Salt Lake Bible College??

A quick reference to the Wiki on emoticons says it's "very happy or double chin." That wiki is a very interesting page - check out Western and Eastern emoticons. Wow! Whole new world!

List of emoticons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johann

 

If a given institution does not have the approval/recognition/accreditation of the Department of Education within the country it is located, NACES members (at least IERF) WILL NOT evaluate the school as being equivalent to a regionally accredited USA institution.

 

Will they evaluate it at some level? In a backdoor sense we see that the CHEA "recognizes" ASIC which accredits SLBC which is located in the USA!

 

I'm not representing nor misrepresenting it nor do I "mean" anything! I am inquiring about a NACES member evaluating a SLBC transcript (NACES "recognition".....not mine!). Can it be done?

 

If you read RAM PhD's comment carefully, it mentions that a particular NACES member organization won't evaluate it as a RA equivalent. That doesn't mean they "WILL NOT" evaluate a SLBC transcript....it simply may have a different "equivalency".

 

Looking back, I can't believe what I wrote earlier! I recant absolutely!

"... it's OK as long as the accreditor isn't "screamingly bad." (Me!)

In the US (or even elsewhere) ASIC accreditation is not "screamingly bad." But at its best in the US - it is window-dressing. Its imprimatur is academically meaningless in traditional / official US higher-ed circles.

In your back-door sense, maybe. Don't ascribe any back-door reasoning to CHEA - they don't do that. The org. may be recognized as something-or-other - but ASIC accreditation is not recognized by CHEA as any standard of US institutional accreditation -- NA or RA. Check the list.

And yes, it's safe to assume SLBC is not a diploma mill. Those are schools that sell degrees - no work, exams, etc. SLBC does not do that. If it's free, how could it be accused of selling degrees? Besides, there are courses -- and tests, I believe.

A degree mill on the other hand, is a school that confers degrees for little work - or substandard work. Those concepts have built-in leeway, but I can see how any school that offers doctorates after a few short, easy courses could qualify under that definition. Legal and free, of course, but still - I can see how some could paint the school as a degree mill. I'm not offering an opinion.

And yes, Phdtobe - as you suggested earlier, I lost my moral compass a long time ago. But my family is buying me a moral GPS. :jester:

This thread is, as I alluded earlier, like discussing a rhinestone - "Well, we know it's not a diamond, but maybe we can convince ourselves - or someone else - that it's a spinel - or maybe a bit of cubic zirconia." :sad:

I'm done, here.

Johann

 

I do not think I ever wrote that. I do read your many posts. I may not like a tiny few but that is life. Someone mentioned, I have a chip on my shoulders because I may be to eager to defend certain things which I think is wrong. The problem is mine to own.

 

This is correct. If one submits the required documentation and appropriate fee, they will indeed evaluate it. If a given institution does not have the approval/recognition/accreditation of the Department of Education within the country it is located, NACES members (at least IERF) WILL NOT evaluate the school as being equivalent to a regionally accredited USA institution.

 

Right - well, not verbatim, perhaps. You suggested I lacked moral fortitude (by posting as a "fake" person).

I just changed "moral fortitude" into "moral compass" for the GPS joke. No offense taken - at any point. You have your right to your opinion - even when it is wrong (i.e. not mine). :jester:

Johann

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

No, Steve - I do not post posthumously! I am still alive! :jester: Oh -- pseudonymously. ...yeah, I guess I do.

Then again, so does PhDtobe. Despite that, he said people who wanted to do good should have the moral fortitude to use their real names. Those were his exact words - quoted above. The meaning is pretty obvious to me, Steve - not that I mind at all. I do, however disagree, both about fortitude bit and the posting under real names -- though others, such as PhDtobe and your good self, can do and think as they like. This is not North Korea. :smile:

So - should PhDtobe himself have more "moral fortitude" and post under his real name? No -- I don't think so. He can do as he likes and I won't criticize him for his choice. I'm not offended by his suggestion but still I disagree with it completely.

