The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

These may have been his majors but CPU never offered doctorates in psychology. The closest they came was a doctorate in human resources.

 

Re: Re: Re: The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

Hmm...probably Noam Chomsky still although he hasn't produced nothing remarkable in linguistics in some time. Of course when you've provided the basis for how all linguists view language, you really don't have to do much else.



Tom Nixon
B.A. Linguistics
M.A. Linguistics

 

Hi Tom. Good point.

Who died and made this Tannen the Panchen Lama of linguistics/communications? What about Lakoff, Johnson, Sebeok (r.i.p., sadly, for another Carpathian), Fauconnier, et alii magniloquentes? Oh, yeah, she's the one who invented the Christmas tree. (O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum...)

Sometimes, y'know, the less info, like, the more opinion. Maybe it's a reflected glory thing--my famous person. Cripes. I met Chomsky on a couple of occasions. Big roaring deal. That hardly makes me a linguist--let alone a leftist! But he still handily outdistances this Tannen.

 

Not sure about that.

The web is full of people who claim a PhD in psychology from CPU.

Wasn't CPU a bit like Union where the subject of your PhD was limited only by your imagination?

I have an old catalog somewhere but I'm sure it refuses to be found.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

I forgot you had degrees in linguistics. I was just about to name you as the foremost linguistics expert in America until I saw "...hasn't produced nothing..." Shouldn't this be either "has produced nothing," or "hasn't produced anything?" Ha! I have never kidded you and am in a kidding mood. I hope you don't mind.

 

Obviously there are many people who are successful without possessing a doctorate or any degrees. However, the issue being addressed relates to legitimacy, ethics and the value of effective self-marketing to create success.

Although some individuals may not have a problem with an author who misrepresents himself as "doctor," by omitting the fact that his degree is unaccredited, it does raise the spectre of questionable ethics. This is especially relevant in the professions of psychology or counseling. Although CPU was perceived more favorably years ago it was never on par with other distance regionally accredited distance universities. In addition, even if said author was licensed as a psychologist in California, this licensure is not accepted in any other state in the country.

In effect, it is not that an author, academic or "expert" does not possess a doctorate but of appropriately and ethically representing their professional background, training and licenses.

 

Nor am I.

Is Gray's doctorate RA? No, and therefore has less utility than the RA doctorate. Is it illegitimate? Apparently the CA Board of Psychology and many practicing CA psychologists don't think so.

 

Has Gray misrepresented his professional background by listing a CPU doctorate?

 

I don't think anyone with a valid, legal, state licensed/approved doctorate misrepresents him/herself just because the degree is unaccredited. Does Dr. Charles Stanley misrepresent himself just because his doctorate was obtained before Luther Rice was accredited? Also, if I am not seriously mistaken, all CA psych licenses are legal and valid in other states if reciprocity exists.

 

Originally posted by Jimmy Clifton [/i]

I don't think anyone with a valid, legal, state licensed/approved doctorate misrepresents him/herself just because the degree is unaccredited. Does Dr. Charles Stanley misrepresent himself just because his doctorate was obtained before Luther Rice was accredited? Also, if I am not seriously mistaken, all CA psych licenses are legal and valid in other states if reciprocity exists.


Jimmy, in relation to the subject of this thread, if an individual attended an unaccredited school of psychology in california that was approved prior to 1999, they are entitled to sit for the state licensing exam in Psychology. However, there are significant restrictions in relation to the acceptability of such a degree in the areas of employment in academia, hospitals and federal positions as well as difficulties in being eligible for third party reimbursements, a lack of license reciprocity in practically every state in the US and a lack of general acceptance by peers.

The hypothetical example you present does not apply to the topic being addressed. CPU was never on a serious track of seeking regional accreditation as were schools such as The Graduate School of America, now known as Capella. So it is not a matter of an individual obtaining a degree prior to a university acquiring regional accredition but that the school in this case was never heading in that direction.

http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/licensing/unaccredited.htm

 

I first began receiving CPU materials in 1979. They most definitely offered degrees in psychology, including the Ph.D. However, those degrees were not Approved (back when the state approved individual degree programs, not entire schools). I don't recall if (1) CPU ever had their psychology doctorates approved and/or (2) they offered these degrees after the state went to institutional approval (and, thus, approved all of CPU). Also, I'm not sure that even if both were true, that the degrees ever qualified one to apply for psychology licensure.

 

Thank you, Susan, for the clarification. I guess my bragging earlier about having a good memory was premature. Dr. Bear posted this link a week or so ago and I already forgot it. I stand corrected.

 

Acyually, some CPU grads were able to take the Cal psychology exams and intership supervision and get CA registered as psychologists. Before CPU streamlined their programs into 4 schools, one of being Health and Human Services psychology degrees were available, BUT the grad would have to satisfy the California board that his studies met the board's standards. And some grads did precisely that and got registered as psychologists. That had pretty much changed by the time I enrolled in 1989.
Earon

 

Hi Rich,
CPU psych degrees (by independent study) were not pre-approved for psych registration in California. But a candidate could plan the degree so that is paralleled those approved (back then) and then apply to be registered. If the candidate could convince the CA board that s/he had the necessary courses (or equivalent credit) from a CA approved school, s/he would then take the examinations and complete the required supervised internships. S/he would then be registered in CA if successful at all of the above.
Earon

 

While I was speaking of licensure I did not know registration was possible for CPU grads. I have never seen a psych doctorate in any catalogs I ever received, only the human resources. I remember these catalogs. They were simply printed with a glossy white cover. I don't remember the last one I received but I think it was in the late '80's and there was no psychology doctorate offered because I specifically requested the catalogs for that very purpose. I wanted to earn a CPU psych doctorate.

