Union Degree Titles-From OBR

I dunno whut 'parnoia' is, zackly. Sounds like a golfing disorder.

 

I do know the grammatical term for the sentence:
"Accreditation alone is not a good criteria."

Pluralism.

 

I'm not convinced that the Union Institute has misrepresented anything.

The Union Institute was originally created to host interdisciplinary projects that cut across disciplinary boundaries. Students created their own unique programs that couldn't be hosted at more conventional schools.

I'm aware that some students spoke as if Union offered conventional disciplinary majors in every imaginable subject, something the school probably lacked the resources to do. These students felt that if they couldn't find a conventional DL doctoral program in their chosen field, they would go to design-your-own-program Union and create a program as close as possible to their goal, deemphasizing interdisciplinarity as much as possible, giving their self-designed major a name as close to a conventional degree title as possible. Perhaps it was the gradual waning of the alternative 70's ethos and the rise of fast-track careerism that exacerbated it.

But whatever, the Ohio regents wanted to re-emphasize that the school's degrees are in fact in interdisciplinary studies. That's entirely reasonable and it doesn't discredit the Union Insitute.

It's ironic that you, a person who wraps herself in the flag of the "humanities", is so intent on destroying the reputation of a school that exists to promote the very things that you say you love.

Why not just use your name and omit the titles entirely?

You are presenting yourself to us as both an educator and a clergywoman. You are the proprietor of your own unaccredited seminary. You are savaging the Union Institute with the kinds of attacks that your own affiliations are unlikely to survive.

I wrote:

You know Renee, if you want to believe that, fine. If your students want to believe that the education that they receive from you is valuable, then that's fine too. But why should anyone outside your tiny Kemetic circle agree with you?

If you don't care what outsiders think of your own seminary, then why do you care so passionately about what people think about the Union Institute?

You obviously do care what outsiders think of your seminary.

I'm rather fond of researching non-accredited schools and looking for signs of credibility. I've found several that impressed me a great deal. I look for conference presentations, publications, academic collaborations, favorable comments from scholarly and professional sources, awards and grants won, and stuff like that. So if people and work associated with your school are getting good notice out there in your field, whatever that is, then there should be some visible evidence of it. So what's your seminary's name?

I guess that part of your message has been clarified.

Look Renee, there has been an entire industry on several distance learning boards for many months to destroy the Union Institute's reputation. The reason seems to because they admitted Rich Douglas, who many mill supporters seem to perceive as a threat. They have ripped his dissertation mercilessly. Then you jump in here, out of nowhere with no introduction, and rush off on yet another shrill jihad aginst the Union Institute, for hideous crimes that I for one can't even see.

You say that your field is religious studies. Well, you must know that every scholar of religion needs to be very sensitive to context. Acts that seem inexplicable in isolation make perfect sense in context. Well, the same is true here. Your attacks on Union obviously have hidden personal motivations that we can't see. And our cold response to your personal jihad takes place in the context of relentless and neverending attacks on the Union Institute by a constant succession of provocateurs.

You may have just inadvertantly stumbled into the wrong place at the wrong time, or you may be just another in a seemingly endless succession of mono-maniac trolls. At this point I don't really know what to make of you.

I do find it rather ironic and sad that you wave the flag of the "humanities", while simultaneously savaging one of the few DL schools out there that has actually tried to promote the very things that you say you love.

 

Shill be coming from Kenosha when she comes,
shill be coming from Kenosha when she comes,
shill be coming from Kenosha with a school that sure ain't kosher,
shill be coming from Kenosha when she comes.

 

Thank you for this explanation. As a new user, I was really puzzled by these Union Institute threads, because it seemed that Rev. Levant was being ripped and pestered for no apparent reason, and by people who were otherwise courteous in other contexts. Even as a person who knows nothing about Union, I actually found Levant's information on the problems there to be newsworthy and interesting.

If she is just a part of that conspiracy you're talking about, that would justify the brusque attitudes, but if she isn't, then she's right that she's owed a big apology. It's a strange situation.

 

Hi Tesc student:

It is just possible--barely--that the wehemu is not in any way associated with the incessant public tohuwabohu about Union (NOT a conspiracy: conspiracies are quieter and have a point).

I should add that while I respect the Union grads, I really don't care a rat's ass about Union beyond extending to it that general benevolence--such as it is--with which I regard the universe.

