Defending the Non-Wonderful, or Seeking the Wonderful?

Copied from "off topic" in the interest of thread topicality:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jack Tracey
Personally, I do not believe that those who champion non-wonderful universities can convincingly argue their merits. When they try they only drive people away from such programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, sure, if the university is non-wonderful, then you're correct.

Do you equate external validation of the institution with wonderful-ness?

I can think of some things that would make a doctoral program "wonderful" -- and nowhere in that list is external validation of the institution. Examples are: some freedom to propose an advisor from within the field of specialty. Freedom to not be "assigned" a doctoral topic based upon faculty likes/dislikes. Freedom to defend the dissertation using a viva voce modality other than face-to-face. Freedom to not have to do any residential (not even a token "visit") in a non-residential field (such as much of computer science). Freedom to bite off more than one can chew and accept the consequences thereof (even if too much might mean failure of the dissertation).

I'm not talking about freedom from committee scrutiny, however.

;-)

It's hard to argue convincingly for something that is non-wonderful. The above freedoms do not influence the academic quality of many fields. External validation is not in the list of what I would consider a "wonderful" program.

I could convincingly argue for a wonderful university that gave me those wonderful freedoms, if what resulted was a wonderful dissertation.

But the first thing that some would ask is "But is it regionally accredited or equivalent?"

And the conversation would abrubtly stop there, because (to me) that's like asking whether or not the state approved of my choice of spouse.

 

mixed metaphor???

The question would not be whether or not the state approved of your spouse, but whether you intended to marry within your species, or, less remarkably, within any legally forbidden degrees (!) of consanguinity.

Just in case any one reading this is grossly irony-deficient: the above is a comment on Dr Jackson's closing statement about universities or their simulacra, not on his lovely wife, whose reality, wonderfulness (which we presume ex corde et feliciter), and choice of him--or his of her--is surely none of the state's business.

I do thank Dr Jackson for moving this from a thread where I am no longer posting. Best wishes to him (and his lovely wife).

 

Hi Quinn

I love your posts even when I strongly disagree with them. Yes, I believe there is a strong correlation between "wonderfulness" and, as you and Henrik say, "external validation". Think of the top 100 Universities by whatever your criteria. I would be surprised if all or almost all of them do not have "external validation". That doesn't mean an unaccredited school can't be legitimate or even wonderful, but the examples of such are miniscule.

 

Me too, that's what makes the world go round. I know you are busy Quinn, but do hang around.

Cheers,

George

 

Re: mixed metaphor???

Janko:

The spouse comment relates to a metaphor I made some years back about civil and religious ceremonies, and to the notion that one who becomes a doctor is "married to the discipline". One marries before the state and before the eyes of God, sometimes in two ceremonies (if the state does not recognize Church weddings, for instance). The state (except within very specific guidelines, such as familial sanguinity or currently married status) does not tell one whom one can marry (outside of those very specific rules).

The ceremony of the committee and the discipline is before the the amorphous "International Body of Scholars", and not before the state.

Dave:

First we must define "external validation", otherwise the discussion could fly south later due to lack of proper definitions.

But let's start somewhere, anywhere.

Does this university declare an external evaluator?

http://www.junis.ni.ac.yu/

Is it legitimate? Who validates them?

I don't know the answers in this specific case. Can we call them an internally validating instiution? Anyone here know and care to chime in?

 

Dr Jackson (re your reply to me): Okie dokie.

 

Given human nature, I think there has to be some type of external validation. That may come from an independent accreditor, or a government agency, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with a school basically saying "We're legitimate because we say we are".

For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, the MA Board of Higher Education requires *any* college or university to gain their approval before they can operate in the state. The standards are rigorous, and they apply to everyone, even a well-established RA school like the University of Phoenix, who recently established some campuses in and around Boston.

So, if a school got approval from the MA Board of Higher Education, I would certainly consider that school to be legitimate, in spite of their lack of accreditation.

 

As with all other models of commonly accepted university creation around the world, a university is created via an Act of Parliament. This legal entity is created by someone else. Who? The government. What is the government? A collective of people who come to a concensus that something should be. Not one person. And what is the process used by this group of collective people? A process of public consultation, public industry input, public, transparent, reporting.

