High standards for degree mills in Malaysia and other third-world countries.

I saw a newspaper story today that I think reflects on the activities of degree mills such as American World University that have operations in third-world countries such as Malaysia and claim to enjoy dazzling reputations in these countries. I suspect that it may be just possible that people in these countries are not terribly sophisticated. As reported in London's Daily Telegraph newspaper, 6/25/01:

"Belief in black magic is still prevalent among Malaysians. Cockerels and goats are sacrificed to spirit gods by groups of men whose leader goes into a trance and supposedly reveals winning combinations to the four-digit national lottery. Although very rare, there have been reported cases of human sacrifice."

 

I don't know; my feelings are mixed. I think it's probably safe to say that the Malaysian government isn't terribly sophisticated, and that there are no doubt people in Malaysia who are not terribly sophisticated, but some of the most intelligent people I've encountered come from Malaysia.

I'm not fond of how British newspapers sometimes handle African, Asian, and aboriginal cultures; extraterrestrials of an equally colonial predilection could very easily describe us as a planet full of corpse-eaters who murder one another wholesale over the use of dead land, for instance, and they would be technically correct in letter but a good bit off the mark in spirit.

So I would say that the Malaysian educational system may be a bit primitive in the way it handles less-than-wonderful schools, but no more primitive than Louisiana was ten years ago.

Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Or last week, for that matter!


Tom Nixon

 

More likely they are simply confused about American accreditation. I think that is how some of the unaccredited California state schools attract Asian consumers. They see state approved and assume that is the same approval (ie means the same thing) as it does in their country.

Many countries have people with superstitious practices (eg Venezuela or Haiti). Another example is the USA. How many people here went crazy over crystals, or channeling. In fact the Amazing Randy (Skeptical Inquirer) took a confederate with him to Australia (?) to show how easily people can be fooled by Channeling. The guy was a hit.

North

 

"The Amazing Randi" aka James Randi has long been a leader in debunking psuedo-sciences, many of which find a great number of adherents here in the U.S. I highly recommend to anyone interested in the truth regarding such things to read his book "Flim-Flam." He gave phoney faith healers the same going over in the mid-80's with "The Faith Healers." Both are out of print, but readily available through used-books channels. I also see "Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural: James Randi's Decidedly Skeptical Definitions of Alternate Realties" by the same author.

Rich Douglas

 

Is he the one that exposed Uri Geller (the spoon bender) as a hoax?


Bruce

 

Its almost midnight here on the East Coast and I needed a good bedtime laugh, Tom. Last week indeed! Trinity C&U could flourish in either LA, Malayasia or Gilligan's Island.

 

Thats Malaysia, as I said, its almost midnight!

 

Well, the god of creepy timing strikes again. Having never heard of the Randi-Geller situation before in any depth (it was before my time and I was never really interested in spoon-benders), I stumbled upon this URL for the first time last night.

I don't know. Uri Geller certainly doesn't rank highly on my credibility meter, but as someone who used to subscribe to CSICOP mailings on more current issues, I can say with relative confidence that I do wish there was a society to investigate the claims of societies investigating the claims of supposed paranormalists, just to keep things interesting.

Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

I totally agree with North's opinion. Many students in Asia do not understand the US educational and accreditation system. In Hong Kong, no institution can claim to be an 'university' there unless it is assessed and approved by the Hong Kong Council of Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) and, in fact, all universities in Hong Kong, up to this moment, are government funded. I think that the situation may be the same in the UK and Australia. Therefore, there are few private universities in those areas. As to the US,the number of private universities is much more than that of public universities (is it correct?) and the accreditation may be given by regional, state or some other agents (that is confusing in the eyes of Asians).
In Hong Kong, there were some US unaccreditated universities, such as Newport, Clayton, .....,etc, doing business there several years ago. Now, they cannot attract students any more because there are a large number of accredited programs offered there by the US, UK and Australian universities (you may refer to http://www.info.gov.hk/eng/prog_high/index.html and click list of registered courses and list of exempted courses).

