Academic Inquiry

I don't intend this as an afront to the fine moderators of this board.

A day or so ago there was a thread discussing a less than favorable supposed institution of higher learning (a diploma mill) and in that thread was a link to said institution.

In an effort to avoid "advertising" for that mill on this board, the link was removed.

Now, while I agree that it isn't a good idea to "advertise" such schools here, I generally see this forum as a higher discussion in academic study of distance education. In order to properly conduct academic study (or even evaluate options), one must evaluate all of the available information -- that link was to "available information". Sometimes, that information includes facts about the seedier side of life.

I'm not sure how to compose my thoughts on this yet -- I felt as though the post was inordinately censored (especially the changing of the link from a diploma mill to a porn site).

Are we as academics to accept that "xyz college is bad" based on the ages old "because I said so" or, should we instead encourage readers of these discussions to learn to evaluate such offerings themselves? If we are to use the "I said so" method (I understand that's a lower-working-class marker), then what is the criteria for saying so?

Reality is, if someone wants to buy a life-experience degree or custom printing degree, they probably aren't using this forum to locate the providers. Those type products are easy to find using google and the search string 'degree'.

I guess my point is, what gain to knowledge comes from censoring this type of information?

 

OK, so here's what happened. After seeing Shawn's thread I went in and turned
degreemill.com (not the real name)
into
XXX.com
It never occurred to me that I might be creating a link to a porn site by doing this. It's just not the way I think. It was a stupid mistake and I have written to Shawn and offered an apology. I am happy to apologize again to anyone else who may have been offended.

As to other questions that you have raised, I have several comments. The Terms of Service specifically state that members are not to post advertisements. It has been the tradition from the earliest days of this forum to omit information from these sorts of ads such as urls and telephone numbers. I could have deleted the entire post or the entire thread but I left the post in place without the contact information. If you want to follow through and make your own judgement about such schools you are free to contact the poster of the information and request the contact information but it will not appear on the forum after it is identified by a Moderator. If another member spots such information before a Moderator I would appreciate it if you would alert us.

You feel that people will not come to degreeinfo in order to locate these degreemills. You have perhaps inadvertently made my case for me. Part of the reason they don't come here for that purpose is that we don't allow this practice. We know for a fact that degree mill operators visit our forums regularly. If we were to allow the posting of such ads we would be inundated with them. Along the same line of thinking, you state correctly that someone wishing to research these mills could easily do so by using any number of search engines. Because it is so easily done I do not feel that we need to offer additional opportunities for such research.

Finally, you have asked "what gain to knowledge comes from censoring this type of information?" My own answer is this. This kind of knowledge is simply not the highest priority on this board.
Thank you for your questions. I hope my answers were illuminating, if not satisfying.
Jack

 

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the change to a porn site was intentional. I'm sure I've made the same kind of mistakes before.

Again, I'm not sure exactly what it is about this that bothers me -- and I am writing here more in search of understanding than in support of degree mills I assure you.

Advertising implies a support for a product or service and the desire to drive customers to that product. That post was not advertising in the true sense -- it was an observation that some degree mill operators are incredibly bold. In that way it is exactly opposite of advertising.

Maybe part of my concern is, if this community does not openly discuss and expose the less than wonderful operators out there -- who will?

This forum is able to (and I'm sure has) persuade folks to avoid such operations -- but only if we openly discuss them. These diploma mills are expert at creating a confusion amongst potential customers -- this board generally does not.

Just a few thoughts...

 

It's almost getting to the point I don't want to use the search engines and check my emails anymore as this filth is popping up more and more.

Sad, very sad!

 

As one of the original moderators, I can state that Jack is exactly right. It has long been practice here, and rightly so, to remove contact information for diploma mills. Since there are so easily found, it was thought that DI didn't need to help in that search.

This is not unlike John Bear making the decision some time ago not to include contact information for mills in his guides. They are so easily found that, it is my understanding, he didn't feel the need to help in that search.

Jack made the right call.


Tom Nixon

 

I can't say whether I agree with the decision or not at this point -- I'm considering the issue.

Are we saying then -- that it would be "advertising" to ask a question about

• Almeda
• Breyer State
• Ashwood
• Belford
• Canyon
• Glendale
• Suffield
• Rushmore
• Strassford

and their kin? Or is it ok as long as I don't put a URL in the post?