Cheers,

George

 

Now you've gone and found my achilles heel. I must accept the the will of Parliament. Hey, wait a second, I'm not the monarch, I'm only a lowly knight ... and not a state knight at that ... I can publicly disagree with Parliament! Thank my lucky stars!

OK, we're talking "models" here, so lets explore the democratic capitalist model.

Governments don't just create corporations (entities) called universities, they also create laws of incorporation that allow others (private citizens) to create corporations all by themselves, with a minimal amount of hassle, and within boundaries (reporting, et al.).

Some governments, in keeping with a US Constitutional theme, have systems wherein the absence of the explicit illegality of something implies the legality of that something.

Imagine a world without such provisions. Every form of corporation would have to be enacted as an Act of Parliament (or its legal equivalent).

"Bill, let's open a shoe store."

"Better talk to the Prime Minister. That's going to take a law to be enacted."


Now, granted, this does not mean that those said governments (of the people, by the people, I'm talking about democracies here) "recognize" the documents produced from such institutions (or even shoes from non-government shoe stores), but it also means that neither do they forbid the issuance of those documents.

In an atmosphere of free enterprise, and accepting that higher education is an enterprise that should be more or less free, we see that this is not just a "loophole" in the law -- something to be closed like a nasty wound.

That "loophole" exists for a very good reason. It exists because some governments recognize that freedom to pursue custom and commerce is the very basis of that lovely economic system called capitalism. Commerce cannot be restricted in advance (some forms of commerce did not exist when these constitutions were penned -- did the US founding fathers know of the phrase -- "Cash? Or Chargex?") with too heavy a hand without strangling the system.

The model where the state controls everything is the totalitarian model. And yes, even the production of shoes falls under the Act of Parliament in such places. (Or whatever they call their parliamentary body -- usually something that translates to Commitee.)

 

Re: Re: Defending the Non-Wonderful, or Seeking the Wonderful?

Corporations do not exist as lawless warlord states. They are bound by the laws of the country in which the incorporation occurred. To use the shoe store example from my response to George, the shoe store, even in a capitalist state, no matter how free it is to do custom and trade, cannot produce shoes that have nails that stab people's feet.

Moreover, in order to continue to thrive, any well run business must have internal measures to assure its survival. Even not so well run corporations must subject themselves to some form of financial reporting or GAAP (in this case I mean Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).

Any business that survives on the perceived value of its product, where its product is an intangible conferral of a doctorate had better be sure to put internal measures in place to control the quality of that intangible product, or the perceived value of the product will suffer.

But let's forget about shoes and head into the intangible market of knowledge.

Consider this page:

http://www.brainbench.com/xml/bb/business/aboutus/aboutus.xml

What does that page tell me about how they run their shop?

ISO 9001:2000 tells me that they have a few people there who understand that they have a repeatable product process in place.

Now, as a consumer, I am free to decide what the value of that product is. The certification (to which they voluntarily submitted their process for scrutiny) tells me that at the very least, if I score X on one of their tests today, I will likely score thereabouts tomorrow. Or that at least X has some defined meaning somewhere.

In other words, the place isn't run by chaotic one-day-this-one-day-that warlords on whim.

It is up to the consumer to decide what the value of all that is.

They must subject to the state (in terms of reporting), but does the state say "You must have 25% of your certifications in subject matter ABC?" No. They are free to introduce new certifications, and if they wish to maintain their ISO certification, I would bet that the development of their new certification would have to follow certain procedures (beta, normalization of scores based on beta, and so on).

They subjected themselves to voluntary process control certification likely for two reasons (although I must conjecture as to those). 1) It creates a certain "legitimacy" about the place as regards the regularlity of their process. 2) Process actually helps them maintain a quality standard that they can then sell in a free market with some degree of profitability.

Except at the very most fringes of corporate legislation in their state of incorporation, they are not subjected to any external validation that they do not wish to be. In short they say -- "We're legitimate because we say we are."

Now, it might be argued that their product has little meaning or value in the external world -- that major companies do not "recognize" their certifications. I am quite certain that this company realizes this fact full well, and that is why it has endeavored to establish its credibility within its target market. If this company's customers come to believe (because third-party companies come to say they accept the certifications as having some meaning and value to them), and if its potential customers come to also believe that, this company's sales will increase.

