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

Chris writes:

> If it was not a big deal to the school, she would still be
> listed on their web site.

Do we know this for a fact? Or is it possible that someone from SRU saw my posting here, e-mailed the student telling her that she was dangerously exposed, and the student asked to be removed from the Website?

 

I agree. It's possible.

Ike

 

It's the same thing....

Itis possible but she had to pose for the original picture and she would look funny asking to be removed. ECU is a school trying to move up in the rankings and this would damage that greatly. I would bet she is not long for their program unless she can come up with an accredited degree.

 

Get a grip, my chuckwallas.

Ike et al have nailed this one.

There's a world o' hurt and difference between what befell John Bear's father and the self-triggered time bomb of phony degree(s), whether by a lab jock or an, um, genius.

It's interesting how often in one complainer's post religious metaphor occurs--popes, revivals--as part of his whining about "outing". Perhaps it's just entertaining to use religion as a metaphor for any sneaky dealings he doesn't like?

It's possible to feel sympathy for the hapless scoundrel at ECU--sympathy, not empathy--because her artificially constructed life, such as it is*, may well be blowing up in her face. That's not pleasant. Galanga's portrayal of how her fraud could ruin other people's lives shows the sad consequence that really matters: harm to innocents, not exposure of a flummerer. It is not as though this person were walking along the street and a great big pigeon squit (hi George, dere's da pidgins agen) labeled "St Regis" splattered all over her. Nope, she went to the pigeon roost, scooped up the steamy excrement, smeared it on her own face and called it Maybelline.


*Using "is" loosely

 

Hi Mark

If my last post came off harsh I apologize. While I regret anyone has to go through what this person is going through, I think it is valuable for people to see what using a degree mill degree can result in. There are many who try to minimize the importance of accreditation and legitimate schools. Obviously this is a huge mistake on their part.

No they aren't. For someone who is very familiar with both accreditation AND SRU it is a different situation. For them to ignore the information from ECU's website would be to actively participating in the fraud.

While I never used the word "laziness" it is a generous way to describe what this person tried to do. Trying to use an SRU degree to gain admissions to a Ph.D. program that requires a RA degree is fraudulent plain and simple

 

To some extent I agree with you, Gus. There are always moments in my life where I wish I had held my virtual tongue long enough to state something another, more meaningful way than the "Refresh" button on my browser allows after the fact. Esprit d'escalier can be a real pain in the behind, eh what? The good old staircase-wit would have had me word my ire in another way. McCarthyism was a poor choice of metaphor -- it evoked too many too personal allusions in other posters' lives. Holy See was also a bit strong, I agree with Janko on that one.

Yes, I made my own bed, and have to sleep in it. And as to sympathy, well, I was brought up hearing the time-honored: "If you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary between s**t and syphilis."

Somewhere in the background, Steve Levicoff is saying "Would you like some cheese with your whine?"

I didn't use my unaccredited degrees as a teaching credential. The need for degrees in my case was waived. I taught based upon the strength of an 8 page CV, full of publications and successful software project experience. I *disclosed* my degrees, but did not ask them to be considered as qualifications.

There's a world of hurt of difference between that and what others have done with their unaccredited degrees.

Thing is, when an outter starts spoofing prospective students on a public list in order to appear as if they are a student who "may" have gone to an institutions if "Quinn Tyler Jackson" were not listed there -- the outer him/herself has become a murky-dealer and has engaged in unethical campaigning and character assassination without knowing the details. It is action in the lack of detailed correct facts about a situation that constitutes a breach of privacy, IMO. Did the person who posted those spoofed attempts to look like the institution was losing business know anything of the details of the arrangement? No. Rather than follow correct avenues of investigation -- they simply posted character assassinating remarks in full view of the world.

Do you endorse this kind of tactic? Somehow, I do not believe you do. You've always stated exactly how you feel, and always under the same name.

Do you feel that the tactic I mention is an appropriate avenue of maintaining the integrity of academic institutions? Only when used against certain people, perhaps? I don't know how you feel on the matter, and I won't assume to know.

I know how I feel on the matter.

It's a cowardly way to maintain "integrity". The person who did that to me was a coward who showed an absolute lack of both backbone and integrity.

But -- if a person does something enough -- makes enough noise -- no amount of reward can make it worthwhile. And so, it was entirely right that my contracts were not renewed, even though they had never been based upon "academic" qualifications in the first place.

People like to assume whatever suits their worldview. I admit to doing the same thing. What I don't do (or try not to anyway) is assume that I have all of the facts. I know very little in the mathematical sense of what I can prove. I try to follow correct and proper avenues when I believe something is amiss. I try to avoid the coward's out. I have cowered and cringed in my life, to be sure -- but I try to avoid it.

