MIGS/CEU, GST/PUK, Trinity;Liverpool, etc.

Various recent posts have touched on these institutional associations and why some are legitmate and others are not. ("Do you think before we pass judgement that...."; in the MIGS Forum: "New student at the former MIGS," and "MIGS: the Sequel.")

To put a non-academic spin on it, it is like pornography...it is hard to define to judges and lawyers but you know it when you see it. Or, as an acquaintance of mine said, "Pornography is in the groin of the beholder."

That spin has about as much finality as any present discussion. I think some Ph.D. student in Education would find fertile soil in a rigorous, academic study of such relationships. One of the outcomes should be guidance in evaluating these relationships, perhaps via a set of synthesized rules.

This sounds a bit like Levicoff's rule set used to identify a degree mill, but would answer a different question. If one first applied the Levicoff's rule set to each institution and one was clearly a degree mill, then the relationship would be, by definition, an unhealthy one. Otherwise, the new rule set would be applied to the relationship therebetween.

 

What kind of academic study would you suggest?

My opinion on these collaborative relationships is that I don't really like them. Getting a degree from a university suggests that you studied at that university, and not with a different school that simply bought a franchise allowing them to offer the first school's program. That's particularly true if the student is going to emphasize the first school's superior prestige. But despite my personal misgivings, I'm not really questioning the legitimacy of the concept.

As far as the three examples are concerned, they are all significantly different from one another.

1. Trinity/Liverpool is not really an example of the class. Trinity does not offer instruction leading to Liverpool degrees. Instead Liverpool "accepts and endorses" Trinity's own degrees. (Apparently that 'acceptance' doesn't extend to acceptance in hiring or graduate admissions at Liverpool though.) So really all this is is a paid endorsement that is being dishonestly (in my opinion) advertised as being 'accreditation'.

2. MIGS/CEU had the "Danzig factor", the Florida licensing problem and the Levicoff lawsuit, along with the fact that CEU had virtually no experience with graduate education. CEU had no experience with doctorates at all, let alone with doctorates in the subjects MIGS offered. MIGS students apparently had no contact with any of CEU's three full-time graduate faculty members. What's more, any Mexican accreditation oversight was doubtful at best.

3. GST/Potchefstroom is the most credible of the three in my opinion. I don't understand South African accreditation and frankly I don't fully trust it. But on the other hand, Potchefstroom has been in existence for more than a century and is very reliable. It has a strong reputation in the same fields GST teaches. While GST had some iffy historical ties with the now-Norfolk Greenwich, they can be praised for trying to upgrade themselves. And it seems that students at GST do have contact with faculty at Potchefstroom and the latter serve on their committees. So I feel that it is more than a mere franchise operation, meeting that objection.

 

Also, it's my understanding that all work is approved by both GST *and* Potch faculty, sort of a double-check for quality. You have to respect that.

I love the approach South Africa has to DL, I just wish their programs were easier to navigate. A few years back I looked into UNISA, and I was astounded at the complexity of even just applying. I read somewhere that they're looking to expand their US market, so maybe they'll do a little streamlining.

Bruce

 

I realize that you are merely voicing an opinion (not attempting to cause insult) and stating that you do not understand the system. I have recently begun reading some of the history surrounding South African Education and it is very interesting. They seem to have a history of focussing on education and the development of a quality University system. The universities seems heavily influenced naturally enough by the English system which the inhabitant brought with them and also very heavily by the Afrikaaner culture and Reformed Church. Apparently the Reformed Church exercised (at least at one time) a great deal of influence. My impression of the South African system is one of quality. Even touring the web sites you can see a great deal of capital was poured into structure. Even UNIZUL's campus looks quite good especially when compared with some I have seen here in the USA (both private and state owned). I can say having travelled through New Mexico I saw some run down State University campuses.

North

 

I should add for the benefit of those not familiar with the term Afrikaaner is a term used to describe predominantly dutch but also Huguenot and other immigrants. They speak a form of Dutch and are very nationalistic.

North

 

Glossary: the "secondary" institution is the institution accredited by another.

1)what forms of articulation work the best?
a)co-faculty? Some or little overlap?
b)should the secondary institution contribute new programs or just offer the same in a different way, e.g., DL or regional outreach?
c)loosely coupled (like Liverpool) which, as you point out, barely fits into this category, if at all. Or more tightly coupled, like SATS who attend faculty and board meetings at UNIZUL.
d)how is the assessment and quality assurance done at the secondary institution? Do the methods, standards or curriculum differ? Should they?
e)somewhat restating the above, should the secondary institution be a clone, a first cousin, or a distant relative of the accrediting institution, academically speaking? Should it be encouraged to express its unique academic and cultural heritage?
2)what are the benefits for the accrediting and accredited institution. Under what circumstances would an institution want to accredit another? or be accredited by another?

3)what is the acceptance of the degrees offered by the secondary institutions in academe and business? Are there any repercussions for the accrediting institution?

4)what is the qualitative academic experience for students at the secondary institutions?

5)what are the indicators (the rule set that I spoke of) that point to a successful collaboration?

6)and somesuch....

 

Worse. When John Bear and I wanted to add a member of the CEU staff to my doctoral committee, I broached the subject with Armando Arias, the titular president of MIGS. Arias recommended Alvaro Romo. Romo holds a Ph.D. from the University of Houston. Also, he teaches at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara. He was also listed as the head of distance learning for the CEU. Finally, he was listed on the MIGS Adjunct Faculty list. When I submitted his name to Bruce Forman, Forman absolutely refused. In fact, the only conversation I ever had with Forman during my year-long involvement with MIGS centered on this issue (and Forman's ignorance and lack of manners). Forman kept offering up lame, vague excuses about the CEU not being ready to be involved, that there were too many differences in our two countries' systems, and all that. He never got specific, but it was clear to me that there is no real relationship between the CEU and MIGS. It also demonstrated that Arias has absolutely nothing to do with running MIGS. Also, the faculty list was clearly "vaporware" and not to be taken seriously.

While the legitimacy of having one entity conduct degree programs on behalf of another may certainly be debated, it was a reasonable arrangement. It is in the execution that MIGS fails so horribly.

Rich Douglas

 

This is correct. When I submitted my research proposal it went through the following steps, and had to be approved with each:

1. Submission of RP to the GST promoter.
2. Submission to GST Academic Board.
3. Submission to PUCHE promoter.
4. Submission to PUCHE full faculty.
5. Submission to PUCHE senate.

After the RP is approved by each of the above, one works with their GST and PUCHE promoters, via collaboration, guidance, etc. Then when the final thesis is submitted it must also go through the above process, plus, be read by an outside examiner. Since GST awards no degrees of its own, all degrees are awarded by PUCHE.

Russell

 

True again! Prior to their association with Greenwich of Norfolk, the school was called Geneva Theological College, founded in 1958. After John Bear left Greenwich, GST began the process of associating with a more credible school, and this became the basis for their association with PUCHE. John Bear remains the honorary president of GST, although in a non-participatory role.

Several faculty at GST are also faculty at PUCHE, e.g., Byron Evans, Chris Killacky, Gerald Hughes.

Russell