Poll on 'ratting' (Question 1 of 3)

intsvc's question to me about whether I "rat" to employers when I discover someone with a fake degree causes me to wonder what others would do. Here are three questions in that regard.

 

Define "fake".

 

Oh, I think "fake" is pretty well defined.

I normally choose to do nothing. I'm so disappointed in the typical reaction that it seems hardly worth it. Most employers seem to want to ignore it anyway.

But if the person has a public posture, I'm more than willing to put it out there.

 

That said, shouldn't someone define it, so that it's crystal clear, anyway?

It seems to me that if it's wrong to have/proffer a fake diploma under any circumstances, then it should be wrong to do so under all of them.

Wrong is wrong.

To be selective suggests that one career area or profession is either more expendable than another; or is somehow more easily able to tolerate or absorb fake credentials than another. Fake diplomas are harmful on their face, regardless.

Harm is harm.

Don't allow to influence you the misguided clarion call of the diploma mill operators, and/or their customers or supporters-for-whatever-reason, that "outing" people and their fake credentials has no honor. It does.

Let not the din weaken.

 

I don't think it is defined at all in this context. Your fake and someone else's fake may very well have two totally different meanings.

Does fake mean unaccredited? unapproved? unlicensed? or what?

 

As the thread/poll-starter, I think John needs to define it for your purposes, plcscott.

That said, I would think that any credential from a bona fide diploma mill would qualify as "fake."

What shouldn't happen, here, in my opinion, is for this thread to now digress into the age-old "unaccredited, but nevertheless credible" argument; and, more specifically, where one should draw that line.

Contrary to the "RA or No Way" accusation made in other fora, the majority of those at DI do not have that viewpoint. Moreover, most of us also agree that there actually are state licensed, unaccredited institutions out there that are quite credible... and more than just a few of them, too, I might add. Sadly, what makes them credible is difficult, sometimes, to describe or convey... hence the value of accreditation to, among other things, settle the matter without anyone having to do his/her own due diligence to determine it.

A "fake" diploma/degree/credential, it seems to me, is exactly what it seems to be: One that can be printed-up (or was printed by its owner/holder himself/herself) and purchased from what even diploma mill operators have to admit is a bona fide diploma mill.

But I would add that even a diploma from the likes of Kennedy-Western pretty much qualifies, too. And, of course, that, I realize, is where I lose you, plcscott... as well as many others in the other fora, I'm sure. But that's my opinion... and I'm far from alone in it.

Just the same, for the purposes of this poll/thread, Dr. Bear, as its creator, really needs to be the one to define "fake" here... so there will be no question.

 

Of course there are many possible definitions. For this purpose, I was thinking of "fake" as a degree-granting institution that has no authority from anyone to grant degrees, other than the authority they give themselves.

By this definition, a school with Wyoming, Alabama, and St. Kittsian licensing, however minimalist, is not fake. A school located in, say, Denmark that has no permission to operate from the Danish authorities would be fake.

 

I agree, but fake needs to be defined before I would want to make this call though I would not lean towards "ratting" any of these out. The high school drop out probably has more real world experience with sex than a person with a Phd, don't you think?

I agree.

But, that needs to be specified especially because of what is stated above. If fake fits in your this description then it is much different than simply listing a substandard degree.

Of course, this is where you are WRONG Greg. One, I am not a part of the other fora, and second, having much more knowledge of Kennedy-Western I think it is as close to a diploma mill as a licensed school can be. So, you may want to read a lot more before you assume my position.

 

No.

Not in this case.

The specific example of the teacher negates all degrees that are not regionally accredited. Why? Because the number of school districts that accept anything less is infinitessimally small.

Other employment may be different, but in this case, "fake" is clearly defined.




Tom Nixon

 

I come across this rather regularly. Unless public safety is at risk, I usually do little. I have a number of times sent an e-mail to the holder of the alleged degree. While I don't put it in those terms, it's sort of like, "If I found you out, it's only a matter of time before others do as well. You may want to re-think this."

Government figures, in my mind, fall under the public safety exemption above.



Tom Nixon

 

I thought I rememberd you and me arguing... er... well... maybe "arguing" is too strong a word... but I thought I remembered us differing -- at some points, strongly -- on Kennedy-Western in other threads, around here, in the past. If I read too much into that, or if I've mischaracterized your words here and/or elsewhere, then I apologize.

 

The adjective pertaining to the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis is not "St Kittsian" but "Kittitian". And SKN has an accreditation process--not simply the issuing of business licences--which I have asked those wiser in assessing such protocols to assess. No takers so far. But a "school" operating in St Kitts or Nevis with only a business licence--without FWIW SKN accreditation--would assuredly be fake because the nation in question does have a mechanism for accreditation.

 

What the heck is a bona fide diploma mill?

How can someone make a false credential with good faith?

Bona fide is the antithesis of anything a diploma mill cranks out.

 

I know what "bona fide" means, thankyouverymuch. It's just informal speech... and you know it, Mr. Nitpicking-for-nitpicking's-sake. It was, perhaps, an informal substitute for "genuine." Of course, if so, it would be like in "a genuine fake"... where the obviousness of the oxymoron is the punch line.

I just meant a diploma mill that's really a diploma mill; as opposed to one that might be sort of "iffy"... like Kennedy-Western, for example (though I argue that there's nothing "iffy" about it).

 

I would further consider fake a degree claimed from a legitimate school, but obtained from a diploma duplication service. For example the teacher could have a FAKE MASTERS from Harvard. This in my opinion is a lot more dangerous and more dificult to detect.

 

IF (?) you are suggesting that because a teacher with a real undergraduate degree goes ANY other route besides RA that he or she should be ratted out then I certainly disagree with that.

If a teacher is doing a good job, and the degree is not a requirement then so what if the person gets a little extra money by having a nationally accredited graduate degree. I am not sure it would stand up in court if a teacher decided to fight this rule since the USDOE recognizes other accreditors (at least I would hope not).

With that said, a degree such as John describes is a different deal, and though I doubt I would rat the person out unless the teacher was doing a bad job, I would understand why others would.

 

Thinly Veiled Reference

May I suggest several links for the uninitiated?

http://www.knightsbridgeuniversity.com/

http://www.hayesandassociates.co.nz/

http://forums.degreeboard.com/showthread.php?p=4097

http://times-age.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3618473&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

 

I have to admit I smiled at the melodious ring of "bona fide diploma mill!" I do think that this example is an excellent one, because many teachers seem to be on pay scales where a second master's degree can result in a second pay raise, and if there is no sanction for fakes, what's to stop an unethical person from picking up a fake every couple of years and making back the money spent in a few weeks or months? If a public school teacher is receiving multiple raises from tax dollars for buying fake diplomas, I will not feel too sorry for him or her when caught and even when punished through the press or the employer. I know not every school district is like this example, but I also know three teachers who are working on master's degrees almost solely (by their own admission) for the pay raise.

 

To rat or not to rat

Interesting thread.

When I was doing background research for my HR audit at our organization, I was surprised there wasn't a nationwide repository to report fake degree and/or fake degree users.

I was also surprised that Googling "graduate of Belford University" or "graduate of Barrington University" would turn up a PhD serving as an expert witnesses, asst. college football coach, and a Chief Development officer.

So, I have no problem "outing" these people