Anonymous outers, on the other hand, roll in the muck of their cowardliness. Those who support anonymous outers shovel more sh*t into the pen when they encourage them (sometimes by private emails, behind the scenes, with whatever information they have amassed on the target of the outing).

The end has become a justification of the means.

Are you truly a defender of what is fair, Gus? I'd like to believe you really are. Defend what is fair by always practicing honorably the revelation of other people's credentials to their employers, clients, and the public eye, and I shall never have an issue with you.

Quinn

 

Hi Quinn

I am glad you've chosen to post. I, for one, have missed your presence and am very sorry to hear what you've been through. I couldn't agree with your characterization of the harassement that occured more.

 

Thanks. Others here feel it was entirely justified, even the means by which it was done. I don't know who feels what, but that doesn't matter, since educational matters like this are not about feeling this or wishing that. ;-)

I remember a line from a movie starring one of the Baldwin brothers. (Scarred City, I think the movie was called.) Baldwin's boss said to Baldwin that he wanted him on his team because he could tell Baldwin was the kind of person who would -- if he ever stabbed him -- stab him in the chest, and not in the back.

So the least the outer could have done if they were going to f**k me was kiss me first, so I knew just who it was I pissed off so. I don't know how to correct my wrongs towards another human being if I don't even know who that human being is.

The rage expressed was so intense that I cannot help but feel I must have angered someone by my words. If so -- I'm sorry. Not just sorry because of what the results ultimately were, but because it was never my intention to hurt anyone's pride, feelings, or whatever.

If, for instance, my moderation of the other site was not fair ... I regret that I interpreted the board rules incorrectly to such an extent that I accidentally stepped on someone. I tried my best to apply the rules to all. I may have erred there. That may have angered someone so much that they felt it necessary to make me pay. If so -- I apologize. I'm only human. I won't ever moderate anything again, since moderation is not one of my strong points.

Cheers.

Quinn

 

Your concerns are legitimate, Gus. I regret having accepted my degrees. I didn't pay for them (as I've mentioned before, all fees were waived), unless one considers that years of research are payment, but I did "pay" for them in terms of the attitudes and actions of those who don't like them. Fortunately, those who don't like my degrees are not my peers and colleagues -- the people who know the work done for them.

But I can't deny the motivations for accepting them. There was a time in my life when I felt a certain entitlement to the things. Entitlement is a damned narrow, craggy road to march, I've learned.

Yes, I could have quite handily acquired GAAP trappings. I'm no stranger to hard work, good old fashioned toil and sweat, and such. I've taken hundreds of tests in my life, and am no stranger to submitting myself to the crucible. I like writing papers. I like researching primary sources. I enjoy revising to feedback offered by my peers. I love it when someone finds flaws in my arguments and exposes them, giving me an opportunity to revise and reconsider.

There are things in life that I discovered I like that I didn't suspect I would. I enjoyed teaching undergraduates -- something I did not expect I would enjoy, and so much as said I wouldn't be suited for. I didn't know how much I enjoyed designing undergraduate courses until I had designed six of them. My course guides received much praise, my students seemed to like me (even though I was not considered an easy professor to please), and I very much enjoyed analyzing every student's educational goals and seeing how I could accommodate those goals in my teaching style. First-hand experience was required for me to see that I quite loved being a professor. (I mention this because someone once posted that I was a hypocrite for getting into teaching after having publicly declared that teaching wasn't in my blood. I never knew that it was until I was in it. That's not hypocrisy -- that's a case of hindsight is 20/20 and admitting I was wrong about myself. Big deal. Life does that to people all the time.)

That said ...

You and others do not really know why I went the route I did with my unaccredited degrees, and so you may assume it was to somehow avoid something I was afraid of. (I say "may" because I don't know what you assume, Gus, and I won't suppose I do.)

You don't know what my failings in this area are, and where I have perceived the system to have failed me. It bothers you that someone of some modicum of intellect would pursue such a route. It's your right to be bothered.

Rather than attempt to understand what got me into this mess, however, many just blow their load and do their utmost to destroy, rather than create a synthesis. Your thesis is that accredited education is best. My antithesis is unknown to you, and therefore the synthesis will be incomplete. People will be left being "bothered" rather than anything constructive being done about the situation.

This is not how I would like to leave the situation, but I am an incredibly small, insignificant fish in this ocean. No university is going to contact me and say, "Why did you accept unaccredited degrees when you could have come to an august institution such as our own and quite handily tackled our obstacles?" They are not going to attempt to accommodate a small fish such as me, and frankly, it's not their responsibility to do so.

