60 Minutes degree mill story

FYI

Sorry if this has already been posted but the 60 Minutes episode on degree mills is scheduled to air on 11/10 at 8:00

 

I do get American Channels on cable out here but you did not mention one thing... what time zone is it?? Eastern?

 

8 EST, 7 CST, 8 PST, ?? MST

 

I think the 60 Minutes focus is on Hamilton University.

Mary A
President
American Graduate School of Management

 

CBS 60 Minutes is on at 8pm ET in the States.

Online Learning Marketplace and Resources

 

The report is on the CBS News website.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/08/60II/main654319.shtml

 

I was thrilled with their in-depth coverage of Hamilton.

I was disappointed it their lack of coverage of the scope of this prolem. They alluded to it, but more examples would have been nice. But perhaps I'm biased; I would have preferred the entire hour be spent on this subject, and that they'd go after Berne and Knightsbridge, too.

I was shocked at their treatment of Callahan as a victim. Does this woman really believe that launching from an associate's degree all the way to a Ph.D. without doing any coursework along the way is legitimate? Forget Hamilton for a minute; does any school do this? She claimed she was duped. Bull. I can't believe that she went on camera, and I really can't belive 60 Minutes (or, even, this cheap copy) would let it go. The fact is, they awarded her a bachelor's and a master's based upon 2 years of college credit, some work experience, and a 2,000-word essay! Then she paid $7,000 for the Ph.D.! She said she was naive. I say she was stupid and arrogant.

Finally, they had John Bear and Alan Ezell, and that's all they quoted? This was "infotainment" at best. Superficial and sugar-filled. And Callahan as a victim? Oh, puhleeeeeeze!

 

Good story on 60 minutes. Good to see what the famous John Bear looks like.


My question: Why would they fire a lady for having a fake degree if she didn't know they were fake? It seems like the Civil Service Commission would overrule such a termination.

 

I saw the mill coverage and I was shocked to see that it came before any of the other stories. Usually stories on degree mills get little coverage if any. Last time I saw one that attacked a reality TV therapist for having a PsyD from Cal Coast. One of the critics called it a flat out degree mill (which I know that it isn't).

And what about Ms. Callahan acting like a victim? I guess that the thrill of being called a doctor makes people do crazy things. Maybe she can use the "insanity defense".

 

Either way, these shows offer very little more than infotainment. Even when they unwittingly stumble themselves upon some relevant and good information, they still screw it up with the victimization angle.

When all is said and done, despite the "outing" of Hamilton, I see little value in what shows like 60 minutes do.

Callahan as a victim is the requisite emotional jerk to the story. Hamilton has no victims, only opportunists to varying degrees.

 

There is much more to your question than can be answered simply. However the quick answer is the the SF-86 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions) specifically addresses education. OPM regulations require that education listed be from schools accredited by accreditors as approved by the dept of education. All of this information is readily available and in her positions in the government (especially a CIO position) she would have been briefed and have known these facts.

More importantly, the rules governing the SF-86 allow for criminal penalties. My suspicion is, and I believe was pointed out in one of the articles about this issue, is that she claimed the education without ever actually including it in any official documentation so that she most likely faced other charges directly related to ethics and the rules governing her position of public trust.

There are many policies regarding this issue and I believe if we researched the agency policies where she worked she was in violation.

I refuse to believe that she was ignorant. I will also point out that the rules for SES positions are decidedly different than other employees and in fact all positions are covered in the United States Code in title 5, 10 or other areas.

 

She knew. How could she not?

 

One of the many thing that bothered me about her interview was when she was asked if she thought it was legit (or something like that) she responded by saying, "Yes, I am a trusting person". Trusting person as an executive with Homeland Security

 

Just one of many articles and the hearing transcript is available. If she didn't know they were bogus why omit them from the official record?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33968

"Callahan did not mention them in her March 2000 congressional testimony about the "Project X" scandal. She swore only to being a "graduate of Thomas Edison State College," a New Jersey school from which she received a two-year associate's degree in liberal arts.)"

 

I saw Alan speak about this a while back and he said she was railroaded by the governement. I think what pisses him off the most about this is the fact that she lost her job, and no one else in our "lovely" government has lost their job over their milled degrees

 

Michael: I saw Alan speak about this a while back and he said she was railroaded by the governement. I think what pisses him off the most about this is the fact that she lost her job, and no one else in our "lovely" government has lost their job over their milled degrees.

John: That is exactly his argument. Callahan was forced to retire, and lost her pension.

Undersecretary of Defense Abell, in charge of HR for the entire Defense Department, with a degree that his own Department rejects and which makes him a criminal in some states, was 'outed' on Good Morning America a year ago, and nothing happened other than a more vigorous pat on the back by his friend Rumsfeld.

 

Callahan's academic fraud was apparently just a convenient excuse to force her out. I wish they'd get rid of all the academic frauds.

 

This, however, should not be a defense for Callahan. Rather, it is an indictment against the powers-that-be who are afraid to root out the problem, knowing the depths to which it resides.

I surmise the federal government is hoping this all goes away. Callahan will be used as an example, and others (the Fed hopes) will quietly clean up their resumes. Except not all of them can. Many, unlike Callahan, hold positions for which they would be otherwise unqualified--their "degrees" are necessary. For someone like that, it might be better to lay low and hope this passes. Then there is the turmoil all of those dismissals would create. Finally, the resulting publicity would make the people who hired these crooks look like idiots. They, too, are likely better off waiting for the hubub to ebb.

I like the idea of a head-to-toe scrub--getting them all out. But that would involve thousands of firings (and courts-martial for the military members).

The Callahan case sets the standard pretty high--she "used" the degrees in biographical information about her, but didn't actually claim them in the personnel process. For that, she lost her career. I bet there are are a lot of people like that--those who use fake degrees for publicity but don't have them entered on their actual personnel records. Under the "Callahan rule," they'd have to go, too.

It's a mess. My money's still on the "stonewall until it goes away" approach. Typical.

 

What? Columbus University isn't the "established name in distance education"?

It is sad to see that on his official bio. It taints an otherwise steller career.

 

Rich is correct. I have seen some moved to lower profile positions, same pay just not in the limelight, despite being named in the media and elsewhere, but no removals. Callahan had other issues besides her degree claims that brought her to the forefront. I think it is important to note that she, and others, have processes and rights that could be exercised to mitigate their removal. Callahan resigned, she was not removed.

http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/25419-1.html

If she can prove she did so under duress she has an opportunity to restore.

As I have mentioned before unless there was a positive education requirement, very few provisions exist to actually remove an individual for listing a bogus degree. However if an individual, like Callahan, makes a point to demostrate their expertise through touting of their education then he/she invites scrutiny and challenge.

There have been several policy changes and vacancy announcements now stipulate the accreditation requirement. Otherwise business as usual.