Poll: Thoughts on "Time Bomb" exposure/reporting?

As a *long* time AEDer, I've got a question for the readers of this board and am sincerely interested in your thoughts. From my perspective, this board was created to provide a "kinder and gentler" discussion environment. It seems that it was a genuine attempt to move away from the "road-rage" phenomenon found on many newsgroups - which existed in AED.

Here's the question:

Do you feel that exposing / naming individuals who have earned degrees from "less-than-wonderful" schools is a "kinder and gentler" approach? Or is it more like the good ol' days of AED?

I'm curious how others feel about this. However, you can tell by how I framed the question that I do have some strong feelings about this.

Barry Foster

 

Here's the question:

Do you feel that exposing / naming individuals who have earned degrees from "less-than-wonderful" schools is a "kinder and gentler" approach? Or is it more like the good ol' days of AED?

I'm curious how others feel about this. However, you can tell by how I framed the question that I do have some strong feelings about this.

Barry Foster[/B][/QUOTE]

Exposing someone with a degree from a known mill is one thing but to attack someone with an earned degree from an unaccredited institution is another. It appears Dr. Bear as separated the two. I personally agree with exposing someone who simply bought a degree. Keep in mind these mill degree holders probably have deprived someone with a legitimate degree from employment or employment advancement.

Regards, Wes

 

I'm of two minds on this. I do think it's important to root out the scams and mills that give distance learning a bad name.

But using a board like this to "out" (and in some cases gleefully so) holders of bogus degrees disturbs me. We all know that such individuals exist; they have been around for years. Is it really up to this board to identify them for employers who were, frankly, too dumb to scratch beneath the surface of their resumes?

I prefer the many substantive, thoughtful discussions that have been part of this board over the uncomfortable sense that this could become the medium for an online vigilante group.

 

I think we might want to furthur differentiate the people with phony degrees into those who just "have" the degree, and those who "use" the degree. While I don't have much sympathy for either group, I have much less for those who use the degree (ie. call themselves Dr on their radio show, have a job (faculty) that generally requires a PhD etc)

 

I think that a lot depends on what the individual is doing with the questioned degree. If he or she is a danger to the public, by all means blow the whistle. I have no sympathy for those committing fraud. If unqualified people are holding positions where they can do great harm, such as medical quacks, exposing them is a public service.

But if somebody is doing no harm, just uses a questionable degree as an ego boost and is otherwise qualified for his or her position without it, then I think we probably do more harm than good by wrecking that person's life and career.

All in all, I'm uncomfortable with this board becoming what David Yamada termed a 'vigilante group'. I take no pleasure in ruining other people's lives. While I am not going to criticize what GMA is doing, do I hope that they choose their targets very carefully.

 

Frauds should be exposed. If nothing else, it can serve as an example to others that claiming false credentials should be avoided. I wouldn't worry that GMA will start exposing people that aren't frauds. They apparently have a herd of lawyers keeping these reporters on a tight leash.

Regarding this being a kinder forum, my feelings are that the main problem distance learning has is that there are too many degree mills and credential frauds running around and that gives distance learning a bad name. If we just ignore the problem I think it will only make it worse. Newbies must be warned about the degree mills or they can esely be defrauded.

I believe that any forum that wishes to be a consumer advocate for distance learning has a responsibilty to warn the consumer of the pitfalls involved.

 

Barry and others,

I also think that we should not have to be politically correct in naming accredited degree holders and nonaccredited degree holders. Typically, the accredited degree holders let folks know where they earned their degrees and it seems more often than not that we need to drag it out of those with unaccredited degrees. Why?

Also, it appears that those who have earned unaccredited degrees are posting these degrees on public web sites, public publications, etc., for the public to see - not just to hang on their wall for personal gratification. Why?

When a school is classified as "less than wonderful" it is really a nice way of saying "don't go there." I am a strong believer that if someone is using one of these "less than wonderful" degrees to promote their career it is an affront to those who earned their degrees from an accredited schools.

We get enough posts in any DL forum about the acceptability of DL degrees. Many people worry that the degree program they are considering may not be acceptable by their employer. A lot of effort is made to assure them that if their DL degree is RA it is fine. Do we just look the other way when we find people that choose the "less than wonderful" path.

