Contreras admits error, to correct Oregon “illegal” list

(content removed by moderator)

 

Mr. Contreras didn't make the law in Oregon.

In Florida the Supreme Court ruled their law unconstitutional because there was nothing equivalent to the ODA that allowed legitimate unaccredited degrees to be legal. The ruling that people with standard degrees were being denied their constitutional right. In the same ruling it was stated that it was perfectly acceptable and would be in the public's best interest to make sub-standard degrees illegal. As I read it, that is what the Oregon law attempts to do.

 

(content removed by moderator)

 

your oncologist bought his degree from a Romanian telemarketer

From FTC Second Amended Complain for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, Case No. 1:03-CV-OOO21-RMC:

Oncology, got that? ONCOLOGY! Some sick f**k bought himself a degree in oncology so he could pump cancer patients full of poisons for sport (and prospective economic advantage). That's what we're talking about. We're talking about people entering into "private arrangements" with diplomatic officers of countries shattered by civil war to eat the eyes of corpses. There's a "plastic surgeon" in Korea with a Romanian degree. Maybe he shoots people up with botox, or maybe he's more ambitious, pushing a scalpel into his customers' faces.

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS?

That's why it's good to have Oregon acting aggressively.

I like ducks and foxes and cats and dogs. And I would ascribe value to a research work which clarifies their places in the world. Even if Dr. A. had written his Duck Thesis entirely on his own initiative, and had had it printed by a vanity press, it would still (it seems) be a useful Work About Ducks. Is it deserving of the sort of formal recognition associated with an academic PhD? I have no idea, I haven't read it, and I don't know all that much about ducks anyway. But I think the world is better for Dr. A. having done his Duck Thing in writing.

But mostly we're not talking about ducks. We're talking about people buying credentials in order to futher their economic interests without acquiring an education in the process. The fiasco in Georgia is an example. The smarmy business of CCI taking money from SRU to affirm SRU degrees is an example. It's actually quite simple: most of what is being fussed over involves dirty deeds by corrupt individuals.

The question of education is different from that of credentials. There are books and libraries and ten thousand lifetimes of course material on the web from our great system of universities. You can learn as much as an MIT undergraduate (except for the labs) by visiting the school's site and working through the material therein. Now THAT's a world-class education, and it costs nothing more than the monthly bill to your ISP. Of course, you don't get a document certifying that you're ready to shoot poisons into cancer patients. But you sure come out with an education.

Yeah, it takes longer than 30 minutes. But sorry, contrary to what the SRU folks say, you can't learn multivariable calculus in 10 hours, just because some ignorant thug has "compressed" 15 weeks of strenuous effort into 10 hours by throwing away everything but the page numbers. It's HARD. That's why it takes a semester to teach it. I think it unlikely that SRU customers are so brilliant that they can absorb fifteen weeks worth of advanced mathematics in five evenings at home while watching reruns of Hogan's Heroes.

So it's good that ODA generated the list, but nothing of this sort should be viewed as the final, cast in stone version. It needs to be looked over, with corrections and suggested modifications transmitted to ODA. I think it's a good start, and to say that any mistake found in the list means that the plastic surgeon who actually knows nothing is really a fine choice for doing the knife work is a naive claim at best.

G

 

While I'm sure at those other "channels" that may be so, but they tend to have a vested interest. It's unclear to me that the majority here believe all of what you state above. I truly don't know, but I'm certainly wise enough to understand when I don't know something.






Tom Nixon

 

"Ruiner" has just listed three ODA blunders at Online ......
My correspondence with Alan 'whatshisname' referred to his total lack of knowledge about Knightsbridge, his out-of-date note about where Almeda was and his poor understanding about TCU - and the fact that there are at least five TCU's spread around the world.
So, without a major review we are now up to six major blunders in the list.
The fact that Knightsbridge was added to the ODA list after RC emailed 'whatshisname' clearly shows that the list is compiled by a somewhat naive form of research.
ODA would do well to adopt the more seriously researched Australian list.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Why take your work to two fake schools? Why not earn a degree from a recognized school? Why does your being accepted to an un-named society based on your Knightsbridge degree constitute some form of evidence that Knightsbridge should not be on the ODA list? Why can't you just name the three grave mistakes you claim? Why do you never, ever answer these questions, even though you're the one who initiates them?

 

What you're saying is that because the ODA doesn't differentiate amongst "at least five" degree mills that the list is invalid? Doesn't it more reasonably mean that the list should instead say something like "various" for the location? Or are you arguing that not all of the various TCU's are degree mills?

Neil, the point that I'm trying to make is that you've been very unclear about what your exact complaints are with the ODA list. If you were a busy man in the public eye, like Mr. Contreras, and got an unclear rambling rant from an individual that doesn't even live in the state that you're responsible for, you too would probably ignore it. If you sent me this kind of stuff in email I'd probably ignore it. Since you're putting it in a public forum, I'm responding.

Even after multiple requests you've been unable to simply list the three grievances that you have with the ODA list and now your list of grievances has apparently grown to 6 and I only have clues on what two of them might be.

Neil, you're being unclear and incomplete, you're ranting and rambling. Please list what it is that you're complaining about or don't complain about it. Otherwise it just comes across as an emotional rant that reflects poorly on you. I mean it is entirely possible that you can write logically and clearly about birds. It has been reported here that your paper appears to be clearly and logically written. So at one time, at least, you were apparently capable of writing clearly. Please demonstrate that you're still capable of writing clearly and logically. Thanks.

 

Would harm from ODA list error be known?

Rich Douglas wrote "Granted that it protects no one. But it also is not clear that anyone has been harmed. Have you examples of people being harmed by West Coast's mistaken listing?"

