Question for Dr Levicoff

Hi Steve:

Another UIU graduate mentioned some difficulties UIU has had with the Ohio Board of Regents. You can check his post on the interdisciplinary PhD thread--I don't wan't to paraphrase what he said (because it would be wrongly paraphrased) or quote it
(because it would be quoted out of context).

Do you think that renaming a doctoral "path" at UIU might happen, or might be appropriate? I'm thinking in part of the professional/research doc distinction, in part of the variety of degrees offered in some theological schools--which may or may not create more transparency, and also (still) carrying a feeble torch for the old DA.

Thanks,
Janko

In case anyone else chimes in, I am neither impugning anything abut UIU nor seeking to exaggerate (or diminish) the issues with OBR.

 

I don't think you're impugning UIU at all. These are fair questions--with far-reaching consequences.

I hope Steve responds. I don't know if he's gotten a copy of the actual report (he didn't have one at one time), but his opinion and insight will prove valuable. IIRC, he's posted on the subject in the past. Perhaps a search will turn up some of his observations.

 

As a frame of reference, the thread to which Uncle Janko refers is here.

I will defer to Rich Douglas on the question of alternative degree titles, since he is much more up to date on the Ohio OBR situation than I am (I tend not to follow the intricate details of the Union hoopla these days).

But a few brief comments, especially in light of the cited thread:

First, the person who Dennis Ruhl cited as allegedly doing his degree in eight months is, in fact, Rich. Rich has responded to this more than adequately and, while I enjoy trashing him occasionally, I have no doubt that Rich more than earned his degree over, as he noted accurately, a period of many years. He not only holds a legitimate doctorate, he earned it legitimately.

The eight-month allegation was invented by the anonymous flamers on the old alt.education.distance newsgroup, a worthless forum these days. If Dennis is treating AED as his primary research medium, he's more of a bozo than I realized. (Although, I do confess, I did realize that he's a bozo.)

Alternative nomenclature is one of many moves that Union has been considering, but I am not aware of the status of this. Another is changing the minimum enrollment of two years to a three-year minimum. This is not going down well with their current learners (most of whom would take at least three years anyway). Rich is correct that I earned my Ph.D. in the two-year minimum, but that is an unusual case; moreover, I came into Union with two degrees that were earned non-traditonally, an advantage that most learners do not have. (Of the ten people in my original colloquium, only two of us did our degrees in two years to the day. The average for our group, as in most cases at Union, was 3-1/2 years.)

(I would, therefore, disagree with Roy Savia's contention that a Union degree cannot be completed in less than 4-5 years. It depends on one's field and his or her previous experience with nontraditional methodologies. Take it from one of the "two-year wonders.")

I agree fully with Rich's evaluation that distinguishes Union from other doctoral programs. If anything, Union has forsaken its original and unique philosophies to a degree, in part because of the competition from the newer programs and in part because of the hoopla surrounding OBR and U.S. DoEd. (In my opinion, they're overcompensating to kiss the asses of both regulatory authorities, but that is because a previous administration tended not to kiss their butts enough in the first place.)

I have addressed some of the OBR issues in earlier threads, and have previously also noted that while I think Union has always had the best nontraditional doctoral program of the bunch, I am not recommending UIU, at least until they are no longer in a state of flux with OBR and DoEd. This is based on my comparisons of the program from the days when I was a learner (I graduated in 1991) to later times when I served as a peer and an adjunct on several Union doctoral committees. Moreover, I have questioned whether Union can survive in the long haul, especially if it tries to conform to other doctoral programs (all of which are newer, and most of which are proprietary as opposed to nonprofit) instead of maintaining the unique identity it has always enjoyed.

Past that point, I would refer readers to Rich's well-written and comprehensive responses in the thread cited above.

 

Not to turn this into a love-fest, but I want to re-emphasize a couple of Steve's points. Yes, the 3-year minimum is in place and, yes, it applies to current learners. But they're also able to apply for a waiver to it, which makes no sense--they should've been grandfathered in with the 2-year requirement. I'm attending a pre-grad meeting in February for a learner who started in June 2002. Obviously, he hopes to graduate in June 2004, the earliest possible date. We'll see.

Yes, the previous administration (actually, two ago) didn't kiss enough but at either the USDoE or the OBR. These things could've been kept to an utter miniumum if he had. But he was the king of his domain, and that's the way it was. Union may not have to pay a long-term price for it--we'll see. But the short-term pain is bad enough.

I, too, am hesitant in recommending Union at this time. They're troubles with the USDoE have been cleared up, and I don't think their viability as an institution is in serious doubt (anymore), but as Steve alluded to, we really don't know what changes are coming. And those changes could change the very essence of the school and its programs.

 

Ahhhh, why not Rich, 1968 was a good year?

 

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

 

Too late, it's already a love-fest. Any thread where you guys both post and don't throw any barbs qualifies as a love-fest as far as I'm concerned.

 

You're exactly right, Bill, it must be the new year. The warm fuzzies are everywhere.