If I had an "earned" degree from a "less than wonderful" school I would not put this on my resume. I would then wonder why I shelled out a couple of grand so that I could have a fancy piece of paper hanging on my wall. If I did use it I would be worried because the value of the credential is questionable. I start to draw the line when the program meets a legitimate requirement. For instance, an unaccredited law degree that does qualify me for the bar in California may be a legitimate option if that is the route I want to go. But I also must be aware of the limitations of that degree.

For schools that are unaccredited and are basically offering degree completion services with little or no work or providing substantial doctoral credit for life experience are really vanity services. They are also danergous because the public relying on Dr. XYZ, from "less than wonderful" school XYZ may not know that the degree is suspect.

Here is my story -- when I first started looking into graduate study after completing my USNY degree in 1984 (hooking me on DL study) I was aware that RA was the standard but also believed that "state approval" was OK too. A naive view to say the least. I was very serious, for a little while, about a Columbia Pacific University masters degree because they had state approval, it was easy to gain entry, and I thought the diploma would have value. Through further research I found that it would have little acceptance if I wanted to pursue doctoral study. This also made me worry about its utility for job prospects. I decided against it and never looked back. Now, I am grateful for that decision because of the turmail CPU and its present alumni are going through. Even if the degree earned had state approval, at the time, the cloud over CPU makes the utility of a CPU degree even more suspect.

I also think it is fair to say that the potential for these "less than wonderful" schools of falling into the same pit as CPU is high. Many of these schools move from state to state to meet less stringent laws and at some point they will close down. When this happens the degree holders of the out of business "less than wonderful" schools will now have to say they have a degree that was never accredited but the school no longer exists. The seeds are planted for a new round of horror stories by people that get burned.

Essentially, I must ask a more fundamental question. Why do people have a compulsion to get a "less than wonderful" degree? Our efforts should be spent in making education accessible and there are more options today for earning an RA degree, at all levels, than ever before. We may take the easy way out because we don't have the time for study or believe that the degree is owed us for all of the work done. If we want a degree we must decide to go earn it and make the time. Unfortunately, there are options from the "less than wonderful" schools that give us an easy way out.

If we are to start judging the "less than wonderful" schools as acceptable then lets quite sending our kids to college. Look at all the money families would save. By sending their kids to work and letting them complete their degree at a "less than wonderful" school for just a few thousand dollars is quite the deal. The reason this doesn't happen is because a "real education" is valued from a respectable institution. Again, it is for the same reason that DL is questioned about its acceptability. Students want a real education and a valued degree. The "less than wonderful" schools devalue education -- simple as that.

John






------------------
John R. Wetsch, Ph.D.
B.S. '84 Excelsior College (USNY/Regents)
M.A. '89 Antioch University, The McGregor School
Ph.D. '94 Nova Southeastern University

 

Like some others who have responded, I also have mixed feelings about the exposé game. On one hand, we potentially ruin people's lives, careers, and reputations; on the other hand, there is an indisputable public interest in terms of people being aware of those who hold bogus credentials, especially in the helping professions.

For what it's worth, however, let me share a thought that crossed my mind after the recent exposure of Maggie Jensen's doctorate from St. George University International, documented in other threads on this newsgroup.

As you may remember, Maggie wrote a brief-but-somewhat-bitchy response in which she did not deny any of the claims that were made. Indeed, in terms of the essential evidence to the claim, res ipsa loquitor - the thing speaks for itself.

But what if, instead of a reaction that is typical for someone who holds a degree mill credential (anger, offense, denial, etc.), she had, say, committed suicide because she was exposed? I do not believe there would be any legal liability - facts are facts, but I would still have felt like crap, as if I were responsible. And since I feel good about things the proverbial 99-44/100% of the time, I don't particularly like the potential thought of feeling like crap.

In my local area alone over the past few years, I have run into a massage therapist who claimed a Doctor of Naturopathy degree from LaSalle University, and his spicialization was massage for women. I don't know if he was into anything kinky or inappropriate in his practice, but the fact that the real (regionally accredited) La Salle University is located here in the Philadelphia area led anyone who hadn't heard of the mill in Louisiana to believe that he had a legit degree. That, I submit, is potentially harmful, and his exposure was certainly in the public interest.

