East Carolina Doctoral Student with St Regis B.S.!

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Broderick, Jan 27, 2004.

Loading...
  1. qjackson

    qjackson New Member

    Some time back ... may have been a few years ago now ... I commented on DegreeInfo.com that the outings would eventually result in a type of educational McCarthyism. For those not familiar with the term:

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

    Congratulations to everyone who has contributed to an environment of spiritual revivalism. It brings tears of joy to my eye to know that the real problems in today's society are being addressed in such a systematic, equitable, and open manner.

    I am satisified that, when someone follows due process after a night of Googling and speculation about the unknowns behind every unaccredited degree holder, one finds it within their civic-duty-encrusted heart to set the wheels of justice rolling by sending a few emails to the appropriate bodies and has these Un-American individuals rounded up, kicked out, ousted, embarrassed, and otherwise humiliated.

    After all, what does one need to know about particulars of an individual case? Google reveals quite enough when it shows that Joe Bloggs holds degrees from an unaccredited university from a school the meticulously accurate and thorough and even-handed ODA site lists in its Hall of Shame. Name, affiliation, and alma mater are quite enough to warrant a trialess outing, thankyouverymuch.

    God bless the wheels of progress and the wonderful system of due process. Keep up the good work.

    Quinn
     
  2. Dan East

    Dan East New Member

    Are you saying that sometimes there is more to something than meets the eye? That the world is, in fact, not black and white?

    Quinn, if you keep on in this ridiculous manner you may have me believe the world I inhabit consists of more than two dimensions!

    Harumph!

    Regards,

    Dan
     
  3. Tireman4

    Tireman4 member

    If you look at my responses, you will see that I did not cast any aspersions upon the young lady. I am trying to make it through a doctoral program myself, and my hat is off to her. Please read my posts before you accuse me of McCarthism. My research is over the Federal Writers' Project , which was "beat" up by the HUAC in the late 1930's. You can retract these statements from me.
     
  4. qjackson

    qjackson New Member

    Absolutely. I didn't name names, Tireman4. I named a way of thinking. Each person knows in his or her heart whether or not that way of thinking applies to him or her.

    Quinn
     
  5. galanga

    galanga New Member

    but in collaborative work it's more complicated

    The ECU student was starting to become part of a research collaboration. It's different from doing PhD work on a single-author effort.

    If she's underprepared but then writes a thesis on, say, gender issues in the films of Ingmar Bergman, her work would stand (or fall) on its merits without particularly imperiling her fellow film scholars.

    It's not the same in a lab environment where her work becomes part of a collaboration's efforts. If her results are wrong because she doesn't really know how to run a particular lab instrument all that well (unlike any well educated undergraduate biochemist, especially one with such stellar grades), her fellow molecular biologists will base their own conclusions about other parts of the project on the sum of her (incorrect) results and other, more accurate ones done by others in the group. She is a danger to her unsuspecting colleagues, and especially to her faculty advisor who has to scramble for research grants in a fiercely competitive, distressingly arbitrary, funding environment.

    She's probably having her tuition paid and receiving a stipend that's adequate to pay for her rent, groceries, car insurance, and so forth. (That's how graduate study in the sciences tends to be done at universities with significant research programs.) While not living in luxury, she is probably not having to borrow money to pay her expenses.

    At the end of things, (assuming a student passes his/her courses and comprehensive/qualifying/general exams during his/her first few years), he/she'll have a PhD and no debts.

    But if she's less than scrupulously honest, everything she does (and consequently all conclusions her colleagues draw about other parts of their joint project) is suspect and to be discarded. And that will ruin her advisor's own career.

    It's not the same as it would be if her work wasn't closely coupled to that of her colleagues in their particular lab.

    G
     
  6. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    The recent opinion-giver apparently was treated badly by an employer following an aggressive 'outing' of his degree from a not-illegal unaccredited institution.