If it's not ok to reference these schools then the moderators need to take a look at the past week worth of posts to this board since several members of some respect and authority have posted about some of these...

If it is ok to post questions and comments about these -- then what real difference is there in posting the URL so that those reading can make their own informed decisions?

I don't know [username removed by moderator] (original OP of the post in question) nor do I recall reading much by him/her. On this matter though -- I must conclude that there is in operation here a systemic issue of concern and that issue is application of inconsistent censure and censorship rules. Such action could be seen as picking on someone at best -- as hiding something at worse. It is indeed poor educational practice as the outcome will be less discourse and not more.

Now, let me say, Coach clearly understands that there are rules to the game and that you never argue with the ref. during the game (which is why this is in a new thread) since it's just not sportsmanlike.

Maybe the ref made a technically valid call accroding to the rulebook but the rulebook needs to be reviewed for clarification.

I am now confused about the rules. Was listing known diploma mills in this thread a violation of the prohibition against advertising? Is it only advertising if I include a URL? Does the rule only apply to some players but not others?

How is mentioning Canyon here or mentioning prohibited URL in the thread in question any different than asking whether TESC will accept credit in transfer from Canyon College?

I don't agree that we don't need to make it easy for people to find the diploma mill webpages. HR people read these threads. Academic faculty read these threads. They need easy access to those web pages so that they can themselves check out the school.

Prospective DL students read these threads -- they need to be able to ask about the school they found at http://www.blatantdiplomamill.com without censure.

IMHO -- advertising is saying the likes of "hey y'all, check out Fake State University at www.FakeStateUniversity.com It's the best college around." That is not the same as saying "hey, look what these fools are trying to do..." which is the way I took the posting in question.

So, I ask the refs -- take a look at the rules again. Make certain that the interpretation has been applied as the rule was intended by the rule making authority. And, clarify the rule such that we players can understand them clearly.

I stand ready to take my technical foul.

 

I'm not familiar with whatever it was that Jack did, so I can't comment on it.

But I do want to say that when Degreeinfo discusses schools, we have always posted links to them. In fact, several posters have recently been chastised for omitting the links.

It's hard to imagine how we could have followed the SRU saga without linking to their ever-changing webpages. Personally, whenever I post information off a school's website, I include a citation link to my source.

I'm not sure if Degreeinfo policy is changing or what's happening. But if the day ever comes when we can no longer discuss the mills, if Degreeinfo just becomes a forum for testing-out and for political rants, then the board will have been castrated.

The appalling fact is that anyone doing a simple search for a DL program is going to be confronted by degree-mills within seconds. XXX mills, full-frontal shots. Degreeinfo policy on urls, whatever it is, will have absolutely no effect on the mills' ubiquity.

There are probably more mills out there than there are legitimate DL programs, and many of them are cunningly designed to be as misleading as possible.

DL students are like sheep being led to slaughter. And nobody in conventional academia really seems to care very much. Degree-mills aren't visible from faculty club windows I guess, so professional educators are more interested in protecting their own working conditions.

Degreeinfo is one of the only places that acknowledges the stark reality that students see every day. We are one of the only places that academic laymen can consult for vital advice in negotiating the DL minefield.

If the day ever comes when Degreeinfo can no longer talk freely about the dark side, then nobody would be more pleased than the degree-mill proprietors.

I'm sure that none of the moderators intend that to happen. So I guess that I'm just suggesting that everyone keep Degreeinfo's significance in mind so that we don't inadvertantly drift too far away from it.

 

There's no foul here. I don't mind participating in a discussion on this topic but I would want to emphasize that this is a discussion, not a negotiation.

You've asked if you would somehow be "advertising" by asking a question about certain (types) of schools. The answer is "no." The evidence of this is all around you on this board. Questions like that have been asked repeatedly over the years and they have frequently led to rather lengthy discussions. The evidence for this is so easily found that I'm surprised you even asked the question. What is not allowed is advertising. If you receive a piece of spam related to an "degree opportunity" we have even allowed the ad to be reproduced with the caveat being that the contact information is removed.