I also recall recounting on a.e.d. the case of a physical therapist who had a legit M.P.T. degree from Rutgers University, but who had topped it off with a Ph.D. in Health Services from the bogus Columbus University in Louisiana and ran around calling himself "Doctor." Exposure in the public interest? Well, perhaps he was not as harmful as the guy who claimed the LaSalle doctorate, but in the medical profession a doctoral title creates a different impression to the lay consumer, and I believe that his exposure was appropriate.

Then there was the local judge who bought himself a ministerial ordination by mail so he could charge money for performing wedding ceremonies in chambers. It would have been illegal for him to do so as a district justice, but not as a clergyman. Exposure in the public interest? Sure.

Which brings us back to our more current example, Maggie Jensen. As I wrote to the folks at Mercer, I have no indication that she is not a good teacher, nor that she is not pedagogically gifted. Hell, she may even be exceptional. But the fact that she received, and that they published information on, a bogus doctorate is in the public interest because of the influence it can have on other, less aware consumers.

The problem I have, however, is that we (yes, I include me) do not merely expose such people for the frauds they commit; we do so because we get our jollies from doing so. And that brings to mind the old philosophical question, who is more perverted? The folks who engage in illegal kink, or the cops that bust them?

That's why my solution is simply to stop busting the fakes that are out there unless there is a strong public interest in doing so. Not because I have become any more tolerant of them, but because I acknowledge that I have enjoyed doing it a little too much for my own satisfaction.

I'm afraid that if GMA, or any other media outlet (or newsgroup, or forum, ad infinitum) gets into a "fraud of the week" situation, it will merely defuse the impact of the occasional exposé. (In other words, it will desensitize us to the issue.) Again, the frauds are always going to be out there, as are the mills, and there is certainly more to my life than exposing them.

As Barry noted, the kindler/gentler approach worked wonders during the good ol' days. When we spend all of our time on exposing frauds, we pass on that much less information about the good programs that are out there, and consumers may end up believing that distance education should be avoided on the whole. There is an old story about U.S. Secret Service training for bank tellers on how to recognize counterfeit money. The Treasury Department does not train them to recognize counterfeits by showing them counterfeits, but by having them learn so much about real money that they recognize a counterfeit when it comes along because it does not fit the pattern. The question, then, is whether this forum wants to be an informational resource for distance education, or merely a tabloid for exposing fakes. The latter may give us our jollies, but the former will do a lot more good.

Finally thought: I move that we abandon the phrase less-than-wonderful. If a school is less than wonderful, it's a degree mill, period. And there are enough great schools out there - in many fields, using many methodologies, and at many price ranges - that no one should ever have to consider a less-than-wonderful school. There are enough regionally accredited programs - yes, even cheap ones - that one should never have to consider an unaccredited school - even more now than when this issue was first raised on a.e.d. a few years ago, considering the proliferation of RA schools into the distance market - because any unaccredited program will raise questions at some point in one's life. Like it or not, that is reality.

 

I agree, I believe that a school that offers or allows inferior education programs is a degree mill. That is the common definition. In the USA the commonly accepted standard is RA schools. If someone says they earned a degree, the assumed standard is an RA school. Does that mean to me that all DETC schools are degree mills, no but some are.

 

I agree! I don't know that sending in a news team and exposing everyone publically is the most productive approach. Certainly, if someone is a blatant fraud (e.g., a practicing MD with a fake credential), this needs to be exposed and is worthy of a news report.

For the one who may have several credible degrees (e.g., B,M) and perhaps a non-accredited, but legitimate and legal (e.g., CA state approved), doctorate, I don't think that public exposure and humiliation is productive.

Russell

 

I have no problem with exposing people who hold totally fraudulent degrees, like those from Columbia State, Palmer's Green, etc. These people, especially those with advanced fake degrees, most likely knew exactly what they were doing. They accepted the risks, and they got caught. If you stick your arm in a tiger's cage, don't be surprised if it gets bitten off.

Those with degrees from unaccredited, but legitimate, schools are another matter altogether. I wouldn't bother with them, and you'll notice in my "contributions" that I didn't. I mentioned only those schools where there is no doubt that they are fake.

Bruce

 

Hit the "submit" button too soon....