However:
1) she can't or won't substantiate quotes
2) she may or may not be on the very cusp of getting her legit doc (I suspect she is)
3) she showed up with both barrels blazing about Union
4) she runs a somewhat suspect seminary--not on religious but on academic grounds--and has given forth inconsistencies in claiming it is above and beyond criticism by outsiders
5) she claims to be the savior of the humanities but defends her seminary in terms that exclude it from any comparison to legitimate schools and programs in the humanities. Go figure.

 

I have, in the past, called Renee a whack job. With what she has written here, I am now prepared to call her the most dangerous type of whack job that can be found in nontraditional higher education - one that uses religion as an excuse for less than mediocrity. As many know, her statements are not only horse manure, but factually false under the most empirical conditions. (Obviously, however, anyone who says loose when they mean lose wouldn't have the intrinsic intelligence to know that.)

I am, therefore, now pleased to elaborate on my evaluation of Renee Levant: Not only do I consider her a whack job, but also a fraud, a charlatan, a rip-off, a sham, and a con artist. As always, I do not question her motivation - these labels can apply both to the sincere and insincere - but the misrepresentation of her "little seminary" can do actual damage to people who might fall for her act, believing that they are receiving a legitimate education when, in fact, they will end up with a credential that has no credibility.

Hey, come to think of it, I haven't insulted anyone that blatantly since the friendly folks in Fort Lauderdale, and they ended up suing me. (degreeinfo.com veterans already know the results of that little escapade. To say that it didn't bode well for them would be an understatement.) Perhaps Renee will want to do the same thing. In which case, I'm delighted to say, "Go ahead. Make my day."

You see, folks, our friendly little neighborhood at degreeinfo.com is a small community in the overall scheme of life . . . If Renee really wants to be an instigator, as she has been here, let's really blow it out in the open so the public on the whole can have some fun.

Res ipsa loquitur, kids - Renee's own comments above prove the theory, "Give 'em enough rope and they hang themselves."

Renee's 15 minutes of fame just ended, unless she really wants to press her position. In which case, bring it on, ya ol' whack job.

 

My newly earned M.S. from CCHS says "Master of Science in Health Services with a Concentration in Community Health."

 

Had to look him up. At first I thought he was a cross between Emanuel Swedenborg and Caspar Schwenckfeld.

 

One of you mentioned context

I keep hearing about attacks on Rich Douglas and Union. As I have stated I never knew Rich before here and I enjoyed our conversation a great deal. Also far from ripping all past Union degree's I have suggested some were great and yes some are flaky.

The rest of the "context" which is seen as justifying the outragous behavior of some people here is, if I followed, that people have been going around opening threads to attack Union and promote degree mills. I am not sure I understand why promoting a degree mill and attacking Union would be connected. I do hear that that is what many here have experienced.

I am surprised in that I would expect the "competition" to be more from say University of Cincinati then unaccredited degree mill type schools. In any case, I would also point out that I did not start out talking about my small (read tiny) Church and its developing (read very very very beginning seminary). I do not believe the "source" of students would have much in common with Union and find it somewhat silly to compare an accredited University with a building and budget, paid administration and faculty and $17000 tuition to what is happening in a small religious community with a few students paying almost nothing and a faculty who earn nothing at all from their programs!

But hey fine..If it pleases you to call me a degree mill owner--enjoy! But let's also look at the context of what has been happening before I have posted here.

For over a year I have been working with students going through hell with Union Institute.

Students who because of massive incompetence have been held up 6 months to a full year from graduating. Students who wait 6 months to get a form signed by a usually absent (though well paid) Dean and then get cut off from financial aid because they did not get things done "on time". Students who call and cannot get a single consistent answer on any policy question..Students who more often get no answer at all!

Deans who say somthing is the policy in writing and then deny having said any such thing.

Students who need the financial aid to survive- have met all complaince requirements but do not get their funds because the Dean did not sign and does not despite daily calls for months.
Students who use that aid to afford the required in person seminars are considered making bad academic progress even when the fault lies with the University.

Students who are told and enroll for one degree and then years later told they never said that despite massive documentation

Alumni who request their transcripts for a job and find that the degree they were told they earned is gone . Worse they find out when a potential employer says, I looked at your transcript you do not have a degree in what you state on your CV--Your degree is in Interdisciplinary Studies.

