Open Letter from David Lady to DEAC Commissioners

Quite so, especially on LinkedIn, a major source for quickly finding people with fake degrees. For instance, a search this morning finds 5,083 people with degrees from Almeda University."

John Bear
Teacher of dancing

 

Dr. Bear, how will you describe this phenomenon, of people in high places flaunting their fake degrees, in countries like the USA and Canada?
My explanation is cynical, there is no will in Canada and USA to do anything about fake degrees, because fakes degrees have infiltrated the very people and their relations, and organizations whose jobs it is do something about fake degrees.

 

I guess that being the top guy at WLC is not as prestigious as it once was. To me that says something about how he really thinks WLC will do in the lawsuit. As for the other items, I don't know why they'd simply disappear. I am a person who puts absolutely everything on my LinkedIn page and then my paper/digital resume summarizes and refers to LinkedIn. Why would you hide your accomplishments?

 

Part of the reason for the simplification might be DEAC expressing concern that WLC's management might be spread too thin to be able to devote sufficient attention to WLC.

At the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9 in this letter, DEAC writes

http://www.deac.org/UploadedDocuments/Public-Notices/02272017.pdf

"The team found that the institution needs to demonstrate how the CAO has the ability to effectively lead the institution while supporting two other institutions at the leadership level."

In addition to his duties at WLC, this gentleman appears to be founder and CEO of his own tiny college.

https://wlcollege.ilm.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123:saied-jacob&catid=2:uncategorised&Itemid=249

Saied H Jacob | Glen Oaks College

I don't know what third institution DEAC was referring to, but apparently WLC's management living over-complicated lives has become an issue.

I don't know how demanding each of the CAO's positions are, so I can't say whether there is any problem in holding both of them simultaneously. Apparently DEAC isn't sure either, but has identified it as a possible issue and is asking for clarification.

I think that is reasonable and shows that DEAC is doing their jobs.

 

This drip by drip of bad news, my guess, is hurting WLC’s case? Rhetorical, why will DEAC wants to hurt WLC, instead of the other bloke down the street?

 

Why WLC? It was either because WLC was up for its periodic review, or because they had made such significant changes in their institutional picture that DEAC felt it was appropriate to send out an evaluation team to do a new review. I can only imagine the team's phone call back to Washington, "Whoa, you wouldn't believe the bullshit we smell around this place."

But DEAC did its job, the evaluators did their job, and the conclusion was that WLC has to do some pretty fancy tap dancing to retain its accredited status. WLC, apparently, has chosen to do a different dance.

Now, might there be other schools that have conned their way through the DEAC process? Probably. But they haven't been caught at it . . . yet.

Holy crap . . . I might actually start liking DEAC when this is all over.

 

Sadly, I agree with you. When ABC/Good Morning America discovered that the senior Undersecretary of Defense, head of HR for the entire department (2 million employees) himself had a totally fake Master's, Secretary Rumsfeld's response was the mantra for this kind of thing: "His job does not require a Master's degree, and he's doing a good job . . . so what's your problem?" Rich Douglas's doctoral research found that the majority of senior HR people (he interviewed over 300) either aren't aware of the problem or don't see it as important. As Robert Ruark put it years ago, "Nothing works and nobody cares."

John Bear
Dog walker

 

I could take the areas bolded above and apply it to my own industry. It never fails to amaze me how people can be so shortsighted until something bad comes of it.

 

Wow . . . It's been a whopping six days since the last video was posted. And no more?

I was beginning to think of them as the weekly installment on a nickelodeon - you put your five cents in and get a new episode each week. (From Ragtime: The Musical, here's a great version of how this worked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1a_8l3xnxo.)

And here I was waiting for the episode where Dave is tied to the railroad tracks...

 

This saga has gone from "Dave, Dave, he's our man..." to "Lay, Lady, lay..." in short order.

 

He lists a BA from Temple University.

 

That song is an oldie, but a goodie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWz88VY-FkA

 

If you go back and read it you will see the problem was that DEAC said all is well then lied about a date after they said he was up to snuff. I think it was not even a matter of bring them up to standards, they said he would need to reapply and start over. That in itself seems odd to me. Just a glance over the case seems that WLC was wronged. That all said Dave needs to shut up. Also, his attorney is a dumb ass.

 

You caught that too, eh? If the facts are as Dr. Lady has presented, then WLC has been wronged. If it goes to trial, then facts and inferences can be presented in court. The facts will clear up the case, while inferences will create smoke and mirrors.

 

I agree with this. I would simply add that we've only heard one side of that story and there almost certainly is another side where the "facts" are different. I am happy to give David the benefit of the doubt but I'd be more than a little surprised if DEAC doesn't come up with a compelling case to defend their actions. I have to assume that they are good enough at what they do to be able to predict that a school isn't going to simply roll over and play dead in a situation like this. I think they take these steps knowing that they will have to be accountable for pulling a school's accreditation. As for the videos, I don't really understand how they help. While I might be able to buy the idea that "getting the message out to the public" could conceivably be a helpful strategy, it's not like some obscure video on youtube is going to get a lot of attention.

 

A cute baby? A singing pup? A so-so singer from Seoul (Psy)? Gangnam Style! They'll get MILLIONS of views.

My take: The majority of Youtube videos are cries for attention - positive or negative. How will these fare? I have no idea. Maybe including karaoke or rap would widen the audience. Perhaps both . . .

J.

 

There are two separate questions here. One is whether or not DEAC contravened due process and its own policies in issuing the public show cause. And judging even by the fact that the letter came kind of out of the blue, DEAC probably did just that.

The other question is whether Dave's actions are wise. That depends on what he tries to achieve here. If the goal is to save WLC, I have a hunch that his course of actions is not the wisest; for starters, there is no clarity on how or whether WLC plans to operate as an accredited institution (if at all) past December. OTOH, if Dave decided that WLC is the lost cause at this point and simply seeks revenge on the DEAC, maybe generating negative publicity makes sense (I'm not saying it'll succeed; not enough information).

And on the notion that DEAC, as an accreditor, is unlikely to make unwise moves: pish-posh.

 

Hell froze over because we agree on this.

 

Totally.

Well maybe this will be less agreeable. Of the two questions, I'm way more interested in DEAC actions. WLC's real mission is "can we create an accredited MBA program that is cheaper than the competition". Levicoff may describe this as "bullshit"; I believe it has merit (or alternatively, not any bigger bullshit than any other MBA, as an academic degree). But I have no attachment to the school; in any case, the basic premise was implemented by University of the People now. So whether or not Dave is still committed to the whole enterprise is of passing interest. On the other hand, whether or not DEAC runs a credible and fair accreditation process is of much bigger consequence. So I'm much more interested in the substance of Dave's complaint than whether he acts rationally or whether or not his school is "bullshit". Thoughts?