As long as the company, within the forces and confines of a free enterprise system, remains profitable, and as long as customers continue to feel they are served by its intangible product and brand, this company will continue to thrive in that free market.

Given human nature (that is, their reluctance to part with their hard earned dollar), healthy companies will thrive and unhealthy ones won't.

That said, this is not a university, and they are not printing degrees.

University is a sacred word to some, and degree another sacred word, especially once one starts to speak of doctoral degrees. Society, for socio-cultural historical reasons, has come to regard the doctoral degree as a symbol of status, as an imprimatur of non-hereditary class hierarchy. Even the word entitlement contains within it the kernel word: title. Title means status. Status means entitlement.

And in a truly free economic system, as much as it might fire the tempers and anger of some to hear it: title (and thus entitlement) is something that is an intangible product, to be bought and sold on the free market like pork bellies and Google stock. Universities compete with one another for students, and students bring with them their money (or the state’s money, as the case may be), and that money is what pays the university’s bills.

Where that money is primarily “the people’s money” (student loans or government grants), then I wholeheartedly agree that the government has a responsibility to try to get some kind of guarantee that the money isn’t going to buy the dean of the university a fancy desk while the students go without books in the library.

In a private system, where the money comes directly from the consumer and not the People’s Common Coffer, however, the government has no place beyond the normal restrictions on basic custom and trade in place for all corporations, to decide on whether that money is being spent correctly inside the corporation. Matters I’ve already discussed are in place in the free enterprise system to tend to assure that.

In the private, free system, where consumers are deemed by a paternalistic government to be incompetent to decide for themselves where their money should go (today an iPod, tomorrow whatever the gadget may be), those same incompetent consumers should perhaps be told what cars to buy, what shoes to wear, and where to eat dinner out. Because they might be wasting their money there, too.

 

I agree with you on principle regarding U.S. institutions. Like you I'm an idealist, but subscribe to a realistic and rather cynical form of idealism. I personally believe that all schools accredited by CHEA recognized organizations should be considered equal. That's the way it's supposed to work, according to CHEA and according to the U.S. Dept. of Education. Unfortunately, reality often does not match principle and this is just another one of those areas. In advising anyone seeking post-secondary education, I would always suggest they first seek opportunities among regionally accredited schools. It's not because I consider those schools inherently "better", in fact I would be more inclined to hire an NA grad over an RA grad if the NA grad appeared to be a better candidate overall. I would never base a hiring decision on RA vs. NA. But I'm also realistic enough to know that not everyone shares that opinion, some private companies and some people in positions to decide on hiring will in fact only hire RA grads. The only place where NA vs. RA is not a factor is government work, but not everyone works in government. Even to those who do, I would still advise them to seek or further their education through an RA school, since they may not always work in a government job. Those wishing to further their education will also find that many schools will only accept credits that are RA or ACE approved NA. Some schools will even completely discount any NA credits regardless of ACE approval, with non-acceptance decisions solely based on the NA accreditation without benefit of review of course content.


Is any of this fair or even right? I don't think so, not at all. But it is reality. That reality is changing somewhat, but it's proving to be a slow process. In the meantime, it really is best to seek RA first, then NA if for some reason RA is not available or affordable. But to anyone seeking education purely for self-fulfillment I would say go for whatever you please, regardless of accreditation or lack thereof. Education is never a waste of time, regardless of how or where it is aquired. But most folks have some specific goal in mind when seeking degrees, whether it be career advancement or a desire to further their education at another school. Those folks must be told the whole truth about the present state of accreditation acceptance, even the not-so-nice parts. They must also be told that acceptance of degrees or credits earned at schools not accredited by CHEA recognized organizations is even worse, in some areas use of such degrees is illegal. To tell degree seekers anything other than the truth is to ill-advise those people.

Kit

 

Quinn,

Let me paint a scenario that was proposed by two current, private higher education institutions, accredited here in Australia to offer degree programs. At a national conference (which I attended) they declared that the following should occur in Australia:

1) All providers should be allowed to call themselves universities;
2) There should be no regulation of higher education and the public should be able to regulate the system via natural supply and demand forces.

Let's say this policy is implemented next week. What do you believe the higher education system in Australia will look like in 10 years time?