The entire year there were only 3 of what is suppose dto be monthly communications. Each of these said nothing (except we are good and getting better every day)

Students cut off from financial aid because Union decided only a month before the new term that students having had their pre-graduation meeting will automatically count as less than half time (which means your loan come due in 6 months). Yet they also eliminate the 30 day rule whereby your graduation was to be 30 days from when you sent in your final documents. Now students have waited four moths for the Deans Review and then had to wait months for the new Administrative Review.

Let's get real Union is not being investigated ONLY because they granted all sorts of degrees. That is the OBR's main concern.
NCA has other concerns. The administrations lack of responsiveness and support for students, the quality of work done, the lack of Arts and Sciences and Humanities when they understood that to be the area Union was created to serve, the failure of Union to keep student records safe tp not misplace things, fail to sign things and so forth. The lack of clear and consistent policies of any sort. The list goes on.

USED was concerned with many administrative issues in the handling of Title IV funds, the lack of standards for satisfactory academic progress and so forth.


And there is more.

So, yes, I would STRONGLY suggest that anyone who starts Union at this time is asking for trouble as great as that of any degree mill.

And if a school is willing to represent to students that they can award one degree and had re[presented that they had awarded all sorts of degrees to various students, and then, to avoid problems from OBR, they turn around and deny that they ever did award with anyone when thousands of students were told in writing that they were in a program leadning to a PHD in their field then it is a school for any reasonable persons avoid list.

At the very least they will be "put on notice" in the next month.
They will have a LOT to change if they want to regain full accreditation. Yet they project that all is well and getting better every day while current students suffer.

Whatever, the reality of the situation today does not take away from the fact that Union has done some great things during its history. And even if, as I suspect may well happen, the accreditation is pulled a year or two from now, that will not mean that people who have Union degrees earned them a degree mill!

They can be proud of what Union was in the past. Some think this will be turned around. Maybe. Anything is possible.

But to encourage anyone to attend Union at this time is irresponsible! This latest communication from teh OBR contradicts everything Union has told students about degree titles to date. What will happen? Will they try to renegotiate with OBR based on their ignorance of what was in the agreement (ignorance at best)
What does that mean for the students

So much so that some who work in the admissions office have discouraged people from applying.

I applaud them for being sensible and responsible. Something I have yet to see from the administration in its treatment of students despite its claim to be the"learner centered" University.

OK so some shrills from degree mills (nice poem there) are attacking union to grow their mill...heh..very silly way to try to recruit but OK.

That does not make these issues which are faced every day by Union Students any less serious. And I would hope rather than simply attacking me, anyone even thinking about Union would check things out, join both student listserves (one is pro Unions new future, the other open to differences but where those who feel the direction is downhill are free to talk as well,) On both you will see the hell students are experiencing across the board.

Check out the reality. If you do with an open mind you will see what I have described here.

Best
Rev Renee proud owner of her own personal 2 person"degree mill" which has yet to award any degree and is not recruiting any new students at the moment;-)

 

Well, that certainly answered absolutely none of my questions about what the wehemu is up to.

And there's still no quote reference, just grandiloquence (look it up) about how the ol' wehemu is saving the lost souls of the Onion Instatoot.

What we have here, my chuckwallas, is:

just a little bit higher level of the millist "Union as evil empire" crap,
run past us by a you-know-what operator with, yes, no discernible personal stake in distance education,
showing up here with no purpose in mind (sic) except to attack Union--as though this board were somehow a part of Union--a school way way too rich for my blood,
just the usual ad hominem attacks about "parnoia" (and other illiteracies from Doctor Wehemu) that every responsible poster on this board knows well from millists and shills,
feigned ignorance ("gathering" things the wehemu's posts indicate she knows full well about the millist obsession with Union),
transcriptomania (a common disorder of folks who try to stretch the credibility of what they did for a degree, accredited or no),
the big lie that anybody on this board has been recruiting anyone to go to Union,
and, supremely, yes, you could hardly wait--
the assertion that anybody who disagrees with the wehemu or criticizes her pretensions in any way simply doesn't have an open mind and is "outragous".

Better the stuffed crocs of the Fayyum than this mummified millist malarkey.