My main reason for exposing degree mill credentials is simple. As someone else said (Bill Dayson?), those people will taint the whole concept of DL. In the eyes of Joe Citizen, it goes something like this;

Distance Learning = Columbia State
Columbia State = Degree Mill
Therefore....
Distance Learning = Degree Mill

We can't allow this to happen. I'm hoping that GMA, whenever they expose degree mill credentials, will mention the fact that there are 100% legitimate and properly accredited schools.

Bruce

 

Here's the question:

Do you feel that exposing / naming individuals who have earned degrees from "less-than-wonderful" schools is a "kinder and gentler" approach? Or is it more like the good ol' days of AED?

Like others I have mixed feelings. While I don't support the use of degrees from schools that are legal but do not require serious work,I know that there may be some who may believe that their legal degree is acceptable. The fault lies more with the person who hired them as well as our law makers for allowing these schools.

When someone purchases a degree then they surely know what they are doing. Even then I wonder what we will do by exposing them except increase public awareness of degree mills and scams. Will these exposes help to close the schools? And if so, is this the best way to get the desired result.

Last, I see all of these people as people. Foolish people, but none the less people. Moms, dads, aunts, uncles and sisters and brothers. They made foolish choices and I don't know that they deserve to be humiliated in public. The owners of these schools would be a different story.

And I wonder, how would I feel if I were responsible for an expose where the person's grandmother had a heart attack that night and died. Playing with lives is not my thing.

I'd prefer a tactice that would be less sensational and more effective. Surprise the law makers who voted not to make the laws stricter. That goes with his job.

GMA is looking to increase ratings, not help the DL/DE cause.

My 2cents worth - that's all.
-Gila

 

I would consider non-accredited degrees like you mention to be credible. Assuming the person is being truthful about where they earned their degree, public exposure would be meaningless and there would be no reason for humiliation. That doesn't mean it's equal to an RA degree, it means that it is what it is, an unaccredited degree.

I believe that one of the biggest dangers of an unaccredited degree is that the school is much more likely to eventually become a full fledged degree mill than would be an RA degree. If that were to happen then the students that worked hard to earn their degree are basically out of luck.

The biggest problem with an unaccredited degree is that it is likely that the graduate will be spending time/effort/credibility defending their degree but I don't think that this means the graduate should be humiliated when people find out it's unaccredited.

 

Thanks to everyone for the dialogue! Folks on this forum always step up to the plate when it comes to clear, concise thoughts!

My own thoughts are that attention needs to be more focused on exposing the degree mills and less focused on mill consumers. There must always be allowances for exceptions (ie, someone who knowingly abuses false status for personal gain.)

If people are going to be exposed, as fellow humans and travelers, they deserve to be informed first. I wonder how many people exposed on this board know that they are potential fodder for the "Enquirer-like" money-making machine.

Regarding exposing mills / operators

I think most of us would agree that degree mills must be exposed for what they are: Rip-off artists who make money for offering inferior products, often with no disclaimer. Those of you who remember realize that I am a "RA only" advocate and would even push to open the can of worms regarding so-called "legitimate" other schools (even DETC). So I'm an extremist when it comes to accreditation. (I respect those of you who feel otherwise on this. This is just where I am at.)

People are very free to get degrees from wherever they'd like, but the schools *must* be extremely clear about the limitations of their product. (An disclaimer not unlike that of the cigarette industry would make me quite happy - printed right on the paper *and* the resume.) If a person wants to increase their skills and knowledge - fine. But they need to know that a degree from a non-RA school has significant shortcomings. (I know we've argued this point to death and don't agree, but I wanted to show what an extremist I am.

Steve states the bottom line well: Focus on consumer advocatism.

Regarding exposing people:

For me, exposing people is quite different. Yes, some are abusers who knowingly leverage a worthless piece of paper by manipulating people who either don't know or don't care in their effort to gain expert power. Expose them. It's a matter of protection. From a position of consumer education and advocism, give 'em both barrels.

However, I'm conviced that *many* degree mill paper holders don't fully grasp the situation. They've simply bought the con. After dealing with a number of people in this boat (and being there myself many years ago), most are simply the "targets" of the non-RA con game. Let's work with these folks to educate them. But I don't feel posting / exposing them to the world is a constructive way to do this.

Exposing these people is basically going to war against them. Their natural response? Denial, anger, fear, and almost always defense. We've seen it over and over. Most will attempt to defend their degrees with vigor - often using similar words taught to them by their degree mill. Reinforcing (and in some cases creating) degree mill advocatism seems contrary to the consumer advocate cause.

