rochester, of the Xerox 914
machine, which I utilized from 7 to 9 each morning for weeks (at about 3
copies per minute, when it was actually working).
John Bear, who also bought the
first digital watch in America.
First in line at Tiffany's in
New York in June 1972, where they
were sold exclusively for 30 days.
$350. 7-day battery. And now I
want people to take me
seriously?
Thomas Nixon
John Bear wrote:John Bear, who also bought the
> first digital watch in America.
> First in line at Tiffany's in
> New York in June 1972, where they
> were sold exclusively for 30 days.
> $350. 7-day battery. And now I
> want people to take me
> seriously?
This certainly supports my central thesis that John Bear is a nerd! <grin> I
wonder how much that same watch would cost now?
Tom Nixon, who only buys Timex watches
for less than $30 and who has only owned 3
as an adult.
Steve Levicoff
Steve Levicoff
>I'll see your 328, and raise 20...
>
>I thought dissertations were rated on weight. I was planning to use
>60 lb bond for mine when the time came.
Actually, heavy bond would be 24 lb. (The 60 lb. paper is offset, not
bond.)
And not only did I use 24 lb. bond for my dissertation, but acid-free,
100% cotton-content. Specifically, Crane's Crest, made by the same
company that makes the paper used in U.S. currency. A subtle touch of
elegance, if I do say so myself . . .
(But only on the bound copies. The copy for UMI was plain ol'
xerographic paper.)
Joseph C Wang
A. Fox <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>The market, unchecked by standards of quality or decency, and motivated
>solely by the lowest common denominator of commodity fetishism, has had a
>salutary effect on movies, television, literature, etc., has it not?
Absolutely. There is a huge variety of movies, television, and
literature catering to your taste depending on what it is.
>I'm not saying your prediction is off base, but I do despair of the
>consequences of the commoditization of scholarship. Hubris, perhaps, but
>in fact I am not extremist.
Unfortunately, you aren't.
>I believe market forces already work, and
>work well, within the standards established for quality scholarship in
>non-profit university settings.
They don't at all. To parapharse something that has been said about
the old Soviet system, universities are places where "students pretend
to learn from teachers who pretend to teach." I've seen enough
shocking amounts of non-sense in universities in which good teachers
and good students have been ground to dust, and my analysis is that a
large factor behind this is the lack of market incentives.
>But doing away with the boundary between
>scholarship and marketing will not be good for science or scholarly
>culture.
Expound on this point.
I think that infusing scholarship with some of the elements of
capitalism will do it a world of good.
Joseph C Wang
A. Fox <aa...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>Strictly on a merit
>basis, anyone under 40 who has any business earning a Ph.D. ought to be
>competitive at a serious university, and ought to be willing to make the
>life changes necessary to do the degree correctly.
Justify the last statement.
Personally, I consider it a great failing of our academic system that
it requires people to make extraordinary life changes to pursue
advanced academic degrees. The problem is that it leads to graduates
who are living in their own world, out of touch with the rest of
society. This is a bad thing.
>There is an economy of scarcity at work here, and we
>cannot have an infinite number of Ph.D.s without collapsing the entire
>system, which is at present the best graduate education system in the
>world.
But IMHO, a system in which one simply cannot deal with a large number
of highly trained Ph.D.'s needs to collapse.
>Quality demands selectivity and sacrifice. As I explained above,
>there are many options for a well qualified applicant to Ph.D. programs,
>and the successful ones are not "just like" each other.
My personal observation is that successful Ph.D. students share some
personality traits which may be quite maladaptive.
>In fact, part of
>what we look for is "the difference that makes a difference." We're
>looking for smart but quirky people, people who are obsessed with
>something like Javanese music, Chinese funeral rituals, etc.
The problem here is that a large number of Ph.D. students are so
obssessed with one particular topic that they simply lack the
intellectual flexibility to deal with new situations or to see the big
picture. The Ph.D. system selects for a particular personality type
and world outlook, which can be quite maladaptive.
>because there is a scarcity of need for Ph.D.s, and an abundant supply of
>them.
And this is because the system stinks......
To get back to my original point. Isn't it utterly bizzare that some
of the world's smartest people can't figure out how to create a social
demand for their skills?
>Absolutely. That's the bottom line in ANY specialized discipline. What
>do you do for a living? Why do you suppose you need an MCSE to be a
>network adminsitrator? Or an M.D. to be a doctor?
Except you don't need to be an MCSE to be a network adminstrator, but
the thing to point out here is that in the computer and high-tech
industry you have an utterly different situation than in academia. In
high-tech fields there is a scarity of supply not demand. Employers
can't find enough trained computer programmers. The market is
demanding more trained computer specialist not less, and this is
having all sorts of beneficial effects.
>The system is not perfect, but anyone with a
>brain and desire and creativity can get into graduate school and succeed
>as a Ph.D. You just have to be good enough.
And give up any semblance of a normal life for several years.
>Our system is both fair and elitist, and that is no contradiction in terms.
