I can't properly justify my feelings

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by adelheid, Apr 4, 2003.

Loading...
  1. adelheid

    adelheid New Member

    Maybe this topic has been covered here before at some aspects but please let me still present this thread:

    I am doing a Research Paper at the University of Wollongong for my MEd studies. This paper deals with certain aspects of distant learning, and right now I am really stuck. I am posting this in the hope that some of you can give me some advise, help or other 'stuff for thought' Here's my (philosophical) question:

    In the area of DL, there are the following universities and colleges:
    1. government or otherwise properly accredited (e.g. RA)
    2. state approved (for argument's sake, say PWU in CA)
    3. not state approved but able to grant degrees due to the compliance of the state laws re. degree granting institutions (say PWU in HI)
    4. not state approved but able to grant degrees due to incorporation in a country that has no laws at all relating to degree granting institutions (say blablabla university in the Dominican as it seems to be such a popular place of incorporation lately)
    5. not legally established anywhere but still granting degrees (couldn't think of any example right now, but I am sure there are too many)

    Leaving categories 1., 2., and 5 out (and I am also not talking about 'universities' that award degrees based on life experience, but only where some kind of course-work is necessary): for 3. and 4., I wonder about the following, and I just can't seem to find an answer: BASED ON WHAT can we say that these entities are -plainly as this would be my opinion - 'bad'? How can one decide what a Generally Accepted Accrediting Standard is? Taking the example of PWU in HI: for a post graduate degree one needs to write 12 book reviews (1000 words each), a Research Proposal (no specified length) and a Dissertation (ca. 20.000 words). At my Wollongong studies, the length of a research based a PG degree's Research Proposal would already be 100.000 words, and much more for the actual dissertation. 20.000 words would just be an assignment paper. BUT WHO AM I to say that a 20.000 words dissertation is not sufficient, and a 100.000 words Research Proposal is sufficient? Could one not argue that as long as the university is operating LEGALLY, if that is the standard that the particular university sets, and if the student complies (whether this is 20.000 words or 100.000 words) than this is acceptable, making in turn the degree acceptable?

    Or even blablabla university in the Dominican or Turks and Caicos Islands or Virgin Islands or wherever - how are we to criticize their academic standards? (say Berne for argument's sake)

    My feelings are that - taking the PUW or Berne cases just as examples - this would not be an acceptable academic standard, but I am not sure on how to properly justify my feelings.

    adelheid:)
     
  2. adelheid

    adelheid New Member

    more focused...

    Maybe I should make my thread more precise, in order to distinguish it from all of this "diloma mill" discussion:

    1. My thread only touches institutions where some form of course-work is required
    2. Proper quality control is assured where universities are properly accredited (RA etc)
    My question:
    3. For all others, how does one make a SOUND decision whether their academic requirements are acceptable or "less than wonderful"?

    adelheid:)
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    There are two different factors here: education and credentialing. The quality of an education is very subjective. But the utility of a credential is very simple to establish, in broad terms. (Each individual's situation is different, of course.) Degrees from unaccredited schools are less acceptable for educational and employment purposes.
     
  4. adelheid

    adelheid New Member

    Yes, Rich, I agree. My question is about educational quality, not the usability of a degree. No doubt, a non-accredited degree has very limited use. But how do we make a sound assessment about the educational quality of a school, if a - for example - PWU (HI) graduate says: "The quality of my studies was sufficient for my university to grant me a degree", and - e.g. - a UoW graduate would just laugh the head off.

    On what sound, academically established and VERIFYABLE, principles do we establish GAAP?

    adelheid:)
     
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The fact that educational professionals follow the guidelines that GAAP describes. This was made clear by John Bear's survey of admissions officials.
     
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Accreditation is the best way that one makes a sound assessment about educational quality. That is why within the USA the GAAP is RA. Without accreditation establishing the confidence in the public that the school's graduates meets the accepted standard is extremely difficult and the only school I know of that has ever done it is Bob Jones University.
     
  7. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

    Unfortunately I beleive you are talking about too distinct and different topics here.

    1) What constitutes a quality education

    and

    2) What constitutes adequate accreditation

    Let's start with a quality education. The amount of work required (IMHO) does not equate to the amount of knoweledge gained or imparted. As an example look at UMI dissertations and thesis's (sp?) lengths. They vary all over the place. Some masters level work is longer than some doctoral work, and I imagine that I could find some master thesis that truly was more original and indepth than some doctoral dissertation. So? That is one of the reasons I went with Colorado State over Univerity of Sydney, quantity does not mean quality.