I'll stick to being "Johann" and avoid harassment. Here's an example of what I got (PM) recently on another forum, from a person who didn't like it when I told the truth about a school's accreditation:

"You may assume that we are joking by informing you of the coming libel lawsuit against you and others that have participated in this forum against XXXXX University. Perhaps you have not been sued so you don't really understand that painful process in facing a libel lawsuit. This is not a threat but a reality!"

Had the writer known my real name and address etc. - he wouldn't have had a prayer with a lawsuit, but he could have made things unpleasant for me in a variety of ways, till he got tired of it. As it is, I get silly, snarky, sometimes foul comments on the "ill-humoured forum" occasionally - as do you. The difference is - they criticize Steve Foerster and publish personal details about him. They can't "go personal" with "Johann" - except with what I've let everyone know - my age, region of Canada I live in etc.

My take - if you don't want something widely known, especially by some thoroughly nasty people, don't splatter it all over the Internet. And don't leave them too many clues -- they love mysteries. They have no lives and little else to do.

Johann

 

I am not sure how to response to you. However, I hope that I never remotely come close to writing anything that can be construed as libelous. Because I use an alias, that has a moderating effect on how I criticise others and legitimate institutions. I did chided you for lacking moral courage, because you were pushing the boundary in your criticisms but were unaccountable. You were externalising the risk of your behaviour to the owners.
I do not think you are immoral because most of your postings are for the good of students. You have no need for a moral compass. I just think you could be more circumspectfull in your criticisms - otherwise have the strength to use your real name so other can response to you. With that said, I have no intention of using my real name, so like the majority here I will take it easy and leave the heavy lifting to those who have the strength to criticize and be criticize using their real names.

 

I was doing nothing but telling the truth. There is a whole lot I have left unsaid about the subjects under discussion - every bit of which I can back up. I decided not to pursue the subject further, as I have now provided sufficient info to prove I was not just blowing smoke - or "spewing crap."

As far as extending the risk to the owners - I am sure if DI owners deem what I've said to be a violation of the terms of service - or objectionable or risky to them in any way - they'll be quick to warn me, delete my posts and/or kick me out - whatever they think is appropriate. I've found the following is often the way DI responds to a bad school's threats of legal action etc. when the ugly truth is told about them:

The person making threats is often lampooned by DI as a "threat of the week" ...and then they go away. :smile:

If I'm being asked to temper my responses solely to assuage someone's delicate sensibilities - no dice. The best encouragement I've had in years of posting was when I upset that un-named school - the one that sent me the PM threat on another forum.

Dr. Steve Levicoff, one of the greatest distance learning authorities ever, Ph.D. and author of several books, was kind enough to post an encouraging message. Here it is, in part, again with excised school-name, as I have no wish (yet) to rub any more salt into them:

"Congratulations, Johann! You have, after all these years, become one of the select few that has received a lawsuit threat for calling a mill a mill. And XXXXXX is, indeed, a mill. A sleazy, scuzzy, slimy sham of a so-called school. (I love alliteration.)"

If any so-called school or accreditation outfit wants to take issue with what I say about them -- they can reach me here. And yes, as you say, I believe most of my postings are for the good of prospective students. And if they need warning, it's best done in the strongest terms.

Your servant,

Johann

 

You are doing great work. All degree mills should be exposed. I do not think anyone has a problem with that.

 

Well, I figured from what they wrote here, one or two people might have had a problem with my "work." :smile: I guess they don't, now. It's all good. :smile:

Johann

 

I guess I'd just like to point out that if I posted under a "name" like Jane Smith or Evelyn Moscowitz, it doesn't mean that my name is actually Jane Smith, etc. Legitimacy does not come from your screen name. It comes from the content of your posts.

 

You may have to define legitimacy. If you want to make a positive or even a negative impact on online learning, Kizmet will not do the trick. There is no legitimacy or credibility in Kizmet or a fake jane Smith or phdtobe.
Now someone who put his or her reputation on the line then that has the potential for legitimacy, not the afraids like phdtobe and the others who just want to be hidden from the public.