SCUPS Ph.D. approved by ODA for use in Oregon

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Guest, Mar 25, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

  2. Nosborne

    Nosborne New Member

    WOW! That's an unexpected development. I wonder what the process was? A SCUPS degree holder asked the school to apply?

    Nosborne, JD
    (Whose JD SHOULD withstand ODA scrutiny)
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

  4. cehi

    cehi New Member

    This is a very interesting news. Thank you for the update. It is clear that both SCUPS and CCU are California State Approved universities without regional accreditation. The questions that I have are such: What is the difference between a SCUPS Ph.D and a CCU Ph.D in Psychology? Why is SCUPS Ph.D is allowed in Oregon, but CCU Ph.D is disallowed? Should we take Oregon's claimer or disclaimer credible because it seems to me that there is something fishy with what is going on in Oregon. I am all ears.
     
  5. simon

    simon New Member

    Oregon's accceptance of SCUPS Ph.D Program in Psychology does not imply that one will be eligible for licensure or to legally practice as a Psychologist within that state. In addition, although Bob Jones was accepted as an unaccredited institution, their graduates in education can not obtain licensure to teach in Oregon.

    It also appears that the content of SCUPS doctoral program in Psychology met the criteria and standards of Oregon while CCU did not.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2003
  6. cehi

    cehi New Member

    Simon,

    Thank you for the feedback.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    This is probably not the case, as both CCU and SCUPS Ph.D.'s are allowed to sit for the CA psych licensure exam. Alan Contreras has stated that the ODA does not initiate the process of approval, the school seeking approval must initiate the process. Apparently, CCU has not pursued ODA approval.
     
  8. simon

    simon New Member


    Response;

    Yes, it is fact that graduates from both schools are elligible to sit for CA Psych licensure. However, as far as I am aware, Oregon reviewed the content of both programs and found that the content of SCUPS course content was more substantive thereby meeting their criteria for approval.

    However, the bottomline, as noted in my previous posting, regardless of Oregon's approval, is that the doctorate in Psychology does not guarantee any acceptance by the Oregon Psychology Board of Licensure. Therefore, at this time, the doctorate in Psychology from SCUPS, has significant limitations and questionable value and utilizability.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Could you provide documentation for this statement and share it with the forum please?
     
  10. simon

    simon New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2003
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Not sure what you mean, Simon. You state that Oregon has examined both SCUPS and CCU and found the SCUPS Ph.D. program to be acceptable and the CCU Ph.D. program unacceptable (i.e., in terms of Oregon's criteria for approval). I was curious as to the source of this data. Where can one find the documentation that Oregon (ODA) examined CCU's program and found it unacceptable? In e-mail correspondence with Alan Contreras (at least a year ago), he stated that the reason CCU was on the list was that the school had not applied for ODA approval.
     
  12. simon

    simon New Member

     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Who is being indicted? Your response may well be true, but to ask for the source of one's response--whether one's opinion or documented evidence--is not inquisitional.
     
  14. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    My, we are touchy. If Simon is aware that Oregon's agency founds SCUPS' program "more substantial" than CCU's, why does he find it offensive if somebody in effect asks where that information came from? (And no, I do not have a dog in this fight--no connection to SCUPS or CCU.)

    There seems to be an incoming tide of "how dare you" on this board. How dare you ask for a source? How dare you question my findings? How dare you disagree with me? How dare you fail to research up to my standards before asking a question in your first post on this board? How dare you ask where I got my degree? How dare you retain biographical privacy? How dare you fail to read what I wrote years ago and is out of print? How dare you even THINK about a non-RA program? (And yes, all my degrees are RA.)

    Unfortunately, the Nick 'n' Elena Ego Awards Program dialectically dematerialized a dozen years ago. Carpathia ain't been the same since--multumesc Dumnezeu!
     
  15. simon

    simon New Member

     
  16. simon

    simon New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2003
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I misunderstood your response, Simon, and for that I apologize. When you said the "same as yours," I didn't take this to mean the ODA.
     
  18. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    It's all ego. Considering that this is a board for people in search of academic titles, that's not really surprising.

    Don't dispair, Unk.

    It dialectically resynthesized at the precisely antithetical spot on the earth: in North Korea, where it's now known as the Dear Leader's Self-Esteem Program. (His, not yours.)

    I hear that it will be starting a long-range DL program aimed at North America just as soon as they can give those emotionally fragile No Dong missiles of theirs some nuclear dongs.
     
  19. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Apparently Simon considers any disagreement with Simon to be "flaming". Since Simon is a patriot (and I don't know there's a war on) and Simon is a psychologist (attributing projection to me), I apologise for my derelictions (which are assuredly more than Simon knows).

    Now to the other posters: I reiterate my concern about "how dare you". I think there is a difference between sharing information and assuming a position of hauteur when others don't have as much information (or the same information) as we do.

    Refusing to "footnote", crying "flame" in response to disagreement, tromping on newbies for asking questions born of inexperience, resenting questions about credentials or resenting a poster's decision not to advertise credentials, blaming people for failing to read inaccessible material--especially of one's own composition, and preferring to denounce the slightest interest in non-RA stuff (instead of explaining what is--most likely--inadvisable about it): if any of this applies to you or me, let's watch out for it, and if none of it applies, that's even better.

    :D Just because "you probably think this song is about you" doesn't necessarily mean it is.
     
  20. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Why thanks, Bill. The North Koreans used to supply some of the finest secret police helpers to our departed Fun Couple of Carpathia. A sense of tradition is always gratifying to discover. I think that as an academician She would have been especially pleased by the lightning mind of Dear Leader.
     

Share This Page