    That said, it also bears looking at the individual quality. Unfortunately, most of the schools in the catagory you are discussing do not make the dissertations availble for refernce by others, so it is only by hearsay that any quality check is made. (Hey Rich another dissertation for you: compare the quality of dissertations from CCU, PWU, & KW with Unisa, UniSA, and Unizul - unless adelheid wants to try).

    Then we get to that broad wasteland called "GAAP" in which there is a wide gap in understanding of what it means. And yes (again IMHO) there is not a univesally accepted understanding of what is meant. Which gets us back to the utility issue. Does the degree serve your purpose and supply what you need? If so that is is a good degree if not it is not.

    Every contry has their own mehtod of validating degrees. Some are more widely accepted than others. How do you compare them? There are some generally accepted criteria. Going outside of those criteria will require more work on the part of the degree holder to get acceptance.

    so back to the basic question is a degree from PWU equal to a degree from Wollongong? And the answer is: it depends. If all you want to do is show your freinds and neighbors and coworkers (and maybe your boss) then I would say that the PWU degree is superior to the Wollongong degree. BUT! If you want to use it to get a better job, or teach in a community or state college, then Wollongong is superior to PWU (IMHO). And yes you can find exceptions to this all over the place.

    Good luck and best wishes.
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Re: more focused...

    Excellent question, and one that I've been struggling with myself.

    I'll start out by saying that accreditation is a matter of socially recognized standards. By that I mean that decisions are given a degree of objectivity that other people, particularly the academic and professional communities will recognize.

    Absent accreditation, decisions about which universities are credible becomes a matter of educational aesthetics. By that I mean personal taste, which will vary depending on the interests of the person making the judgements and on their choice of selection criteria.

    So right off, there is going to be a question about what a "sound judgement" is in these cases. The best that I can do is relate how I approach questioned schools and let the reader decide for his or her self whether or not my approach is sound.

    I apply my Google test. I run Google searches for a particular school and for individual departments and subject areas within it. I use a variety of different combinations of search terms. Then I scrutinize the results, looking at the general pattern while simultaneously sifting for gems.

    What this does, in effect, is delegate my investigation to others. I assume that if a school is legitimate, then other people have already responded to it. So I look at who is reponding and at the nature of those responses.

    These searches reveal a footprint. These present a variety of appearances:

    1. There are schools that generate almost no Google hits at all, apart from their own website. This is a classic degree-mill signature.

    2. There are schools that generate hordes of on-line resumes and listings on college guide sites, but little beyond that. They are producing graduates and marketing themselves, but there is little evidence of scholarly activity. I'm underwhelmed by research schools that never seem to produce any research. Many of the non-accredited DL schools (and a few that are accredited) look like this, and I personally consider it a quasi-degree-mill signature.

    3. There are schools that do seem to have an intellectual life, but it's arguably flaky. In some cases the school revolves around the peculiar theories of its founder. In other cases, the school promotes a strange alternative approach of some kind. Some are busy researching subjects that may not have widespread mainstream acceptance. A number of California-approved schools show this pattern, and personally I like them. I like pushing the intellectual envelope. But at the same time, I'm not sure how seriously I take many of these places. This is one place where the issue of individual taste is particularly acute. I'll add that there are some accredited schools that look like this.

    4. Finally, there are schools that show a full, credible academic footprint. They produce publications. Their people make presentations at conferences and turn up as visiting professors at recognized schools. They are engaged in collaborative research. They win grants, contracts and awards. Professional organizations refer to them, and when they do the references are positive. Often state-approved schools with this signature turn out to be on an accreditation-track, and will eventually exit the non-accredited category.

    OK, I like the Google test because it is based on results: it reads the response to the questioned school out in the community, both general, professional and scholarly. I find this more enlightening than poring over catalog requirements on the school's own website. Lame schools can publish tough requirements, while schools with easy-sounding requirements may be getting better results. Keep in mind that a dissertation-only "research doctorate" sounds sub-standard to American ears. But if a school using this model can show research productivity, then something is obviously working.

    I also like the Google test because it works equally well on accredited and non-accredited schools, and on schools in different countries. Obviously adjustments have to be made for things like language of instruction and for institutional size. But interesting comparisons can be made.

    Fially, you find out what's happening in various schools and departments, which ones are strong in what areas, what approaches are being used and what people's interests are.

    That's inevitably going to help shape one's judgement about which programs are "good", since that often depends on what a prospective student wants to study.
     
  9. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: more focused...