    I have been suggesting for years that in a rational world, any degree would be evaluated based only on the work done to earn it, and the credentials of the person or people who approve and stand behind it. On that basis, I have far more sympathy and compassion for the person who does real work under well-credentialed people at a non-GAAP school than someone who buys a degree from a no-questions-asked, diploma-by-return-mail institution.

    John Bear, whose father was blacklisted as a
    screenwriter by 20th Century Fox during the
    McCarthy era and ended his days managing a
    molasses factory. The odd thing was that he never
    joined anything--except a swimming and tennis club
    in Santa Monica where he consorted with highly
    suspicious people like Alvah Bessie and Lester Cole, as
    well as Earl Warren, Alfred Knopf, and Grigor Piatagorsky.
    And, yes, he was bitter to the end.
     
  7. qjackson

    qjackson New Member

    This recent-opinion giver was treated as fairly as situation and circumstances called for by a client institution, not employer. Said opinion giver harbors no resentment towards said institution, given that the aggressiveness of the "outing" ('outing'really doesn't apply, since opinion-giver hasn't denied his unaccredited degrees, and disclosed them to said institution and didn't list them or title -- so thank you for putting it in quotations marks around that).

    Given the aggressiveness of the particular incident, said institution did the "right thing" by not renewing or extending the relationship. It wasn't worth the noise for anyone.

    That said....

    I don't argue against the principles behind maintaining academic integrity in academic institutions. I argue for scrupulous due process in maintaining it. Public mud baths are not going to make anyone or anything any cleaner than appropriate channel, civil, dignified proceedings. Outings, news hounding, email campaigns, anonymous re-mailers from outers who send multiple emails under various assumed names -- these are not due process.

    It might be amusing (to some members of society) to speculate in public about what someone did or did not do, what that person's character is or is not, how that person was or was not raised by his or her parents (not that these things were done in entirety in the present thread, but that these things have been done in the past during similar campaigns) -- but these are not the actions of those who participate in civilization's more refined institutions. The talkshow-ization of people's lives does not contribute to society's well-being as a whole, but rather cheapens the very same principles that one supposedly is defending.

    Self-appointed defenders of the system make phone calls, inquire about personal details, send emails "revealing" facts that are sometimes already public record, but turned in a bad fashion to imply some kind of ugliness on the part of the degree holder. Self-satisfied popes assume Holy See and tortiously interfere with other people's affairs.

    For the record -- I am glad that my "outer" did what (s)he did. It cost me just about everything. I lost contract work as a result. I lost my right to call myself "Professor". I lost my house. I lost my dignity. I lost my privacy. I lost my excellent credit rating. I ended up having to declare insolvency.

    But what I gained as a result of my experience, oh, can never be stripped from me by the slings and arrows. I gained very much.

    I learned what truly matters in this life. It wasn't my house. It wasn't the ephemeral title "Professor". It was not my reputation or my honor. It was not the credit rating. It was not even my human dignity. It was not any of that that matters.

    What matters in my life as a researcher is that I did the research and I documented it, and submitted it to the Body of Knowledge. What matters in my life is that my wife and three children did not love the house. They did not love the title "Professor". They did not love my reputation or my honor. They did not love my credit rating. They love me.

    The "outer" cannot undo the research. Heck, I doubt very much the outer could even grok my research or its significance. But the "outer" can understand that I have come out of this the winner.

    Yes.

    For you see -- I put my name behind my research. I put my heart and soul into my marriage and fatherhood. The "outer" never had the courage to put his/her name to anything during his/her efforts. He gained nothing. Ten phony names gained him/her nothing. His heart and soul were thrown to the wind under the blow of an anonymous remailer. I stood for what I represent. And I won everything.

    But I fear for those who do not possess my resolve. These are not light matters of which I speak. People's lives can be destroyed by poison pens. Mine was most certainly not destroyed, but what of others?

    Please, those who would "out" -- take extreme care in your shadowy, anonymously re-mailed undertakings. Do your research before you hurl the barrage against people whose lives you know nothing about. Do it under your real name. Do it according to acceptable standards of behavior. Follow ethical guidelines as you defend academic ethics. Practice what you preach by following generally accepted principles in raising concerns about people's qualifications. Or don't do it at all. If you're going to do it, do it right.