 

The correct web site is www.info.gov.hk/emb/eng/prog_high/index.html

then click 'Regulation non-local higher and professional education courses',

then click 'List of registered courses' and ' List of exempted courses'.

 

There are a couple of organizations out there who actually have an open mind to these things and yet remain healthily skeptical. One of the best is, I think, called Spindrift or something close to that. They specialize in funding studies to scientifically evaluate the effects of prayer. The protocols I've seen are pretty sharp... one example: a block of 100 plants under lights indoors, randomly divided into 2 groups, but the division cannot be determined by anyone caring for the plants. Groups from various churches are asked to pray for the plants in the experimental group. The results indicate that plants receiving prayers grow faster and taller than plants not receiving prayers. (study replicated several times).

I am relying on secondary citations of the original studies, but the author who cited them (Larry Dossey, M.D.) is quite reputable and not prone to exaggeration.

I believe that JFK University has also done some decent studies on paranormal phenomenon as well.

I don't have much respect for James Randi, because he does not appear to have an open mind at all, and has been reported to do sleazy things like changing the rules for a test 10 minutes before it was aired live on television, or refusing to accept a challenge from a psychic who, by every account so far, is reported to be more than 90% accurate.

This is not to say that there isn't a lot of fraud and good-natured false belief out there in the field of paranormal study, but Randi doesn't seem like the impartial observer that is needed to oversee these things.

 

I'm going to have to look into this, Chip -- thanks!

My general feeling about James Randi -- and I could be wrong on this point -- is that he's not so much a skeptic as he is a militant atheist and classical materialist. I get the feeling, when reading or listening to Randi, that he has a very deep-seated emotional investment in somehow demonstrating that nothing outside of our current natural paradigm can happen, does happen, or will happen, and I tend to think of this as being more of a religious (or, properly speaking, I suppose antireligious) idea than anything else.

Which is not to say that I don't find him entertaining at times -- and I think that about 80% of what he does probably is for the best -- but when he can't even look semi-intelligent in a column arguing with TV Guide columnist Michael Logan about John Edward, it leads me to think that Randi is off his game, even as militant pseudoskeptics go. (I could have written a better critique myself.)

There are some solid folks in CSICOP, but I have yet to meet anyone in that organization who even pretends to have a balanced perspective. The idea usually isn't "see if it's genuine"; the idea is "accept as a matter of faith that it's not genuine, then figure out a way to prove it." As far as I'm concerned, this falls under the same heading as saying that God buried the dinosaur bones to trick science. You can explain away anything if you're allowed to begin with a closed system and scrap the outliers, but "I don't know." is the properly humble (if frightening) position to take, and I wish more alleged skeptics would take it.




Peace,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

 

Yes, and wrote a book about that, too.

Rich Douglas

 

This is a classic attack against those who debunk psuedo-science. Randi's beliefs are not the issue: claims by paranormalists are. The situation remains: there has never been one substantiated, repeatable, case of the paranormal demonstrated under scientifically controlled conditions. No other claims (in medicine, physics, biology, archeology, whatever) go forth without such proof--and certainly not after disproof.

Randi likes to note that these frauds are more than happy to perform in front of scientists. But they don't like to do so in front of magicians. That's because magicians can easily spot the slight-of-hand that is so prevalent with spiritualists, psychic surgeons, spoon benders, mind readers, etc. When these shams fail to perform under controlled conditions--that is, conditions they do NOT control--they blame it on the skeptics' bad vibes, negativity, pre-disposition, etc.

Of course people like Randi and the late Carl Sagan had beliefs. Why would they put in so much effort to expose these people if they didn't feel strongly about the subject? But that doesn't equate to impartiality when it comes to testing the person's claim(s). And what does the tester's beliefs have to do with anything? Either the person can perform the paranormal act or he/she cannot. Invariably, he/she cannot.

One of my favorite aspects of Randi is his public performance of the same "paranormal" acts claimed by Geller, et. al. I've seen him bend spoons, move objects, communicate with thumping spirits, and perform psychic surgery. Of course, he then shows the public how it is really done, and without paranormal means. Science requires that, if faced with two explanations for the same event, we accept the simpler one. The simple truth is that these people are frauds and can't do a thing they claim, except by subterfuge.