If someone comes to the board and posts a new thread asking the question,
"What can you tell me about XYZ University," there will be no problem. There has never been a problem with this, even if a url is included. In fact, you might actually be asked to provide a url so that others can see what you've seen. What is the difference between my first example and my second example? The first is, by definition, a piece of advertising and the second is not. Is this a small difference? Perhaps, yes. But, as you yourself pointed out, there is an arbitarary aspect to all this. Where does one draw the line? Some might draw it in a different place but that is such an elementary observation that it is hardly useful.

Now, with all that having been said, here's a hypothetical situation for you. A newly registered member, following the guidelines above, posts a question about XYZ University (a known degree mill). A small discussion takes place over the next day or two. Then this same members posts another thread asking, "What about ABC University?" (another known degree mill, and another discussion takes place over the course of the next day or two. This pattern repeats itself some number of times. This newbie makes no other posts on any other threads. How many times do you let this occur before you conclude that this newbie is actually promoting these programs?

As a coach you understand the need for rules but you feel that they are unclear or applied inconsistently. That may be true (although it seems the vast majority of our members understand the rules). The problem may lie in the fact that the TOS (this is "the rule book") is fairly short and might be interpretted variously by different Moderators at different times. There is no way to avoid such problems just as even the best of referees make bad calls once in a while.

The difficulty that I'm having with your questions is that by drawing the line where it has been drawn - no urls/telephone numbers in advertising, you are restricted not at all. You seem to want to be able to write anything you want without any restriction. This will not happen. If you want to participate in a board like that then I would invite you to go to aed. I would also like to add that when you ask the question, "Does the rule only apply to some players but not others?" is clearly insulting and, despite your protestations, I have taken it as such.

When I edited Shawns post he did not even receive a reprimand (from me). I've seen enough of Shawn's contributions to know that this was simply an honest mistake and that he probably didn't even know that this practice was frowned upon. We get new members all the time and I'm sure this will come up again. At those times I will handle it in the same manner.
Jack

 

I'm affraid this didn't clarify the ruling at all. It does clarify the intent perhaps and your rationalle.

The question here needs to be

If so, then are they always permitted or is there some limitation to the times when a URL should or should not be included. Is the posting of the URL to a school limited to certain people or can anyone post one?

It's clear that actively promoting (by advertising) a degree mill is not an acceptable practice here.

You ask, "How many times do you let this occur..."; if it's within the rules then you are expected to let it occur as many times as it happens -- there is no actual TOS violation even if it is indeed walking a fine line. If it's not within the rules then you never let it happen.

Honestly, taking the tone of several replies to my concern here, it is very clear that the censure in question was indeed arbitrary application of a rule which is not regularly enforced in the same manner universally.

I have read many posts on this board and have engaged in much discussion. I too expect to find a URL attached to references to a school (mill or not) and I most often find such URL. Posts by the most authoritative members of this community almost universally include "directions" to the school in question.

Now, another issue is whether simply commenting about a variety of schools implies and intent to advertise or simply an interest in the operation of these businesses.

I often write favorable comments about Excelsior, TESC, COSC, and Coastal Carolina. I'm not advertising when I do so. Here I'm discussing what constitutes advertising so it's not important that these are not degree mills. If I write about Excelsior 5 times - is that sufficient to imply that I wish to advertise Excelsior?

Understand too that the whole concept of "what is a mill" is an objective idea. Understanding that places like CustomDegrees are unquestionably a mill; there are many people out there in the world (academics, HR, public) who perceive Excelsior and UoP as degree mills. This is why we continue to see threads that ask "can I get into a grad school or get a good job with an Excelsior degree?"

Not unlike an athletic contest where a call has been contested; Coach thinks this was a bad call -- the refs think it was a good call. Seems the fans watching are about split.

Game's over but maybe next time....

 

I think the change in rules is an effort to prevent the ocassional shill and/or troll from attempting to undermine the purpose of Degree Info with tripe, spam and an annoying presence.

 

Okay, here's the deal... and I'm gonna' close this thread after this...

