Officers doing well since reinstatement

Comment: I have a feeling that some people enjoy dropping others in it...

Source: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/dec/17/officers_doing_well_reinstatement/?local_news

 

Why, Why, Why?

Don't even interview the replacements, pick two out of a hat, and you are likely going to find more honest replacements than a pair who has defrauded you.

 

The general population seems to have what I consider a strangely dismissive attitude towards academic fraud.

 

Anyone in a public position or a publcly funded position should be terminated immediately when presenting fraudulent credentials that have a direct or indirect bearing on the employment and/or renumeration. If someone has "earned" a fraudulent credential but does not use it for employment purposes and similar situations, but merely as a novelty without use of that credential as a claim "I have a doctorate degree" in a professional context, then no harm no foul.

These police officers should have been terminated with a note in their personnel file in the event another department might be considering hiring them.

 

No means defending them ...

Believe me, I am as disgusted as you all at the "aw, it's no big deal" attitude being perpetuated there.

However, I find it difficult to completely blame the involved officers when the general public continues to put very little stock in the value of education, preferring to worship at the altar of celebrity rather than intelligence.

I have been dismayed in some of the tone on other threads in this forum which seem to suggest that "however you get your diploma, just so long as you get it."

I'm still looking for a place where there is a respect for seeking education and finding the shortest cut to claiming it.

 

I think on the individual, small town, one-occurrence level, it's easy for people to rationalize that their Policeman / mayor / provider who has been a stalwart of the community for 30 years was duped by an unseemly university or the rules weren't clear enough, they were just required to have "a degree".

From a higher level view, it happens every day and people that see it happen every day have a different perspective.

 

I agree sentinel.

But in my experience, the screening process has become useless due to fear of lawsuits if a former employer discloses anything.

We've all seen the obvious lawsuits where an employee sues a former employer for a bad (read: truthful) reference.

Now even good references can get you sued. If your employee goes elsewhere and tanks, that employer is increasingly suing the prior employer for false representation and economic damages.

 

Absolutely, no argument

But, that's my point ... there aren't many people in positions which require the "higher level view." Therefore, the Average Joes and Janes don't generally see this as being a horrible thing ... or perhaps even all that bad.

Believe me, it has been a lifelong battle to reconcile the public platitudes with the reality of our society not embracing a meritocratic ideal.

 

... i hate cops....

 

I hate idiotic posts.

 

Re: Absolutely, no argument

Since only 25% of the adult population even has a bachelor's degree, that would tend to mean that the other 75% do not. As such, would you expect the vast majority of Average Joes and Janes to know whether those cops had really "earned" their "life experience" degrees?

 

Absolutely agree, how sad is that?

No, I wouldn't Ted ... and that has been my point all along. The average person cannot ascertain if someone has earned a degree legitimately and, perhaps more troubling, likely doesn't care.

Witness the tenacity of one person's discontent on the main forum. He perpetually criticizes me for bringing to the board a question about faculty at one online program referring to themselves as PhD(c) -- ostensibly PhD candidate.

I have worked very hard and sacrificed much to earn my advanced degrees. But I have someone who appears unable to let me move on to other discussions because he has to incessantly characterize my asking about the PhD(c) as evidence of me "tilting at windmills."

It would seem to this individual that preserving the integrity, the reputation, and yes, the prestige of earning the ultimate academic degree is not worthy of defense.

True to form, he later slurred another contributor who also apparently has earned a doctorate by referring to his degree as "name it and frame it."

If one cannot even experience a modicum of respect for academic achievement on a discussion forum ostensibly devoted to encouraging the pursuit of education, what can we really expect from the general public?

 

Re: Absolutely agree, how sad is that?

It is my understanding from the reading I have done that PhD(c) or PhD (candidate) can only be claimed by someone who has completed all coursework towards the doctorate level degree and has been approved to the dissertation stage. However, I may be mistaken as to whether PhD (candidate) can be used before the disseration stage has been completed and the student is ready to defend their dissertation. If anyone can clarify, please do.

 

Far be it from me to challenge your First Amendment (USC) rights, or even suggest that you be banned, however your comment is certainly not warranted, justified or appreciated.

As a policeman for 25+ years now, I take offense at your rude and intolerant comment but also pity you as well. Be that as it may - you should at the very least be sanctioned for making a direct and hate-filled comment here in an otherwise friendly forum.

A good debate, robust discussion and personal opinions are always welcome, hatred is not.

Merry Christmas!!

 

Re: Re: Absolutely agree, how sad is that?

Yes, it is appropriate to style onesself as PhD candidate after the completion of all doctoral coursework and comprehensive examinations.

 

Well not exactly ...

Agreed, that one who has completed all course requirements and has proposed dissertation is a PhD candidate.

The contention arose in that some were found using PhD(c) to connote some form of earned credential when, in fact, it is indicative of a degree in progress and that "styling oneself" as a PhD(c) was misleading as many people do not understand how a doctorate is earned and were not likely to appreciate the apparently subtle but actually quite significant difference between PhD and PhD(c).

But the reason it was raised here was to illustrate how even in this venue of supporting academic endeavors there was a substantial amount of confusion and needless name-calling on the board.

 

Then I suggest you call someone else the next time you need armed men to engage in extreme violence on your behalf.

 

< biased_view > Well said, Bruce. My father was in law enforcement for over 40 years and I have always viewed other police officers based on the professional conduct and reputation of him. While there are bad police officers out there - encountered a few -, the majority live up to the standard I grew up seeing an on daily basis. < /biased_view>

 

I encountered a road block while driving home from a New Years Eve dance at 1 am. After a short pleasant chat with two of the officers, they handed me a pencil and waved me on. The pencil was imprinted, "I survived the Kensington Police New Years Eve DUI checkpoint." You gotta like police like that.

John (who doesn't drink)

 

Nothing like a sense of humor from law enforcement. Nice to see you back Sir.