Think how you would feel if you experienced this kind of exposure. Think of how you, your family, your co-workers, your customers and your employer might feel about it. To me, this approach is dishonoring to (1) those exposed and (2) those doing the exposing.

How do we tell the difference between those who are malicious in their inappropriate use of their degree mill paper verses those who are unfortunate victims of the scheme? It can be done, but not by reading something on the internet. In most cases, this takes interaction.

I do have a suggestion: If we need to expose someone, let's at least give the person a chance and let them know about it. Perhaps they'll be shocked into correcting the situation - maybe even going back to the school and *demanding* their money back, telling their fellow students / alumni, etc. Perhaps they'll decide to "pull" their use of the credential.

This way, we've given people at least a chance to operate from a position of knowledge with the chance of lessening the "fight or flight" response.

Anyway, just my ramblings on this subject. As always, if you disagree: Great. Again, I appreciate the responses so far on this question.

BTW, notice that I've backed off the 'less-than-wonderful' phrase. I agree with Steve's point. Let's call 'em what they are.

Barry Foster

 

Just another thought:

Are we exposing "time bombs" or are we setting them off?

Barry Foster

 

I have been a participant in AED since 1997 and Degreeinfo since its inception. Several years ago I asked members of the AED if they knew of a source for a list of popular celebraties who held unaccredited degrees. Response was minimal and no resource provided.

As such, and as a matter of observation, I do not believe that many people from outside this group (AED/Degreeinfo) have been exposed as having questionable degrees. There have been posters who were identifed with such credentials, but with all due respect, for the most part they do not appear to hold positions that are that consequential.

As someone who has worked hard for all my qualifications and degrees (I have posted the source of my degrees numerous times), I most certainly do resent people with questionable or out-right bogus degrees.

Recently, a person I know revealed that she earned her doctorate from an unaccredited school. She declared her degree (which she had to "write five papers" to earn) to be equal to my regionally accredited one. She received the same salary differential as I did. I feel that she is, in a certain sense, commiting fraud. That is my opinion.

There are, hoever, situations when such lying can be seriously dangerous to the well being of others. The medical/health field is one of them. So called herbalists, doctors of oriental medicine, naturopathy, etc. can do serious damage to the health of others. (Yes, there are several regionally accredited schools offering the ND degree as well as several states that license naturopaths, but that is not what I am taliking about.)

The American Psychological Association (APA) for example, considers it an ethical duty for a person who becomes aware that another's claims are questionable, to discuss such issues with them. For example, if a licensed psychologist becomes aware that a therapist that they know claims to have earned a doctorate which they did not, or implies that they are licensed when they are not, it is their duty to discuss these issues with the person. If that person does not correct the ethical/legal infraction, it is then the duty of the person who is aware to report them to the appropriate authorities.

So, from this poster's perspective, there may be many situations that reporting/identifying someone with questionable degrees may actually be an ethical obligation, not a choice.

Jeffrey

 

One of my concerns is that many of the attitudes expressed on this board can cut both ways. Believe me, there are plenty of degree holders from RA residential schools who resent holders of the same degree from any DL school, accredited or not. And they will tell you that they had to work, sweat, and sacrifice on campus for x number of years to earn that degree, while the DL degree holder didn't have to attend class and in some cases even got credit for life experience, often earning the degree in a fraction of the time they spent doing so.

Of course, a doctorate earned with 5 papers is ridiculous, as is Columbia State, period. But I assure you, one of the unintended ripple effects of so vigorously going after Columbia State in the mainstream media is that many people will assume that virtually all DL programs, RA or not, are equivalent to Columbia State and therefore are mills. The question, "What, you mean that school gives credit just for documenting your life?!", could apply to USNY, Thomas Edison, or to Columbia State. Even in the context of the better investigative news shows, the nuance and distinctions that we understand to separate legitimate from bogus institutions may be lost on many viewers.

 

This is true but I believe the best way to reduce credential fraud is information and education for the public. Get the word out that there are many fake schools as well as real bona fide distance learning opportunities. I believe that GMA mentioned this on their last show. I hope they mention it on every show.

 

Pressures within any organization normally encourage keeping quiet. Go along and get along...