Cheers,

George

 

Some interesting points have been made thus far and I'd like to add a point of my own. Whether it is interesting will be for others to decide.

I would like to approach the topic on a semantic or etymological level. The terms Bachelors degree, Masters degree, Doctoral degree, Bachelors degree program, etc. all have meanings. While there is some small amount of range in these meanings I think it is generally accepted that if you diverge from these accepted meaning beyond a certain point then you have stepped outside the range of the definition of the term.

Similarly, the term "apple tree" has a certain meaning. We recognize that there are different types of apples and trees come in different sizes (some might be so small that they have yet to bear fruit) yet these remain apple trees. If someone points to a blueberry bush and says that it's an apple tree we do not immediately require any external validation to know they are wrong. If our misguided berry-lover persists in his claims then we could call in experts who can demonstrate with authority, his error.

The terms above (Bachelors, Masters, Doctoral, etc.) are based on commonly accepted meanings. These meanings, while not "universal" are actually becoming closer (this is what that Bologna thing was about, right?) and there are now "US style" doctoral programs offered in the UK, etc. If one wishes, you could divide the meaning into components (content, rigor, etc.) in order to eliminate some gray areas but at a certain point, if a non-wonderful "university" (which is by itself a term with a specific definition) produces a degree program whose own definition steps sufficiently outside the accepted definitional range then this becomes a social transgression. I, as a member of that society then become an "external validator" as do you. I may not be able to tell a McIntosh tree from a Red Delicious tree but I can tell an apple tree from a blueberry bush.
Off to work.
Jack

 

A degree is a title conferred by a university (and/or, in some places, a college).

A university and its degree programs are expected to have a sufficient construct. What that is exactly is another debate, but since were talking about validation, not construct, we'll leave it at that.

If there are no rules about what is and is not a university, then the title is meaningless, since anyone can call themselves a university and begin awarding titles, whether or not they offer a sufficient construct for doing so.

If this is the case, then--as Bill Dayson wonderfully points out--the onus is on the unaccredited (or foreign equivalent--I'll use "unaccredited" the rest of the way to mean both) institution to demonstrate its construct (and that of its degree programs) is sufficient. (A university run by one guy out of his house isn't likely to cut it, for example).

External evaluation of a nature recognized by the higher education community takes care of this. Schools without such recognition have a much more difficult time. Impossible? No, we see some "unaccredited" universities with significant prestige and/or acceptance, whether in niches or--in a few cases--in general. So....

This leaves us with recognition of the issuing school's degrees. Where does this recognition occur? Three places, primarily. First, government, in the form of institional approval. This exists in almost all jurisdictions, even though it can be evaded in some.

Second, the higher education community. This is where almost all unaccredited schools fail. If your own industry doesn't recognize the credentials you issue, you are likely a fraud.

Finally, employers. As I demonstrated in my doctoral research, this is a sticky wicket. Unaccredited schools, even diploma mills, offer up the illusion of acceptability. Employers accept these credentials, but for a very dangerous reason: they don't know the true nature of the issuing school. But when they find this out, their acceptance of degrees from unaccredited schools drops dramatically. Hence, the "time bomb" metaphor popularized by John Bear.

Can a legitimate university without proper recognition award degrees that have sufficient academic meaning and are sufficiently valuable to its graduates (without endangering them if/when their "cover" is blown)? Sure, in some very rare cases. But simply because this possibility exists doesn't mean we should automatically accept it as applying to any and every unaccredited school. Since the vast majority of operations posing as unaccredited DL schools are, in fact, diploma mills, it is reasonable to approach any such school with a great deal of caution until more is learned. They're not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

(And when it is found that said school is a one-person operation run from the owner's home through a rented post office box, that the "university" has changed jurisdictions multiple times, and that it will award degrees without a sufficiently valid process, it might be reasonable to conclude it is a diploma mill. Again, the burden is on the unaccredited school to demonstrate otherwise.)

 

entonces que

George:

My point of view would be, how would that reflect on the people? It's a "free market choice."

If in TEN YEARS the Higher Education System in Australia has gone to "hell" this if because of the people, not because of the universities.

In my view, why? There is always going to be people that want to obtain a free degree and there will always be others that want to obtain a degree from a prestigious university.