    Anyway ... that's enough of that. Cheers.

    Quinn
     
  8. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member


    Yeh - it was Tireman3 he was thinking about

    Hi Quinn.
     
  9. qjackson

    qjackson New Member


    No. I wasn't thinking about anyone in "particular", except maybe McCarthy. I'm no one's judge. So let's drop that offshoot on this thread, mkay?

    Hi.

    Quinn
     
  10. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member


    Humour - don't see much of it around here.
     
  11. qjackson

    qjackson New Member

    Did ye hear the one about the man who walked into the pet store with the dead parrot? DeMIzed, I tell you. ... ;-)

    Quinn
     
  12. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

  13. Ike

    Ike New Member

    I think that it’s utterly unethical and perhaps an act criminality to acquire and subsequently use bogus academic credentials. Paying for a worthless credential is one thing and actually using it as if it were a genuine credential is another thing altogether. Some people understandably buy these fake degrees because they want to fulfill their megalomaniacal instincts, and if it ends there, I don’t think that most people will even bother to “out” them. The problem is that many holders of bogus credentials end up using their diplomas deceptively and unlawfully to dupe unwary individuals and organizations. Bogus credentials foster illegality, quackery, and chicanery. In medicine, psychology, and court-ordered forensics, quackery can effectuate deadly consequences. Despite my predilection and stance on this matter, I do not support the practice of regularly outing holders of diploma mill credentials, especially if it is very improbable that utilizing these degrees will not in any way cause any harm to anybody.

    Ike Okonkwo, PhD
     
  14. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

    I did my own PhD in a microbiology lab, and I agree with most of what galanga has written.

    I don't think it's important that she knows how to "run a particular lab instrument" since we would typically assume that a new student doesn't know how to run the instruments and show him/her (regardless of what skills s/he may claim). The potential consequences to the joint effort are too important not to spend a little extra time to do this.

    The advisor is most at risk in a situation such as this. So if he/she is aware of the relevant facts and is comfortable with a student with a St. Regis degree then I don't see a major problem. The student would in any case need to get through whatever kind of qualification ordeal (comprehensive exams, etc) the department requires. In my experience, this is where students get filtered out most aggressively -- getting through the rest of a PhD program is mainly a matter of persistence!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2004
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    SRU is not Century University. SRU is apparently not even close to the academic institution that Kennedy-Western pretends to be. Sorry but I don't even have much sympathy for the ECU student in this case.
     
  16. chris

    chris New Member

    As a past instructor in law enforcement...

    I have often debated victimization theories with my students. What many view to be a "victimless crime" is rarely such a thing. All crime has a victim even if it is peripherally. In this case, the use of a fraudulent degree damages everyone who who has a degree which on the surface appears to be similar to the degree mill degree. Mill's attempt to sell their degree's as "life experience" or DL degree's. When holders of these unaccredited degrees are exposed they degrade the value of legitimate life experience or DL degrees. It is not "buyer beware" when someone hires an employee. If you present a degree that does not meet the normal standards of accreditation it is on you to disclose and justify it. It is not the employer's obligation to check that it is an accredited program.

    This young woman got into her program based on an illegitimate credential. If it was not a big deal to the school, she would still be listed on their web site. However, it is a big deal as their reputation rests on the quality of their students. Even genius child prodigies have to go through the motions of obtaining the correct credentials. Outing her was not in any way an immoral or unethical act. However, what she did may be so if she misrepresented her credentials. The school could have easily told whomever outed her that it was none of their business.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2004
  17. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    First, it’s important to note that in all of these so-called “outings” no one has really invaded another individual’s privacy. Rather, the fraudulent credentials would not have come to light if they had not been publicly touted. Few people buy fraudulent credentials and not put them to some kind of use. What would be the point?

