Another example of the main form of utility for such degrees: laziness of hiring officials who are the gatekeepers here. They just don't look.
What a nut! Exactly. If someone does an unaccredited degree, they need to set some rules likes the following: 1. NEVER get an unaccredited undergraduate degree 2. NEVER get an unaccredited professional degree 3. ALWAYS be better qualified than your peers at the best GAAP facility you can access/afford 4. ONLY use an unaccretited degree for a terminal degree IF it is NOT required or ever will be where you work and what you work at 5. NEVER use a non GAAP degree where there COULD be ANY fallout In short, forget that you have it ... John Bear recently defended someone who was the vctim of a vitrolic attack. This person had an ACU degree, and it was stated that work was done for it, and the degree was not illegal, and then the detractor made an unqualified apology. In this case, this person has NO other degrees - yet! The same sort of thing will happen not too far down the track where persons 'pass off' a degree which may not be as it seems. I am referring to fro example: * LLM degrees that usually has required an initial law/attorney degree; *Masters degrees in IT than can only be undertaken by persons with NO It undergraduate studies, compared to 'true' IT degrees at Masters level; * MEd degrees available to non teachers, where in the past to do the same coursework and research, the MA was awarded if the pesson was entering without a poist graduate BEd. Millers site is of interest, but i would 'doubt' the genuineness of anyone opting for the sortcut/backdoor degrees listed there. I suppose it really gets back to what we are seriously attaining - a piece of paper or a legitimate education.
Peter: "I suppose it really gets back to what we are seriously attaining - a piece of paper or a legitimate education." I couldn't agree more. I have no way of assessing--not that I'm even qualified to try--Dr. French's education from ACU and Summit. It is entirely reasonable to purport that someone attending such an institution could do very high quality work--work that is comparable to that done at even the best accredited schools. But there is nothing at such schools to assure even a minimal level of academic accomplishment. Also, there is a distinct separation between the degree awarded and the education received/demonstrated. They are two separate issues. But those are not recognized schools, and holder of degrees from them might find their credentials not accepted in a wide array of situations.
Dr? I thought that we had agreed to 'drop' the 'Dr' moniker? In any event, what I did has NO bearing on my present vocation. I have received an interesting reply from a Californian academic with 40 years experience and I think it summarises the position fairly: He says in part: "... I have always believed in non-traditional education--for many subjects and for many different kinds of people. In the U.S., I am quite leery of non-accredited education institutions. I don't know them too well, so I speak from a bit of ignorance. It's just that most employers who are looking for advanced (what they call post-secondary education) education (beyond our high schools) want legitimate degrees from accredited institutions. There are many fly-by-night, poor-quality, "send us your money and we'll send you a diploma" institutions. Some slightly more legitimate are so deeply entrenched in some religious cult that they offer warped and not very intellectual, circumspect educations. There must be some quality, unaccredited institutions out there, but I don't know about them. Mind you, this is coming from someone who has been in college/university life since 1961, as a student or faculty person. We are indoctrinated into believing that the accredited institutions are the only way to go. We are trained to look down upon unaccredited institutions. Though I don't do so because of the indoctrination. I do it because I have known people who have wasted years going to "classes" in unaccredited schools, only to find out that all their classwork counts nothing if they wish to transfer to (or enter) an accredited school. So much for my biases...' Well, I don't read his comments as biased, but those of a realist. He is NOT one of us or of the other groups, and would not even be aware that 'we' in any from, exist. So I accept his comments as completely unbiased in that context. I don't regret my 'detour', and have fond memories of it as I plug away into the second year of an honours masters - 3 years to go...!
Peter: "I thought that we had agreed to 'drop' the 'Dr' moniker? " I don't recall agreeing to any such thing. I wouldn't even know about these degrees if Dr. French himself hadn't revealed them. Perhaps Dr. French could ask Dr. Morris about how to renounce and return bogus degrees, if that is his intention. But in other threads, Dr. French has defended the very same credentials. So which is it? Renounce them as garbage? Or embrace them as nontraditional and of value to him? Either way is fine. But neither way (where they are simultaneously defended and brushed aside) is not. Which is it? (I'm sorry the question about Dr. French's degrees from ACU and Summit are again being discussed. He jumped into this thread.)
Back to your old tricks again? You don't recall? Well, your memory is short, and your attitude stinks ... I dont come here for this sort of attack - I endeavoured to sort it all out with you, but i should have listened to those who told me I was wasting my time. Enjoy the group and reading you own opinons and having the last say. You are back to your old tricks again and i don't need this sort of shit as i have far more benefiical things to do than get into a slanging match with you. I didn't 'jump' into this thread as you say - or should I have got permission from you?
I'm sorry you're reacting this way, Peter. I didn't "attack" you; I didn't say anything about you, beyond the issue of your doctorates. But you've never addressed that simple fact: that you've both defended your Summit and ACU credentials (which you listed) and dismissed them as consequential. And, no, Peter, I never agreed to stop referring to your ACU and Summit doctorates. Because you've never come out and called them what they really are. Until then, if you're participating in a discussion about those schools, you should expect them to be referenced. And what attack? I agreed with you about worthless degrees. Because you brought up worthless degrees, and this is a thread about Summit, it seemed natural to use your doctorate from there as an example where one might get/demonstrate academic accomplishment, only to receive a degree that could, potentially, cause you trouble. That's it. I've pointed out the dilemma, but I'm not going to suggest the fix. Only you can do that. But until you do, don't expect me or anyone else not to mention your ACU and Summit degrees when they're relevant to the thread of discussion. You keep them current examples, instead of historical ones.
The report on Summit comes from the NBC station in Mobile. I am now hoping to interest them in taking a look at the five or six dreadful schools that have operated from mailbox services in Mobile in recent years, most notably the current one, Barrington.