And it's ultimately not self-sustainable. One of the consequences of
the Ph.D. glut is that most Ph.D.'s are ending up outside the system,
and having more trained people outside the system than inside is a
recipe for revolution.
Joseph C Wang
> I think I am advocating *different* educational emphases, not "less
> education."
And don't you see the fact the current graduate educational system
emphasizes the "wrong skills" as a problem?
> I'm all for increasing the demand for Ph.D.s, but let's face
> it . . . specialists in Algonquian languages, or Renaissance music, or
> even string theory physics are always going to be the icing on the
> educational cake.
Always? I disagree.
> We have a far greater need for qualified teachers who
> specialize in teaching general science, literacy, and arts to children and
> adolescents.
The problem is that those teachers really need to be either active
researchers with advanced degrees or in constant contact with people
like them. There are some appalling misconceptions that the general
public has about how science works, and these misconceptions exist
largely because the teachers are disconnected from active researchers.
And this disconnect occurs in large part because of perverse
incentives in the graduate education system which discourages active
researchers from any sort of community involvement. Any junior
researcher who decided to teach high school for a few years or even to
spend lots of time infusing intellectual values into their children
has kissed his career good-bye.
> When the majority is educated to a uniformly high standard,
> the demand for specialized experts will naturally increase.
Most Americans are well-educated to a rather high standard, and
economic forces will continue to make this even more true.
> Until then,
> our society remains shaped like a peculiar hourglass, with a heavy bottom
> of uneducated and poorly educated people and an extremely specialized
> elite intellectual class, much like our economic class structure.
Which isn't the way American society is structured at all. There is a
relatively small number of people who are poorly educated or
uneducated, and a large middle class of people with reasonable amounts
of education and who want more. The business elites of the United
States are the biggest supporters of more education, since they need a
skilled work force to make money.
The problem with the current higher educational system is that it's
long term unsustainable. It is producing an entire generation of
intellectuals like myself who are interested more in allying with
business and commerce to overthrow the system, than to perserve it.
John Bear
> John Bear wrote:John Bear, who also bought the
>
> > first digital watch in America.
> > First in line at Tiffany's in
> > New York in June 1972, where they
> > were sold exclusively for 30 days.
> > $350. 7-day battery. And now I
> > want people to take me
> > seriously?
>
> This certainly supports my central thesis that John Bear is a nerd! <grin> I
> wonder how much that same watch would cost now?
Tom, I'm not sure where you'd find an 8-ounce half-inch-thick Hamilton
that displays the time for about two seconds, in red numerals, when you
push a button on the side.
John Bear, who included a chapter called
"Don't be the first kid on the block to buy
something new" in my book "Computer Wimp:
166 things I wish I had known before I bought
my first computer," and proceeded to ignore
that excellent advice, time after time.
Thomas Nixon
John Bear wrote:
> Thomas Nixon <tcn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > John Bear wrote:John Bear, who also bought the
> >
> > > first digital watch in America.
> > > First in line at Tiffany's in
> > > New York in June 1972, where they
> > > were sold exclusively for 30 days.
> > > $350. 7-day battery. And now I
> > > want people to take me
> > > seriously?
> >
> > This certainly supports my central thesis that John Bear is a nerd! <grin> I
> > wonder how much that same watch would cost now?
>
> Tom, I'm not sure where you'd find an 8-ounce half-inch-thick Hamilton
> that displays the time for about two seconds, in red numerals, when you
> push a button on the side.
I had forgotten how awful those first digital watches were. (In 1972 I was busy
being 11.) So, do you still have the watch? Eventually it becomes an antique,
doesn't it?
Tom Nixon
John Bear
>>>I had forgotten how awful those first digital watches were.
A charming feature (finally a 'distance learning' connection) is that I
had to designate a local jeweler, to whom Hamilton mailed a little 'home
study course' in how to deal with these watches, including a special tool
for removing the back to change the batteries.
>>>So, do you still have the watch? Yes.
>>>Eventually it becomes an antique, doesn't it?
Based on the 100-year standard, on June 1, 2072, at about 9 am.
Webmaster
that I had inadvertantly sent the reply to you and not the group. Aaron,
stop it, I made a mistake.
I consider it chilidish for an academic such as yourself to repeatedly call
people on such a simple mistake as pressing the wrong button in MS's
"Outlook Express". Get a copy of it. You'll notice that the "Reply to group"
& "Reply to Author" buttons are right next to one another.
Anyone who doubts this fact can go right to:
my apology to A Fox:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=518340115&CONTEXT=936460113.2052653091&hitn
um=5
and how A Fox tries to underhandedly threaten people on UseNet:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519000383&CONTEXT=936460113.2052653091&hitn
um=4
Nasty...
Regards,
Aiman
A. Fox wrote in message ...
>Since Aug. 13, you mean, when I began to out you as a purveyor of dubious
>if not fraudulent "academic" credentials, in order to sell highly suspect
>"medical" advice. In all that time I have not sent you personal email,
>even though your friend has sent me attacking personal email.
>
>
>AF
>