    Second, I disagree that bogus degrees can be utilized without causing harm to anybody. The case of the ECU student is an excellent example. The long list of individuals and organizations that could be hurt by this include (but is not limited to)
    • ECU (reputation)
    • ECU’s administration (what about the poor individual that let this one fall through the cracks?)
    • the professor
    • fellow students
    • prospective students that were interested in the position
    • all of people who would be enticed to also seek fraudulent credentials based on this individual’s success with them (the shills were quick to promote the fact that she was admitted to an RA school with a SRU degree)
    • all of those with or pursuing distance learning or non-traditional degrees that may be (undeservedly) deemed to be similar to those from a degree mill (virtually all are DL)
    It can even be argued that the individual who uses bogus credentials is harmed, as, having successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of knowledgeable people who were supposedly experts in their field, they will be more inclined to act in a similarly unethical manner in the future in the same or other aspects of his or her life.

    What bothers me most, every time one of these cases comes to light, is that the individuals in questions seem to be of above average intelligence, and capable of earning a legitimate degree had they chosen a path that was more rigorous and ethical. This makes sense, as the “dumb” guys with bogus credentials are dismissed out of hand, and only the smart ones are able to successfully carry out the deception. However, it is this same intelligence that makes any excuse of ignorance of the true nature of the degree or the granting institution so implausible. They knew exactly what they were doing. It seems hypocritical to publicly promote your bogus degrees or use them to your advantage, only to complain about the repercussions when their true nature is exposed.
     
  18. cehi

    cehi New Member

    Chris: "If you present a degree that does not meet the normal standards of accreditation it is on you to disclose and justify it. It is not the employer's obligation to check that it is an accredited program. "



    Cehi: I totally agree. The burden is on the holder of the unaccredited degree to justify any possible acceptance by individuals or institutions that choose to be receptive to an unaccredited degree. Accredited schools enjoys universal acceptance, even though, in my mind, there are many lousy accredited schools that should be unaccredited. It is not automatic for unaccredited schools. Holders of unaccredited degrees should expect incessant acceptance along with wholesome rejection of these degrees.



    Chris: "If it was not a big deal to the school, she would still be listed on their web site. However, it is a big deal as their reputation rests on the quality of their students.:



    Cehi: I agree as well. It would seem that there was no proper disclosure by the degree holder that warranted acceptance by the powers to be. The school process probably never recognized it's errors, hence, the student was listed like all other students. But, with information contrary to the legitimacy of the degree, the school acted properly, and I might add, so be it. Nevertheless, the people that are involved in the graduate admission process are probably under fire right now, if in fact they screwed up.



    Chris: "Outing her was not in any way an immoral or unethical act."



    Cehi: Hmnn!! I agree. However, the only problem that I have is that the person who did the outing could have chosen to be silent about it rather than making it a global discussion for all. If I see a person trying to break into a bank, I will call the police, report the probable crime and avail myself to support any investigation, and leave it at that. I do not need to tell the whole world that I stopped a crime. For what?.....universal recognition or peer acceptance?... Ofcourse, reasonable minds will always differ on issues like this one. Thank you.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2004
  19. It ain't that simple folks....

    Well, maybe she was/is smart. But she had also possibly convinced herself that the "Liberian accreditation" concept as equivalent to GAAP was good enough for her, and felt confident in her "life experience" to feel that, at least in her own case, this was the right path and fully defensible on the basis of her intelligence. It still doesn't make it right, but I think there is more to this than a simple act of hypocricy.

    As we all know, it is amazing what smart people can convince themselves of - for example, weapons of mass destruction lurking behind every mosque in Iraq.
     
  20. chris

    chris New Member

    It isn't that simple

    The question of WMD in Iraq was based on bits of information gathered here and there. There are many events indicating the real dangers of misreading intelligence (Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, 9/11). The analysts had to make an educated gues which in this instance was wrong. However, almost everyone believed he had WMD, including France, German, and Russia. They only differed on how to handle it.

    See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

    In SRU's case however, the evidence is right out in the open and readily available with minimal research. If one chooses to ignore that evidence it is willful not innocent ignorance of the facts.
     

Share This Page