MSc in Critical Psych strictly via DL

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Guest, May 4, 2004.

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Chip said, in part,

    Due to Chip's remarks I will try one more time to be an active part of Degree Info.

    I offer the following information:

    Bolton Institute offer a 100% DL Master of Science in Critical Psychology.

    Critical psychology challenges the status quo of the medical model and bio-psychiatry.

    The prices seemed confusing, at least to me, so I emailed and here is the response I received:

    This, to me, is a very tempting program!
     
  2. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Welcome back, Dr Clifton. I see you have a new MDiv from Golden State School of Theology. Congratulations on this wonderful achievement. It is certainly quite something to observe your simultaneous work on so many different degrees; I doubt that anyone else can match your ability to wear so many different academic hats simultaneously.

    As the tides of accreditation ebb and flood, often other institutions are affected besides the particular school which gains or loses accreditation. I would be interested in your perspective on one such case of a "bystander" school: the possible effect on GSST of the ACCS loss of accreditation.

    You expressed concern on another forum that somehow ACCS had been given a free ride by many of us here. You indicated expressly that you weren't gloating at their, shall we say, fall from grace.

    A review of faculty degrees or degrees-in-progress at Golden State School of Theology has recently shown several professors working on a Doctor of Ministry degree at ACCS, usually without any prior accredited degree of theirs. It seems fairly certain that they hoped for a quite proper bolstering of their professional skills and/or professional prestige by the attainment of an accredited degree.

    Are you concerned that the loss of accreditation by ACCS, and, accordingly, the loss of that particular venue to GSST faculty for the attainment of an/another accredited degree, might impair the utility of a GSST degree?
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thank you, Uncle Janko,

    First, I was incorrect that ACCS was given a free ride on Degree Info.

    Second, I don't know how ACCS' loss of accreditation will affect the stature of GSST. I do know ACCS has a fine program. I have two friends who received doctorates from ACCS and they are men of quality, character, and scholarship.

    Third, I am blessed I have a full time ministry position that allows me sufficient study time for academic pursuits, accredited and unaccredited.

    Fourth, thank you for the questions.

    Fifth, blessings to you and your ministry.

    P.S. I will be working at the polls today (primary day) so I won't be able to answer any more questions, should you or anyone else have any, till this evening.



     
  4. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2004
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I'm not particularly impressed.

    Bolton says:

    "Critical Psychology comprises a series of evolving perspectives questioning theoretical and methodological practices of the discipline of psychology in the academe, professional work and culture."

    Nice, but what's the point of a master's degree in deconstructive skepticism? Once psychology is completely unraveled, what's left?

    I'd prefer an "alternative" psychology program that actually had a new vision of its profession. Despite some troubling flakiness, California's Institute of Transpersonal Psychology tries to reconceptualize psychology not simply as a response to pathology but also as part of a larger spiritual journey.

    But perhaps Bolton does have an alternative vision:

    "This questioning typically focuses on problems of ideology and power... A variety of conceptual frameworks (such as feminism, Marxism, post-structuralism and psychoanalysis) are employed by critical psychologists to understand the way psychology functions or to replace dominant frameworks in the discipline."

    I guess Bolton's orientation is to deconstruct psychology, to expose it as ideology in the Marxian sense, and replace it with a left-political agenda for social change. While ITP seeks to enlarge psychology, ultimately merging it with religion's vision of human transcendence. (I personally prefer the latter approach.)

    It is interesting that so many DL psychology programs take "alternative" positions within their field. Saybrook and its humanistic psychology. ITP. Pacifica and its Jungian thing. Maybe alternative orientations predispose people to openness to alternative delivery media. But it's certainly peculiar.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I made mention of the fact I never included you, per se, in my posts regarding the ACCS-TTS concerns I had.

    Howver, if you can refer me to any posts by anyone else who expressed concerns about ACCS-TRACS-prospective students, I'll be more than happy to make the necessary corrections on College Hints.
     
  7. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2004
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: MSc in Critical Psych strictly via DL

    Hi, Bill,

    Critical psychology, like most other disciplines, has its variations. Like you, I prefer humanistic approaches and the incorporation of the spiritual into psychotherapy.