However, if wisconsinosis, not to mention wisconsinisis, nor yet wisconsinosiris, intrigues you, mes chucks, here's another fine mill for your amusement, o connoisseurs of whack jobs:

http://www.lawsonomy.org/Lawsonomy21.html

At your service,
Janko the Merry Carpathian

 

That was me. I tried to alert you to why you met some hostility here. I don't intend to argue with you about it.

I think that the term I used was "proprietor of your own unaccredited seminary", and I suggested that it was unlikely to survive the kind of criticism that you are directing at the Union Institute. I was suggesting that you are selectively employing a double standard.

"Working" in what capacity? What is your personal involvement with the Union Institute?

You started this thread by posting text that purported to be a letter from the Ohio regents to the president of the Union Institute. How did a letter that wasn't addressed to you come into your possession?

Union Institute was recently reaccredited wasn't it? How is it that these concerns weren't expressed then but are known to you?

The financial aid people have that problem with lots of universities, particularly when doctoral students are spending years writing their dissertations. That's not to say that it doesn't need to be addressed, but it certainly isn't unique to the Union Insititute.

That's what it always comes down to eventually.

What if somebody actually wanted to earn a degree in interdisciplinary studies??

The problem seems to have been Union letting students name their own self-designed interdisciplinary programs, and in so doing suggest that Union could offer disciplinary doctorates in every conceivable subject despite lacking the necessary resources to support such a thing. So why should Union be avoided now because that problem was addressed? Wouldn't addressing the issue make Union more credible? Isn't that precisely why the regents wanted the changes made?

Are you suggesting that you have received inside information that the North Central Association is about to put the Union Insitute on probation?

But you seem strangely focused on seeing it crash and burn.
You suggest that you are "working" with disgruntled students. You imply that you have inside information from the accreditors. You post what ostensibly is private correspondence not addressed to you. You are doing your utmost here on Degreeinfo to steer prospective students away from Union.

So once again: What's your personal involvement with all of this? You seem to be something more than a bystander.

Why would their accreditation be pulled, exactly? If things are that bad, why was it recently reaccredited?

Rich and Steve suggested months ago that prospective students wait and see what happens.

But as far as I'm concerned, I don't see any hideous problems. There's the regents insisting that Union grant clearly named interdisciplinary studies degrees, but as a fan of interdiscipliary studies, I'm not really moved by that. I think that the change probably strengthens the school's academic credibility. There's your complaints about the Union Institute administration's lack of responsiveness. But every school's students have that same complaint. (Besides, why should they be saluting you if you aren't even a Union student?) And I expect that the financial aid people have concerns about timely progress among students at lots of universities, particularly those with many non-traditional students.

Lots of rather minor complaints, some of them rather generic, but certainly no smoking gun that I can see.

If it only exists on paper, then it doesn't really exist, does it? And in that case, where did the students come from that impressed everyone at conferences?

 

===

You're not recruiting new students at the moment?? ...and here I was ready to sign up too...darn!

 

It seems to me that there is over-concern about what the degree says or even the title of the program. Those things can be very fluid in a lot of insitutitions. Generally speaking, employers are less concerned about what the degree is in than in the issues that are actually addressed in the degree.

Take my own situation as an example. When I trasnferred to Fuller Seminary I had some previous Old Testament work that I had done at New College Berkeley. At first Fuller was not going to accept those credits because the New College professor had a PhD in theology (not Old Testament or even biblical studies). However, upon closer examination they figured out that his systematic theology work had a major Old Testament component. So the faculty senate let me transfer the credits.

It is the work done in the degree that in the end matters more than the title of it. I'm sure that there are exceptions but I think that generally speaking, especially in academia, people look more at the content than the title.

 

Likely so, but if one is the proprietor of what the Germans call a "Titelmuehle", then titles are everything and substance is nothing. Thus, if a real school can be assailed in matters of titles, then a fake school can be defended despite its lack of substance. It's kind of a cheesy head game.

 

That would be headcheese, correct?

Sorry... couldn't resist.
Tony

 

I'm sure the um Egyptians had a word for it.

 

According to the On-Line Hieroglyphics Translator, it’s something like this (in hieroglypics):

"Twisted Flax Wick; Vulture; Hand; Ch; Double Reed Leaf; Folded Cloth; Vulture"

Although, I’m not sure that the ancient Egyptians had headcheese… they may have had scrapple

Cheers (and of course, no disrespect intended to those of Egyptian ancestry),

Tony