If someone who had run less-than-wonderful institutions said that they were now running a reputable school, what would satisfy you that this was so?
I agree with Dennis. Did you have something specific in mind? There is also the 'living it down' factor. Cover story in the Chronicle a few weeks ago was about a popular and competent professor at Penn State who was fired after it became known that he murdered three people when he was a teenager, and served a long term in prison. He never lied about it . . . but then he was never asked during his hiring process. I guess if the original deed (or school) was sufficiently egregious, one might never dispose of that albatross (except, of course, amongst all the fair and kind people in DegreeInfoLand).
Personally, I would just take their word for it. I don’t believe actions speak louder than words. Therefore, even if they continued to exhibit the same behavior, as long as they professed repentance for past actions, that would be good enough for me. Forgiveness is a virtue that allows me to feel real good about myself as long as I am not the one who personally gets screwed by my turning a blind toward egregious behavior. All of this, of course, is dependent on whether they professed to hold similar beliefs to mine (especially religious or theological). If, by chance, they do not, then all bets are off.
Gus wrote: Therefore, even if they continued to exhibit the same behavior, as long as they professed repentance for past actions, that would be good enough for me. Really? Mike.
I would believe that the school in question is reputable only if all ties, financial and operational, between that person and school are separated.
I think that two very different issues arise in this thread. First (and by far most important) is determining the nature of the school that purportedly is "reputable". That's a reasonably objective matter. It's not a matter of personalities. I'd seek the kind of evidence that speaks to the credibility of any questioned school: accreditation, external recognition, scholarly productivity, associations and collaborations, and so on. I generally put very little weight on the usually self-serving statements of school proprietors. The word of a scholar that I respect would probably get more weight, but if the proprietor has a history as a degree mill operator, I'd give him almost no credence at all. In fact, I'd respond with considerable skepticism and require far more evidence of reputability than I might otherwise require. The second issue is very different. It seems to be the question of whether I'd personally forgive a former degree mill operator if he went straight. The answer is definitely 'yes'. But I wouldn't forget either. People should always have an opportunity available to turn things around and to make their lives better. (That's one reason I like DL so much.) But a person's past remains a part of what they are and doesn't just go away. It has to be worked through. Trust has to be earned. But I'm certainly willing to give people the opportunity to try.
Re: Re: New leaf? Nice to meet someone else on here who believes in the inherent worth and dignity of mankind rather than in the total depravity of mankind.
Not even this for many. I know people with TRACS and DETC degrees that are ridiculed by those with ATS and/or RA accredited degrees.
Re: Re: Re: New leaf? I don't want to step on Bills toes but . . . I don't think that's what Bill said. The fact is that you have skipped over the substantial "middle ground" of the issue. Jumped the gun again, Jimmy. Jack
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New leaf? As Jimmy is aware, I have, in fact, been receiving his Private Messages. I have also responded to these messages. In my responses I have told Jimmy a number of things. Among these things I have told Jimmy that he's making a mistake by continuing to pursue his unaccredited masters degree (that is, if he's looking to rid himself of his old reputation). I've also told him that he makes himself look bad by leading people to believe that he's a doctoral degree candidate at UOVS when he hasn't been officially registered in the school or had his dissertation proposal accepted (regardless of some benign email from the Theology Department). I also told him that if he wanted to begin to convince people of his honest academic intentions then he would post a listing of all his degrees and the school that granted each degree. Specifically. Furthermore, I told Jimmy that while he may have asked for forgiveness, he has yet to do his penance. Please forgive the religious allusion but I'm an old Irish-Catholic boy from Boston and while I must be considered a "fallen angel" I continue to find some of the concepts useful. Jimmy, I know you have a penchant for posting email without permission so here's the deal. You can post my PM's to you on the condition that you post them all at the same time and in their entirety. I don't mind if people see that I've encouraged you to walk the "straight and narrow" but I won't have you trying to make me look like a sap. (I do a good enough job of that myself) Jack
John Bear wrote: > a popular and competent professor at Penn State who was > fired after it became known that he murdered three people > when he was a teenager, and served a long term in prison. "Stung by the revelation that a faculty member was a convicted triple murderer, Penn State University has begun doing criminal background checks on job applicants. [...] Even if the policy had been in place in 1999 when Krueger was hired, administrators said, he still might have landed a job" http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/107330763154720.xml
Hi me again: I was thinking of a couple of exceptionally ephemeral theological schools, whose former proprietor, at least by his own report, has gone on to bigger and better things. Supposedly. Nuff said.
I would say that one of the first steps would be that this person would have to demonstrate a consistent and sustained willingness to answer any/all questions regarding their school(s), both past and present, in a thorough and direct manner. The slippery, double-talk with which we've become familiar is the hallmark of these characters and must be abandonned if one is to see them differently. Jack
Right, Jack. As the old, old saying goes, if it won't play in Pascagoula it won't bowl 'em over in Bloemfontein.