    After all, the very word "psychology" means "the study of the soul (or life)" and should be more philosophical/spiritual than medical.

    My own perspectives are closely aligned with such as Peter Breggin and the ICSPP.

    The San Joaquin Treatment Center uses a humanistic/philosophical/spiritual approach in the treatment of so-called "psychiatric disorders" and does so without the use of dangerous psychiatric drugs.

    William Glasser and Albert Ellis are excellent clinicians to study for further information about alternative methodologies. Neither are supporters of the medical model.

    Glasser successfully treated those labeled 'schizophrenics" w/o medications! (See Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry. )
     
  9. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Jimmy

    OK--Sorry, I see on 4-29 on ch that you excluded me from that hypocrisy you accuse others of here on 4-28.. But Jimmy if you will search then you will see that others here also criticized ACCS.

    ButOK if you wish me to do your research, I will. I'll get back soon.
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bill,

    The posts will be easy to find, I'm sure. Remember, Uncle Janko said he also criticised ACCS.

    For a period of time he was on my Ignore List. So, I didn't see his posts. I am now reading his posts.

    Other than you and him, I don't know of any others, except maybe North. I will have to check to see who else specifically discussed the accreditation problems and prospective students.

    When I locate them, I will make the corrections and, if an apology is due, I will do so. I have to leave now to take my wife to the doctor.

    This afternoon we should all be happy again.





     
  11. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2004
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ;)
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bill,

    First, thanks for the remarks regarding my wife. We just came back from the doctor's. We have to await results of tests. She has a recurring medical problem that cannot, as yet, be explained.

    Now, in the context of my post on College Hints, BLD and Robert do not qualify. Neither posted persistent, relentless, vociferous attacks or criticisms about TTS.

    In the context of my College Hints concerns, I was not speaking about them. Uncle Janko deserves my apology and I sincerely offer it now.

    Even though I did not read his posts regarding ACCS I still was not accurate in my College Hints post.

    The correction will be made on College Hints today.






     
  14. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2004
  15. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Saw your apology to Unk, good!
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest


    First, BLD has not been relentless and vociferous in his criticisms of TTS. If he feels I need to apologize to him, I will certainly do so.

    I have come to enjoy BLD's fair, balanced, and intellectually honest posts.

    Second, yes I did say that about some on Degree Info. But, since Chip's post, I decided to give it another try.

    Third, how does a thread begun to inform about a DL program get obliterated with non-related items?
     
  17. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Let me ask a multi-part question that perhaps does pertain to psychology, if not to the specific program. (BTW, I fully concur with Bill Dayson's loathing of deconstructionism. Destroying a discipline is not teaching a discipline.)

    It is very easy to understand why a millist, whether proprietor, shill, "student", or the rare genuine sucker, can accept no criticism whatever of the "school" in question, since any criticism opens the door to the discovery of the completely fraudulent character of the school. Examples of millist rage are legion.

    It is equally easy to understand why those involved with RA or NA schools can "afford" to be reasonable in their response to criticism, up to and including the ability to join in and accept criticisms of their school where this is called for. Not too many actually resort to the stupidity of "it's RA so shut up."

    For example, I have criticised as corrupt the university where I got my MA, knowing full well that millists would say "ah ha!", and I am not the least bothered by that silly response. Was my work genuine, were academic standards in place, and also were there serious problems with the way that school did things? Yes to all. Call it moral realism, if you will (not in the technical philosophical sense).

    Those who have been involved with Union have been its most careful critics, too. Mutatis mutandis, this also applied here to ACCS and its critics, many of whom were also well-wishers, if unoptimistic well-wishers! Earlier posts on this thread have confirmed this fact about the former discussions of ACCS.

    Here's where it gets puzzling:

    Why do proponents (not necessarily shills, by any means, at least not for starters) of schools which are neither RA *nor* blatant mills, but which *do* have real problems and real deficiencies, resort to rage when criticisms of their school arise?

