Why is a thread closed?

Just curious - Why is this thread closed?

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14754

 

Because one poster made a few untoward (and unsupported) comments, causing other posters to respond. This particular poster has a long history of doing just that, and causes these results all too frequently.

 

The thread had also moved off the declared subject and appeared to be destined for trouble.

Speaking of trouble, I hear that CCU is not accredited? It would seem that DETC didn't consider CCU immediately accreditable. I'm speaking from a position of strong knowledge in the fact that DETC did not grant accreditation to CCU. I would consider first hand knowledge in CCU courses as a side issue. Actually it seems to make some people irrational and unable to think objectively so perhaps it is a handicap in this situation?

 

Re: Re: Why is a thread closed?

Isn't that the purpose of an "open" forum? Many people make unsupported comments such as...UoP sucks, UoP is great, NCU is not tough enough, NCU is just right, CCU is a mill, CCU is legit, K-W is a great school, K-W is a mill, etc.

Many of these are opinions and that what many people express here. If we stuck to just the facts, we could not post what study guide we though was best for a CLEP!!!!!

Just my 2 cents and I do not want to start another war of words.

 

Wow, you really got the scoop on that story

 

I agree. If commentary regarding schools is limited to those who've enrolled, three dangers appear. First, a paucity of comment. After all, how many schools has any of us attended? Second, the exclusion of informed opinion and research. After all, many of us have acquired a great deal of knowledge about this field without having attended every school under discussion. Finally, there is bias. This is always suspect when posters with connections to particular schools post unsupported opinions. Don't get me wrong, I also find it highly valuable to read first-hand accounts. But it really becomes suspicious when those attending unaccredited schools hype those schools without presenting the facts (and, conveniently, ingnoring other, bothersome facts).

I have no vested interest in the outcome of CCU's bid for accreditation. None. That makes me unbiased. In fact, because my research has shown that recognized accreditation is valuable (especially among employers who know of such things), I would view CCU's accreditation (some day?) as a positive development. But those who would falsely hype CCU put me on the other side of the argument because they need a strawman.

I find it pathetic to read now the postings of those who guaranteed CCU's accreditation. Instead of approaching the subject rationally, they trot out excuses and theories. Well, I couldn't care less. CCU is not accredited, nor does it seem to have the particular footprint enjoyed by a few of California's state-approved universities. That's too bad, and maybe someday it will change. But not yet.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why is a thread closed?

But when those comments go away from the subjects and towards the posters, it is beyond this board's purpose. In fact, the "such-and-such-a-school=-sucks" path is usually just a prelude to the ad hoiminem to follow.

Poster: "Such-and-such school sucks!"
Respondent: "Why? What facts do you have?"
Poster: "You suck!"

Too many times it spirals out of control that way, invariably involving someone connected to an unaccredited, DL school. Now, why is that?

Of course, there are many posters connected to unaccredited DL schools that do not engage in such behavior. But almost never do we see it from people discussing the accredited schools they're connected with.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is a thread closed?

That is so funny, it reminds me of dinner at my family's house and the arguments we have gotten into.

 

Four right now - probably another four or five previously. I do know the difference between a real school and an inadequate school, having done both. CCU is a real school.

For a closed thread, I sure keep taking the crap, but threads are closed for a reason and I will move on.

 

I was in on the end of that thread and if I said anything that was in error then I'll happily admit it. I based my comment on my casual knowledge of the accreditation process and the status of the two schools in question. It may well be that the status of SCUPS is different than the status of CCU. All I know (overly simplistic, I'm sure) is that at the end of this accreditation "meeting" some were accepted and some were not. This means that some were acceptable and some were not. As I stated in my previous posting, there has been some speculation as to the reasons for these decisions but the bottom line is that neither SCUPS not CCU received accreditation. Clearly this does not mean that neither will ever receive accreditation. Personally, I'd be happy if both became accredited. It would mean a big step forward.
Jack

 

There's a big difference between someone taking "crap" and someone's statements being shown to be illogical or incorrect. Discussing each other's statements is a most wonderful activity and is not against the TOS.