    I don't know if there's a way to get to the crux of this matter without picking a few nits. So here I go . . .
    When one goes about the task of "unpacking" your question, here are some questions that require answers.
    1. Acceptable to whom? (or is it who?) Acceptable to yourself? To a prospective employer? To your family? A peer group? This ultimately comes back to the issue of utility. Why are you seeking the degree? Will it accomplish its intended goal? Clearly, there is no single answer.
    2. Please define "sound." Does it mean, "logical?" Does it mean, "practical?" Does it mean "useful?" (please see #1)
    Considering the fact that you have narrowed the question down by eliminating both RA institutions and degree mills (life really happens in the grey areas, doesn,t it?) you could think of this in a similar way that you'd think of buying a house, a car, or any other "big ticket" consumer product. Can you afford it? Will it last? Does it look good? Most importantly, Will it work? I still think that the Bear Principle (Utility, Utility, Utility) is the answer to your question. The only tricky part is that this is difficult to quantify because "one man's ceiling is another man's floor."
    Jack
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: more focused...

    Paul Simon, btw.

    John Bear quantified it for admissions officials. I've now quantified it for employment. Neither is all-inclusive, of course, but inferences about the populations are possible.
     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    This calls for an example of how Googling a school can demonstrate a relevant public's acceptance of a school's standard.

    I choose as my example the California-approved National Test Pilot School. In my opinion this is the most fascinating and unusual state-approved school in the United States:

    * The Canadian Institute of Aerospace Research of the National Research Council of Canada collaborates with the NTPS.

    * Alan Lawless of the NTPS won the 2000 Director's Award of the Society of Flight Test Engineers.

    * Bob McShea of NTPS gave a talk on "Forward Looking Infrared Radar" with demonstrations for NASA Dryden's 'Math and Science Odessey 2002'.

    * NTPS participates in the NASA Academy Program, in which top aerospace engineering students are flown out to NASA Dryden and shown around Edwards AFB, local industry in the Palmdale area and taken to the NTPS.

    * NTPS has an alliance with Australian Flight Test Services Pty. Ltd., including some classified work for the RAAF.

    * Sean Roberts, Director of NTPS was Chairman of the First Flight Readiness Review Team for Korea Aeospace and Lockheed Martin's new T-50 supersonic jet trainer for the ROKAF.

    * According to Australian Senate minutes, RAAF officers are training at NTPS.

    * The US State Department ordered NTPS to stop training foreign military students. It has since relented, though I've heard that unnamed US intelligence agencies now approve foreign applications before admission.

    * NTPS is part of the development team for Vela Technology Corp.'s "Space Cruiser", one of the private manned spacecraft ventures currently underway.

    * Orenda Recip, a division of Toronto's Magellan Aerospace, brought their new aviation reciprocating engine to NTPS for flight tests.

    * NTPS shares Mojave Airport with Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites (home of the first aircraft to circle the world without refueling) and military contractors like General Electric and BAe/Tracor. The airport also hosts more than 200 mothballed airliners and has served as a film location for "Speed", "Diehard II" and "Batman II".

    * NASA Langley in Virginia contracted with NTPS to provide a course for NASA in 'Piloted Handling Qualities Assessment Techniques'. The announcement stated that no other institution in the United States met NASA standards.

    * FAA safety regulations for use of FAA aircraft in flight tests specify NTPS courses by name.

    * USAF Special Operations Force test and evaluation guidelines refer flight crew who have not attended a military TPS to NTPS developmental test training programs.

    * Dan Wells of NTPS is a member ofthe Handling Qualities Committee of AHS International - The Vertical Flight Society.

    * A Canadian DND webpage reveals that Canadian Forces pilots from Cold Lake train at NTPS.

    * Weneth Painter of NTPS is coauthor of "Developing and Flight Testing the HL-10 Lifting Body" NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Report No. NASA-RP-1332.

    * NTPS is the only foreign member of the Australian Defence Teaming Centre.

    * A record of an unspecified US DOD prime contractor award to NTPS.

    * NTPS' German representative: I.G. Flugerprobung.

    * Flight Research Inc., the commercial flight test arm of NTPS.

    * Flight Research Inc. used its supersonic jet fighters to test Leigh Aerosystems' 'Longshot' guidance package to "educate" dumb bombs.

    * FRI used its jets to perform flight certification tests of L-3 Communications S/TAR solid state recorder.

    * NTPS is one of only five test pilot schools in the world, and the only civilian school, recognized by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. (The others are the USN TPS, the USAF TPS, the French Test Pilot School (EPNER) and the Empire Test Pilot School in England.)

    * A course webpage from the US Naval Academy in which a NTPS technique for minimizing global positioning system error is discussed.

    * A story from 'Plane and Pilot' on unusual-attitude recoveries training at NTPS.

    * The Federal Aviation Administration's Flight Test Pilot/Engineer courses are taught by NTPS. The course manager is George Kaseote, Chairman of the FAA's Flight Test Technical Committee.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2003
  12. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

Share This Page