The disease in society that leads intelligent people to pursue such avenues is not being addressed. The symptom is being addressed through attempts such as the ODA. When the "system" fails to address the symptom, self-appointed defenders of academic integrity take it into their own hands and anonymously bash the crap out of people using the same mallet on all, regardless of circumstances. Careers (professional and academic) are shotgunned by drive-by outers who see only that the people they are gunning are wearing the wrong gang colors. The people in the garments are not considered for even a moment.

And everyone continues to be bothered. The drive-by gunners look like psychotics looking for someone to blow-up, and those wearing the colors look like whatever epithet one happens to have handy.

Such is life. This is the way it is. I can't change that, and won't try.

Cheers,

Quinn

 

I take exception to your characterization of "outers" being analogous to gang members commiting drive-by murders. I believe that academic fraud is a significant social problem. Exposing academic fraud puts a damper on the demand side. Similar to the police arresting the prostitute's customers.

Were you treated unfairly in your own "outing". It sounds like that may be the case. I agree that the person should have been honest and up front. On the other hand, advertising an unaccredited degree when one is teaching at an RA school is ill advised and just asking for trouble, IMHO. I believe that I can sympathize with your feelings but aren't you painting all "outers" with the same brush as you criticize all "outers" for treating all unaccredited degrees as fraudulent?

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Bill.

Well, I didn't advertise my degrees at all while teaching at a DETC accredited school. I taught based upon work experience and publication, not degree qualifications. I disclosed my degrees to the institution, made it very clear that I wanted the need for degrees explicitly waived in my case, and was granted that waiver at various levels.

Anonymous outers are my concern. I am all for proper channels and honest review. I had no problem having my two pounds of paperwork reviewed, each with my name on it. My character assassin, on the other hand, used various names and tactics that can only be likened to driving by my life and shooting at me from behind mirrored glass. The right to face one's accusor, you know?

But that's done. Action was taken to remedy the situation -- the relationship was severed. Life goes on.

You consider my degrees fraudulent? That's your right. You signed your real name to your opinion. I respect that very much. You are not an anonymous coward. Good on you. Do you understand where I am coming from on this, Bill? You are man enough to let me know what you think of my degrees without having to do it from behind a sniper's sight. I don't have any case against people who have backbone.

Quinn

 

Quinn, I don't believe that I've ever given my opinion of a Century PhD but I admit that I am highly skeptical of 99.99% of the unaccredited institutions that offer doctorates and nothing I've heard of Century up to this point would seem to indicate that it is much better than the run of the mill unaccredited institution.

 

Century? Not up on Century. My doctorate is pre-2000 ACU.

Quinn

 

I looked, but this person is no longer there. It looks like they revised the site after this posting.

 

Sorry, I incorrectly remembered it as Century.

 

I have no knowledge of what this thread is all about as it pertains to Mr. Quinn. I will say that he is certainly a gentleman. I hope that whatever the whole story is, that Mr. Quinn will continue to post here. It's good to see someone speak in such balanced and respectful tones.

As someone new to this forum who is trying hard to learn and form well rounded decisions about my future education, I find that sometimes some posters are really very unnecessarily harsh and abrasive towards others. I'm not sure why that is as I believe some come here to learn about this world of higher education but may be discouraged from speaking out of fear of being verbally flogged for asking a question or holding an opinion. I know I hold back questions simply because I feel I will be the recipient of ridicule, not always, but sometimes. I have yet to be truly upset, other than one poster stating I should be "bitch-slapped", which I found totally unacceptable language coming from someone who is supposed to be educated.

I know that arguments will come and go, most are outside my ability to determine when all factors are involved with long running debates. This is a very intense crowd here. I like that because I learn much from the vast knowledge of the participants. I don't always agree with how those opinions are put forth. Perhaps because this is a predominantly male board, the tone of disagreement sometimes gets so boisterous. It is intimidating for me but I continue to read every day. I continue to try and develop a thick skin as I've never been part of this level of tenor in discussion before. I wish I felt more comfortable in asking questions or putting forth ideas. I would bet that even the most harsh posters are actually very decent people. I just have a hard time trying to figure out why some post as they do.

 

Overall ECU opened the door to legitimate questioning of the acceptance of the SRU student by posting her name, and degree affiliation on their public web site. For those in the "know" about SRU legitimate questions are also raised as a result of the admission to graduate studies at ECU. Was their another basis for the ECU admissions decision or not? If so, was there a legitimate "back-door" process that potential students can utilize or was it a simply a mistake? As a result, I agree that bringing the facts about the SRU credential to ECU was appropriate and any due process accorded the student is on the shoulders of ECU.

John