 

Re: Re: Re: The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

I'b be interested in seeing more to back up your view on this, Jimmy, as I find it fascinating. I have worked as a family therapist for the provincial government for over 10 years. A lot of people have come in and praised Gray's books (I have only read one of them). Gray's work wasn't based on emprical research as far as I can tell, but probably based on his own ideas and a lot of experience. Nevertheless many people claim the ideas are sound and work for them. Gray seems to have an ability to pick up on the mood of a large sector of the public and reflect it back at them in books. Some feminists would take and have taken issue with Gray's views, claiming that Gray is perpetuating gender stereotypes and relationships that require less participation from males, and that his views also perpetuate an imbalance of power in the relationship. Another author (who has been discussed here) is John Gottman. Gottman has been doing research with couples for years and has published excellent books. However, I wonder to what degree such couples perform for the researcher, considering that they are under observation. I guess what I'm saying here is that there are critiques that are applied to all people who are willing to go out on the line with their ideas in publications.
Earon

 

August, 1995: I received the quarterly CPU alumni newsletter announcing that CPU was now ready to apply to WASC for regional accreditation, was looking for alumni to join an alumni advisory council and an alumni board of governors. During the year preceding this I received questionaires which were introduced as gathering information from grads solely for the purpose of the application for regional accreditation. I began to hear the strains of "Pomp and Ceremony" playing in my head.

January, 1996 (approximately): John Bear announced on alt.education.distance that CPU had been denied reapproval in California. This put an end to any application for regional accreditation. "Pomp and Ceremony" stopped playing in my head and was replaced by "Theme from Bugs Bunny".

Do I think that CPU was on a serious track of seeking regional accreditation? Based on the above, NO. I think they were on a serious track of considering and preparing an application for accreditation. But CPU never got that far. We only get points for what we do, not what we say we intend to do.
Earon

 

There was never a programmed psych doctorate (but one could do a psych doctorate, if you know what I mean).

Those were the days, my friend - we thought they'd never end - we'd sing and dance for ever and a day. California doctorate - just for the hell of it - even a registered psychologist, we'd sure to have our way. But things they changed you know, the state said "this has got to go", the way of Kennsington, and Kennedy Western too, and then they went for it, the very heart of it, they blew their wad and brought down CPU. Die-die-die-die-die-die-die-die-die-die (refrain for the rest of eternity).
Earon

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

Earon, my post was not a critique on Gray, it was on Bradshaw.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The legitimacy of Dr. John Gray's degrees are in the news

Jimmy, sorry about the mixup - I must have missed that in my hurriedness. John Bradshaw is interesting too. LIke Gray, he built a relationship with a segment of the population. I think he was influenced, in part, by a therapist named Pia Melody. Bradshaw was a big part of that 1980's 'inner child/co-dependency' wave that many people in recovery picked up on. It made sense to a lot of people, at least in Vancouver, where I live.

Like Gottman (high level of empirical research), Gray (light theoretical ideas/ experience based - employs a basic metaphor on gender difference), I view Bradshaw as another of many voices in a dialogue. Some contributions look more "credible" or less credible based on the observer's own values (e.g., "is it based on sound research that employs statistics?"; "is his degree accredited?"; "did he go to TUI, Columbia, Stanford or Michigan State, or CPU, the school that was closed down?").

Many of the original family therapy ideas came out of observing mental patients' interactions with family members in psychiatric hospital programs - some would balk at that as a basis for helping people with relationships. Cybernetics was frequently used to understand relationship interactions (cybernetics was also used in the design of home heating systems, thermostats, regulators, that sort of thing). Some would balk at that. A "postmodern" trend with some family/relationship therapists these days is for the therapist to engage in "not knowing" and letting the family figure out their own solutions. Some would balk at that (e.g., "I didn't do a PhD in family psychology so that I could 'not know' - that's nutso!"). I view it all as making a contribution.

Another current popular relationship therapist is Harville Hendrix (object relations/ keeping the love you find/ your partner is the perfect partner to work through your issues based on your family history). And then there's Doctor Phil ("I'm gonna tell you how it is, what's really goin on, and what you need to do about it"). Phil won't call himself a therapist, but is well loved by multitudes of television watchers. Heck, we might as well add Dr. Laura (certified as a mariage and family therapist, espouses her version of Christian values, but holds a doctorate in something other than therapy/psychology). My 83 year-old Mom loves Dr. Laura and wants to be just like her.

Bradshaw opened up many possibilities for many folks by talking about his own shame and failed relationshis. Prior to Bradshaw few therapists would talk about themselves (and I think most still don't). Many people I met in the 1980's claimed Bradshaw's books and PBS video presentations struck an inner chord for them. The inner child metaphor didn't do it for me, but I still appreciate Bradshaw's contribution.

I'd be interested in more about how Bradshaw's ideas relate to the linguist you mention. I have no formal training in linguistics, but am heavily into social constructionism (which places high emphasis on the role of language in social relationships and the bringing about of social realities, social conventions, those sort of things).
Earon