First, we should not discuss moderation or moderators in the forums. If someone has questions -- including really harsh criticism of moderator action -- they should PM or email the moderator in question. I have been contacted a couple of times since becoming a moderator and told that I had acted hastily; thought about it, agreed, and reversed myself. But if it happens out in the open, it clouds my judgement and makes me less willing to do so... because I'm human, too... just like you. Also, I'm far more tolerant of being told I'm a horse's patoot in an email or PM than I am out in the open... because, again, I'm human, too.... just like you. So if one is really worked-up in a lather over a moderator's actions, the safest/best thing to do is PM or email the moderator and put it out on the table. Even my ex-wife will tell you that the instant someone convinces me I screwed-up, I'll wear it and take whatever corrective action is necessary. Jack's the same way... so's George; and both Bruce and Chip have already proved that they're that way. But posts about moderators or moderation aren't tolerated in most forums (at least not beyond just a little, tiny bit; and not very darned often); and it's not going to be tolerated much beyond a little bit here, either. So, please, no more starting threads like this one. It's the third of its type today, and you'll notice that the other two are gone.

Second, we're also not going to discuss soandso who got in trouble or got banned... for much the same reasons... that is, unless they're really egregiously a millist/shill/troll, or has been problematic in a way that warrants public censure rather than private, in which case we'll be very public about the banning or suspension or admonition or whatever.

Third -- and this is important -- the thread-starting post in the thread that Coach Turner is questioning was worded in such a way that it came across almost like it was promoting the mill in question. In reality, I think it was ridiculing it, but it was very ambiguous in that regard. Jack's responding to it as he did was only partly because it linked to a mill, and mostly because it linked to a mill in a way that a newbie might think is promoting it.

We post about mills here all the time... and link to them so that others can see how ridiculous is whatever we're talking about when we make our posting. When it's that painfully clear right in the post that links to the mill that it is a mill and should be avoided, then linking to a mill is not so bad. I agree with Tom Nixon and John Bear that it's better to avoid it altogether; to talk about the mills, so that people know they're mills, but to not link to them at all unless there's a really good reason... like, for example, to point out some ridiculous wording about accreditation or something like that. But when we do that, we really need to be crystal clear, somehow, for the sake of the reader, that that to which we're linking is a mill and should be avoided at all costs... or something to that effect.

The thread-starting post in question didn't do that. It was clear as mud that the thread-starter was ridiculing, not promoting... if, in fact, he was. Under such circumstances, Jack's was a completely appropriate response; and appropriately understated and polite, as is Jack's enviable way.

Then, once Jack did that, to make matters worse, the thread-starter copped an attitude about it... which is consistent with something I've seen him do a time or two before. Indeed, his re-posting the offending link may have "crossed" with Jack's admonition (i.e., been posted at roughly the same time so that Jack's admonition was posted only moments before the re-posting of the link got posted), but when he (the thread-starter) got done re-posting the offending link, he could not have missed Jack's admonition right there next to his new post... and vBulletin is programmed to give him 10 minutes to edit or remove his re-posting, which he did not do.

Part of the reason I trounced him (the thread-starter) was because of his attitude, with which I am familiar; and because he didn't remove the re-posting even after he realized that Jack didn't want him to post it; nor did he email a moderator and ask to repair the situation. I waited a couple of hours to see if he would, and he did not. So I acted on the assumption that, when all's said and done, maybe he wanted that link there... to promote the mill. I mean... I don't actually think he did... but, as Tom Nixon, who used to be a moderator, can tell you: We're attacked around here in all different kinds of ways, all the time. We have to be more suspicious than maybe some people think is warranted because people are always trying to put one past us in sometimes the most subtle of ways that just don't permit us to give too much benefit of the doubt. Don't believe it? I got snookered this very day. Look at this thread, wherein I gave the benefit of the doubt, was in a hurry, wasn't careful, and got bit square in the butt -- and embarrassed -- by it.

We try to give the benefit of the doubt but, ya' know, sometimes we just have to be swift and firm and risk making mistakes because if we don't, we won't have time for anything else. And, as I've pointed-out before, this is not a democracy; posting is a privilege not a right; censorship is one of the moderator's tools; and if the members here can't live with that, then they should consider posting elsewhere... where, if it's moderated as carefully as is this place, they'll find even more rigidity and will return here and count their blessings.

The discussion of moderators and moderating now stops. I'm deleting any more threads that get started over it; and I'm banning anyone who pushes it beyond that.

This is over. Find something else to talk about.