    Why is it so unlikely that the user of a school subject to serious criticism will say anything along the lines of [for example] "Yes, I accept that TTS has a dubious record of institutional ethics. I condemn their ongoing use of Masters Divinity School as a cash cow and outright mill, and their lack of forthrightness about the connections between TTS and MDS. Nevertheless, for reasons a, b, c, etc., I'm going to make use of this school. The criticisms are valid but I can live with them"?

    In other words, why is self-criticism so tough for people at schools like TTS, CCU, etc.? It would seem that genuine self-criticism AND a reasonable* defence of their choice could go hand-in-hand, but rarely do.

    The question is for all, but with this specification for Dr Clifton:

    Dr Clifton, several of the degrees you currently mention in your sig line indicate a focus on counseling, psychology, etc. How do you see the problem outlined above? (Notice that I am not dealing here with mill issues at all, but with schools possessing a real existence--and substantial present deficiencies or severe unadmitted/unconfronted problems in their track records.) I am *not* asking you to defend your choice of TTS--a school I find permanently problematic. I am inquiring about a phenomenon of response that meets valid enquiry with much less-than-valid kinds of answers. You yourself commented on this type of thing on another forum.

    -----

    *Reasonable may not equal persuasive, obviously. It is possible to be reasonable and wrong, or unethical, or engaging in special pleading/wishful thinking. It is also possible that the reasons are so idiosyncratic or unique to the individual's case that they would be bad reasons for almost anybody else
    --but still reasons, as opposed to rage, legal evasions, joking, etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2004
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Uncle Janko,

    There are many, many reasons, some complicated, some not, for some to be very defensive regarding criticisms of one's alma maters. Criticising anyone's sacred cow usually provokes one to rabid defenses.

    Part of the problem could also be that when one is blatantly, viciously, and persistently attacked it is difficult to distinguish between personal attacks of insignificance and real and legitimate criticisms of something to which that person either belongs to, engages in, or plans to eventually identify with.

    Being able to honestly distinguish between personal attacks and constructive criticism is most difficult for one who feels, whether real or perceived, he or she has been unduly and unfairly chided.

    The psychology of survival includes all our sacred cows. No one likes to be condemned or castigated for the choices he or she has made, good or bad. It's human nature.

    When choices one makes tend to elevate one's self-respect and self-confidence, and those choices are devalued by someone, then immediate defense mechanisms are executed. The feelings of warmth, acceptance, encouragement, etc., are shattered and the person, quite naturally, strikes out at anybody who dares criticise.

    Again, this is human nature.

    It's all right for me to criticise my sacred cows but don't you. You know how that goes. We could get into all the psychobabble of denial, defense mechanisms, etc.

    But I want to be genuine here. I cannot answer your question for everyone. I am not an apologist for them. I can only answer for me, specifically.

    In the case of TTS, I have stated, on numerous ocassions, on various forums, they had a questionable past. But, I believe they have "cleaned up" their act, so to speak.

    I have always believed in redemption and the giving of the second chance. I have also believed there are those who have made some horrible decisions in life, realize that, and try to move on but there are those who simply will not let the past be the past, hence the incredible defensiveness when anything is attacked relating to that individual.

    I don't know enough about Master's Divinity School to discuss it here. Is it a degree mill? I honestly don't know. I am not sure it is. I don't think every school that's unaccredited is a degree mill as some on here seem to surmise.

    I will say, however, if TTS knows Master's casts them in a bad light, they should dissassociate themselves from the school. The Scriptures speak of the "appearance of evil." Fair or not, sometimes it's good to break with a person or entity that sheds a bad light on us.

    Oh, I almost forgot, you ask about "rage" when discussions of one's choices come up. For many, rage stems from having made a bad choice and being called on it, pure and simple.

    One of two issues is usually at play here: exposure or embarrassment.









     
  19. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Well, thank you for your answer, although mostly you did seem to defend your choice of enrolling in TTS, which I specifically said I was not asking or expecting you to do. Such a defense was not necessary in the context of this question.