Since this concept seems to be frequently misunderstood by some people, I think it might be valuable to take a specific example. Let's take a specific example that involved my statement specifically.

I started up a thread and took an extreme position in the interest of a lively debate.

http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14436

My position, the statements that I made, were debated and attacked. I thought that it was great fun. I had separated myself from my statements and didn't take it personally when people didn't agree with me.

If you happen to be a person that has problems in this area then I suggest having a debate with a friend and decide before hand what the debate will be about. Also agree before hand that half way through the debate you and your friend will switch sides. Don't worry about winners and losers, just do it for fun.

 

If you are ever fortunate enough to attend a better-than-average philosophy course you will find that this is an exercise that is regularly employed. Clearly, the idea behind this sort of exercise is that you can not really understand your own (preferred) position on any issue until you have a thorough knowledge of the opposing position. This is one of the reasons why the "Letters to the Editor" column in most major scholarly journals becomes the most interesting aspect of the periodical. It is there (among other places, to be sure) that issues are debated. It is interesting (although undoubtedly hopelessly nerdish) to choose a topic, find the original presentation of the idea (somewhere in the literature) and trace the ensuing debate. Brilliant minds at work trying to defend cherished beliefs. Perhaps not surprisingly, the winning argument often comes from the least likely source, some young up-and-coming scholar from out of nowhere. Occasionally an aged veteran retires undefeated. Sorry, again I blather on and on.
Jack

 

Ah, I see. When you repeat lies told elsewhere, when you insinuate things that aren't true, you're just commenting. But when someone (like me in this instance) makes a comment you don't agree with--a comment not even directed at you--then you're taking "crap." Interesting.

It remains that it is not necessary to attend a school to comment on it. John Bear is the acknowledged worldwide expert in this field, and he's never taken a degree from a DL school. Others have taken degrees from DL schools, and their contributions can be valuable, too. But it is simply not required to attend a school to comment authoritatively on it. No one is talking about the efficacy of CCU's processes--that would take some insight that enrollment would provide. But students of schools are--as a lot--not in a very good position to judge a school. And not very unbiased, either.

The fact that you chose CCU over the many legitimate, accredited schools available in order to earn perhaps the most commonly offered DL degree--the MBA--does not add to your credibility in this field. It detracts from it.

I crack up when the same people who complain about posters who comment about schools without attending DL programs also complain about the validity/quality/etc. of degrees earned at such schools by those who have. I've done many things inside and outside DL. I've attended two of the most talked about DL schools--USNY/Regents and Union. I've taught at two traditional schools--SDSU and Webster. I've taught at another traditional school, VIU, that isn't accredited (yet?). I've also been involved with the startup of one school that never became accredited (Greenwich) and another--MIGS--that never got going (despite its association with the properly recognized CEU). I've also worked for and taught at an accredited, nontraditional school. Finally, I've conducted relevant and meaningful research in this field leading to a Ph.D. from an accredited school. But the trolls--anonymous and otherwise--complain on both sides of the issue. If you have DL degrees you've attended "bottom feeder" schools. If you don't, you're unqualified to discuss it. But invariably, these comments come from people attending (or who have degrees from) unaccredited DL schools. Talk about "bottom feeders! Now, why is that?

 

I think the correct answer to why the thread was closed is repeated on this thread. I understand the emotion, I have gotten carried away on threads as well.

 

Again, I say.

 

This is news to me. My understanding is that none of the current applicants received accreditation at the latest meeting.

If some of them were accredited, which ones?

In spite of Degreeinfo's obsessions, the world doesn't begin and end with CCU. Some of the other applicants are interesting in their own right.

 

One only insignificant non-degree school was approved.

 

I think that there might be a few here vocal about a particular school, but many have not even put in an opinion on CCU (nor have one). I think DI is diverse enough that there is no complete agreement by the community of users.

 

Perhaps the reason you keep on "taking crap" is your fearlessness in standing up for those who cannot defend themselves.

Or perhaps not.