What Are Columbia Pacific Ph.D.s Doing These Days?

I disagree with Bill's conclusion regarding the results of his findings.

First of all, we are not aware of the actual basis why these schools hired these individuals or the rationale for allowing them to list their CPU degrees. Unless we know the facts of each case any conclusions generated are purely conjecture.

Based on Bill's findings, only four individuals on this list held faculty positions. Statistically that is an insignificant number and most importantly does not provide us with the individual basis for their being hired in the first place. For instance, were they brilliant individuals who produced prolific research and where they obtained their doctorate was inconsequential or were they faculty in their respective department for many years and perhaps were grandfathered into their position regardless of the nature of their doctorate? We just don't know.

Even the rationale for these schools permitting the listing of unaccredited degrees remains unknown. Yes we can speculate as to why this occurred but this does not constitute a basis for understanding the actual facts in each of the individual cases noted.

All that I conclude from this list is that it is interesting but not revealing of anything we didn't know previously about this subject.

 

This may or may not be a significant number in reality, but there is no significance attached to the number of a sample in statistics. Significance lies in differences found between hypothesized population parameters and calculated sample statistics, or between two sampled statistics. The sample size itself is not significant or insignificant statistically. (Although sample size does affect significance, it itself is not significant.)

Bill didn't state that he found his "sample" to be statistically significant. While he referred to his data as a "sample," used some descriptive statistics, and suggested some inferences to the population, that's not the same as demonstrating it with inferential statistics, weighing the findings with probability, and accepting or rejecting a hypothesis on that basis. I don't think that was his intent.

Whether or not an observer finds the data he reported to be significant is a matter of individual judgment, not statistics and probability. I find the information highly suggestive, however, and indicative of the usefulness and pervasiveness of the CPU degree over the years.

"But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Dennis Miller

 

Douglas: This may or may not be a significant number in reality, but there is no significance attached to the number of a sample in statistics. Significance lies in differences found between hypothesized population parameters and calculated sample statistics, or between two sampled statistics. The sample size itself is not significant or insignificant statistically. (Although sample size does affect significance, it itself is not significant.)

Response: Sample size by itself does have relevance in relationship to the degree of its generalisability and therefore potentially substantiating the validity of one's findings. In this case, finding four faculty who list their unaccredited degrees does not prove anything without an understanding of the parameters for their being able to do so. Each of their situations may be entirely unrelated to possessing a doctorate. None of these factors have been established or clarified to any degree. Therefore, conclusions as to its implications remain premature.

Douglas: Bill didn't state that he found his "sample" to be statistically significant. While he referred to his data as a "sample," used some descriptive statistics, and suggested some inferences to the population, that's not the same as demonstrating it with inferential statistics, weighing the findings with probability, and accepting or rejecting a hypothesis on that basis. I don't think that was his intent.

Response: The above response has no relationship to what I stated and is taken out of context. Bill's intent is not the issue and needs no defense. His presentation of this information was very interesting and informative. My response was an observational one rather than a criticism of Bill's methodology or lack of such.

Douglas: Whether or not an observer finds the data he reported to be significant is a matter of individual judgment, not statistics and probability.

Response: Obviously, each individual will have their opinion regarding the relevance of this data. However, whether this data is reflective of a pervasive or general trend remains open to relevant study to determine its actual relevance and applicability.

Douglas: I find the information highly suggestive, however, and indicative of the usefulness and pervasiveness of the CPU degree over the years.

Response: I disagree. Bill very clearly noted that the vast majority of individuals on this list held a myriad of nonacademic positions within academia, and the relevance of their unaccredited doctorates to their jobs remained questionable. Of the four remaining faculty, there is an absolute lack of understanding of their indvidual situations.

I conclude on the basis of the current information that this is not "highly suggestive" but actually a presention of interesting data that invites conjecture and speculation.