Since religion gets mentioned a lot on this board (in good taste, I might add), let me remind people about Randi's "The Faith Healers." He spent a good deal of time and money exposing these scam artists who prey on people's weaknesses, faith, despirations, and hopes. Randi single-handedly destroyed Peter Popoff's rip-off scheme by exposing it on national television. (Popoff is back, but in a much smaller way.) Regardless of anyone's--including Randi's--beliefs, these faith-healing "preachers" perpetrate one crime after another, hiding behind a thin veil of "religion." They give a black eye to all the faiths and followers who are sincere in their beliefs and efforts. The wave that faith healers and televangelists were riding in the 80's has crested, with many of them "wiping out." James Randi had a role in that. Despite his lack of faith, he provided a service to those who do not lack it.

Rich Douglas

 

We've gone way off topic here (and I'm as much to blame as anybody), but maybe I wasn't clear.

I do think that Randi has done a good service by exposing the obvious frauds, of which Popoff is an excellent example. And many of the other psychics are equally deceptive... and that is wrong.

But there are legitimate, repeatable studies (The Spindrift ones are, by the secondary citations I've seen, among the best) that do indicate that there's more to the world than Randi chooses to believe. Geller may be a fraud -- I would't argue that. But Randi throws out the baby with the bathwater and approaches every subject as though they *are* a fraud... and I suspect that if/when he comes upon someone with actual ability, the cognitive dissonance would be so strong that he'd not be able to deal with it.

Which is why, I suspect, he's refused the opportunity to test George Anderson (the psychic I mentioned before) or (as far as I know) look at things like homeopathic medicine, which operates outside of the parameters of current scientific knowledge, but nevertheless acts well beyond placebo and has been used for a couple hundred years.

 

I disagree. First of all, lurid and sensational descriptions of folk religion made by poorly informed newspaper reporters from halfway around the world have nothing to do with degree acceptance by Malaysian employers and universities.

And second, most countries have problems understanding the details of other nations' higher education systems. We see that over and over again on this board. German courts supposedly ruling that the University of Maryland is below high school level. Individual British universities transforming themselves into international accreditors. Ministry approvals from St. Kitts. MIGS and CEU.

If Malaysians have problems understanding the nuances of exactly where state approved unversities stand in the American higher education system, they certainly aren't alone.

I agree that there is a strange interest in foreign distance education in East Asia. They seem willing to enroll in anything, and seem very naive about accreditation issues.

But I think that probably is a result of the rapid economic growth in Asia over the last few decades. Many people are now contemplating university education who wouldn't have a generation ago. And these nations' higher education systems simply have not expanded fast enough to meet the increased demand. There's a shortage of places, hence the interest in studying abroad.

 

Well - the other consideration that we odn't need to worry about (I hope!), is that, apparent acceptanceof degree mills aside, there is the prevelance of parents of students doing deals and 'buying' the pass or the degree in effect for their son or daughter from a reputable institution. It is one of the biggest problems for those of us who evaluate foreign credentials and degrees.

Th truth of that becomes apparent when the students start to fail basic graduate courses that are not much more than conformatory studies of what they hold out that they already have accomplished.

So although a degree is a dgree is a degree, if may not be even if it is.

Peter French
Who spends many hour assessing Asian degrees.

 

Of course, the CEU has been appropriately approved and listed for 31 years. AACRAO considers degrees from such Mexican universities as appropriate for admission to the next highest level degree program at U.S. institutions. We're still wrestling with the appropriateness of the inclusion of MIGS, but that's for others to ferret out.

Rich Douglas

 

The term "third world" was properly used to describe those nations not aligned with either the West (NATO and friendlies) and the East (USSR, Warsaw Pact, and friendlies). That usage is passe. To use this term to describe under-developed nations is perjorative and inappropriate (not to mention inaccurate).

Rich Douglas, who once taught this stuff at San Diego State University.