    That part of your answer does raise a further question, though: you say you are unfamiliar with MDS. It has been dsicussed at length in this forum. They have a website. I'm not sure how a man with as many degrees as you possess could omit researching this. You have claimed elsewhere sufficient expertise in textual criticism to take a position on the language of the New Testament which is very decidedly a minority opinion; apply that expertise in textual criticism to the MDS website, comparing it to TTS' website and comparing it as well with your own prior knowledge about mill seminaries, and let us know if you think MDS is a mill.

    Why should a school, let alone a DL school one has never actually even seen, be a "sacred cow" at all? My basic question remains for others to consider: why do subtandard schools evoke a totalistic adherence on the part of their users--if posts on this forum are any guide at all--a totalistic adherence which does not generally characterize users of RA or NA schools. Why *is* criticism of a substandard school (moral, rigor, administrative, whatever) seen as a *personal* criticism, as Dr Clifton mentioned in his post? Why the emotionalism?

    Dear me, if somebody criticizes Torquemada University--off this forum, since Torq is a pseudonym for an RA school which happens to offer no DL whatever--my feelings aren't hurt. If somebody says "whydja go to such a dump and waste so much time there?", well, evanescent good reasons and perduring human idiocy probably would be the best I could do. But there's nothing threatening or enraging in somebody second guessing my choice to go there, let alone--which is more to the point of my general question--is there anything threatening or enraging if somebody criticizes Torq itself as severely as they like.

    I don't think it's mystic tranquillity on my part. I'm no mystic nor am I tranquil. I think it's a basic difference--
    on the one hand,
    between gping to a school and accepting one's responsibility for that choice, including accepting the pros and cons of the school chosen,
    and on the other hand,
    going to a school with some inward sense of "pulling" something, with a consequence rageful response at what feels tantamount to an exposure of personal "guilt", even if it's a matter of school policy (multiple guess tests, say), or history (yesterday Toledo Bible, today MDS) or advertising (where is that 29,000 volume library?).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2004
  20. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===
    ===


    Jimmy

    The context is that on collegehints you say people on degreeinfo who criticize Trinity are hypocrites because they do not criticize ACCS. Then you here say that BLD was not much of a Trinity critic on degreeinfo.


    First,

    I am glad you find BLD's posts "fair , and balanced." Here is what fair and balanced Barry Davis has said here in many threads over the years about your present school, Trinity Seminary:


    4-25-01--Trinity lies about their accreditation and their course requirements are a joke!

    7-18-01--Trinity's accreditation is deceptive and is a sham!

    8-14-01- Trinity as a school is an absolute joke!

    4-29-02- Trinity has ridiculous cassette courses, and Trinity lies about accreditation!

    5-1-02- Trinity is a joke ; it is beyond defending!

    8-03-02 Trinity lied over and over , and its program is a joke!

    8-28-02- Trinity duped me (Barry)!

    1-1-03- If Trinity receives accreditation , I will disvalue accreditation , not value Trinity!

    9-17-03- One should definitely avoid Trinity!


    "Balanced, and fair"- is that what you said?

    I'm puzzled why one such as you with three masters degrees and working now on a third doctorate in "Conflict Resolution" can interpret this data as not being a "relentless" attack on Trinity. Could you explain?

    Of course neither do I see how calling us a bunch of hypocrites fits into doctoral studies in "Conflict Resolution."

    I've already shown you how Barry who attended both Trinity and ACCS , btw, criticized ACCS as well. Therefore, in that regard Barry, along with me and Janko, are not hypocrites. This hardly is "not ONE word about ACCS"--is it?



    Second, I see. So, the sequence was: on 5-1 on collegehints you said that you were no longer posting on degreeinfo, THEN Chip said that. Then on 5-2 you post here? I got it!


    Third, Perhaps because you, in your first post in this thread mention Chip's warning , then in your second (?) post in this very thread said you were wrong in calling some here hypocrites on collegehints for criticizing Trinity but not criticizing ACCS. Then, you keep responding to this topic.

    Look, I don't care who you apologize to on collegehints. I doubt that Barry cares!

    In fact, I'd appreciate it if you "correct" your statement about me there too. Go ahead and say that I am not objective, am a hypocrite, and am just a big meanie. That would show how your "Conflict Resolution" Trinity doc studies really has a gripping control over your words and deeds.




    :rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page