In my view, the proposal of the "two" at the conference you attended shows they are not worried about the percentage of the population that wants to go to alternative schools; because they know there is always going to be a segment of the market that will go to theirs.

In my view, the market would be the death of "easy street universities."

Using the free market concept the "two" proposed that day @ the conference:

(a) If I were the head of ZYX Corporation and you bring me a degree from one of the schools in australia that are known for academic standards, there is no way I would turn you down in favor of a school WE ALL know that charges $199 for the degree.

(b) If I am the person in charge of hiring teachers at my local grade school, middle school, high school, university and you bring me a degree from a school WE ALL know charges $199 , then no job for you, I would be in favor of giving the job to the candidate of the school that has academic standards.

Now, let me run for cover.

Asi pienso.

 

The notion that free markets can regulate this issue is interesting. And wrong.

Free markets are great with prices, but they fail miserably with consumer protection. Oh sure, consumers will avoid bad products, but only if they know the products are bad. As we've seen over and over again, consumers of higher education (students and employers) are routinely fooled by diploma mills.

Free markets are driven by consumers. However, the people paying for higher education--students--are subjects of the universities they pay! It is difficult to imagine a less-empowered body of people than college students. It's hard to exercise your power as a consumer when your success is dependent upon the institution's approval of you (in the form of grades and continued enrollment). Students are subservient; how are they to bring market forces to bear on universities?

Bear has estimated in the past that more than one million people in the U.S. claim fake degrees--either degrees they don't have or degrees from fake schools. Whatever the actual number, the fact that this is rampant is indisputable.

Diploma mills flourish best in an unregulated environment.

 

grade school

ETHICS

(a) Then the problem is one of ETHICS not regulation; no amount of regulation can turn an unethical person -------- ethical.

(b) Diploma Mills flourish in any enviroment if there are LESS THAN WONDERFUL PEOPLE that populate it.

How goes the saying--------------

"Just say NO to drugs?"

Has it worked?

 

Re: grade school

Use of fake degrees is a crime, fraud. Decriminalizing it does, in deed, encourage it. Being sure frauds are identified and prosecuted serves two purposes. It protects those who could be swindled and lets the frauds know their behavior will not be tolerated. Both are important!

 

And what if, Jack, you could not tell the difference of one dissertation from the next? If a dissertation produced by a student from Apple University were not distinguishable from one produced by a student of Orange University, has society been transgressed?

My original statement was: "I could convincingly argue for a wonderful university that gave me those wonderful freedoms, if what resulted was a wonderful dissertation."

 

I totally agree! Holding the free market up as an ultimately beneficial self-regulating force assumes an almost godlike, omniscient consumer.

Here is my suggestion for an alternative accreditation system. Just create one accreditation body that doesn't measure standards and doesn't enforce any standards. Anyone can call themselves a university and hand out accredited degrees as long as they register with this new body... which doesn't regulate anything except disclosure of information. It will basically be an academic super-SEC. All universities must accurately report their finances, student-to-teacher ratios, admissions standards, teacher backgrounds, etc. with truthful diligence and will be regularly inspected to make sure they are accurately disclosing all information. They can accept magic beans for tuition and hire a squirrel to teach Spanish just as long as they disclose it properly. Also, any incoming student must be presented with a standardized, readable, plain-English summary of the statistical data and sign a waiver that they have read and understand it. If they lie or break the student disclosure rule they will get fined out of existence and the head honchos thrown into prison.

The accrediting body will publish all university data in raw form to the public, and also has a basic categorization method, maybe a scale of 5, that universities fall into based on the raw data. Of course other ranking organizatons/companies/associations will jump into the scene and start publishing their own rankings and categorizations based on the data. Consumers will be adequately informed, company recruiters will be adequately informed and inefficient, poor-quality universities will die off.

Currently the amount of disclosure is just not good enough. Ask anyone who's tried to figure out what their tuition at AIU would be! For-profit conpanies are required to disclose certain finances but the GAAP measures don't have to include a lot of data that would be most pertinent to academic quality... plus they're in financial language not easily understood by the average student. Many universities, for-profit and non-profit, have very mixed incentives to disclose information, or no incentives at all, in the case of degree mills. Usually it's in the interests of real universities to disclose some information to rankers like US News, but if it's not to their favor they'll often just refuse to submit the data.