If a job candidate simply received no response to a resume, how would the candidate know if the reason were related to the error on the ODA list?

 

Re: your oncologist bought his degree from a Romanian telemarketer

This is the point I was trying to make in my post. Apparently the Florida law had some defects, that may not be the case in Oregon. If Oregon is prompt in correcting errors in the list, then it will be a good system and no one will be harmed. If someone has a state aproved degree, and it is listed on the ODA list for some reason, or no reason, then someone could be out of the running for a job when they are actually qualified. The flip side is making sure that your appendix is not about to be removed by a graduate of SRU. A side note on this: I understand that when Georgia recently passed their law on degree mills, some religious schools have simply gone from issuing degrees such as B.A. in Ministry, and now just issue a "Certificate of Completion" which is probably fine if they remain in that denomination, but if they seek employment as other than a, say, Presbyterian Minister, they may have trouble getting their coursework/credentials accepted.

 

Good to see part of 'the gang' back to their usual style. I was getting a bit worried that you had become 'normal' people; able to communicate without being obnoxious.
Did I read somewhere that Chip White was going to put a stop to your ravings? Or was I just dreaming?
Regarding your dissertation RC, I expect to publish my summary on it within a couple of weeks. Unlike some, I also have a business to operate.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

No Dr Duck, Chip continues to let your rantings, half truths and innuendos be posted. Personally I find you an interesting case study. You make charges without even listing them and then expect others to accept them as truth before they even know the charges. Perhaps you spend too much time at Online-college.info where such fallacies of thinking are accepted?

 

Fnhayes, you made your bogus claim to a Ph.D. relevant to the subject when you seemed to use it as an example of the ODA being wrong about KU. There was absolutely nothing insulting in Rich's post. He was just stating the facts.

I believe that KU deserves to be called a degree mill because everything that I've seen regarding KU makes it look like a degree mill. Not only does the ODA list it as a degree, but your own description of how KU awarded you the degree makes it look like a degree mill. For example, you were notified by KU of your awarded degree from them before you even knew who your "advisor" was. This question as to who the academic expert was that evaluated your extensive report on ducks, couldn't be answered for a few days. Why not, it seems obvious that no academic expert had really looked at it and KU had to find a name to give you. When the question was finally answered you reported that your degree had been "upgraded" to a different field without your prior knowledge. More recently your degree was downgraded apparently because you felt uncomfortable having a Ph.D. in an area that was not in your area of expertise.

Don't you see that it is very questionable and unlikely that any academic expert in your area actually reviewed your contribution? Have you turned a blind eye to the most reasonable conclusion like you did when bought your previous bogus credential from TCU? It is just a repeat of your TCU performance. The main difference is that KU is less known than TCU so fewer people are aware that you're claiming a credential that hasn't been earned. The bottom line is that KU is a degree mill which means that you are not a doctor. Which means that you're claiming to have academic qualifications that you haven't really earned.

The whole sad but amusing story means that the ODA was correct about KU which means what the ODA knew or doesn't know about KU is really rather irrelevant since the list is correct about KU.

 

There's little wonder that with such posts as the two above DegreeInfo is going backwards at a great rate of knots and that other DL forums are leaving it - and the gang - for DEAD.
Both posts are simply naive in the extreme and it is apparent that neither of you know anything at all about DL.
As I suggested earlier, please view the Australian list - you might benefit from this experience.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

(post deleted by moderator)

 

I'd say there is a *lot* of doubt that the "majority" at DegreeInfo would agree with anything you've said about the Oregon list.

While it's not an easy task to keep track of a bunch of fake and unwonderful schools, I think that Alan does a really admirable job with a very limited staff. And I'd go so far as to say that the majority of DegreeInfo posters would agree with that statement.

Of course, there will always be those with unwonderful degrees who are constantly trying to shore up their arguments, but saying a thousand times that an unaccredited degree is as good as an accredited one won't make it true, just as saying a thousand times that Alan's list isn't of value won't make that true either.

 

OK, I think it's perhaps important to explain the several "posts deleted by moderator" in this thread.

As I have previously stated, our TOS require that people not make personal attacks on others. There's obviously some gray area in that policy, but I'm choosing to interpret it that attacks against an individual (or his degrees, or whatever) that don't directly relate to the topic material constitute inappropriate personal attacks and do not belong on DegreeInfo.

For example, if Bob Potatohead posts and says that "such-and-so is a wonderful school and everyone should consider it" and it turns out that such-and-so is a mill, and that Potatohead is failing to mention this, it's appropriate to mention this in the thread, because it is on topic.

On the other hand, if the topic is the Oregon list, and Potatohead is posting about perceived problems with the list, it's reasonable to call Potatohead on the lack of detail on his complaints, but not to bring in off-topic comments or statements about other issues that Potatohead may have raised in other threads.

In my humble opinion, if we all try and stay on topic, keep our issues with an individual to private email instead of public fora, and avoid attacking the individual posting and instead focus our comments on the subject of the post, then we can stay civil with one another and still have spirited debate.

As to the comments about DegreeInfo being "left for dead".... well, I think not. We continue to grow in both forum activity and overall readership, and I'd like to think it's because we try to maintain a semblence of balance and mutual respect. Of course, respect is earned, and some folks that post here haven't put forth the necessary effort or otherwise demonstrated the chops to earn the respect of a lot of people here, but I think the door is open for anyone to be respected, even if their views are in the minority, as long as the arguments and positions advanced are supported and/or supportable.

 

Re: Re: your oncologist bought his degree from a Romanian telemarketer

Can't speak for all Presbyterians, but as chairman of the Committee on Ministry in my presbytery I can say that in our demomination the school must be approved by the presbytery and my presbytery would never approve a certificate or, for that matter, a degree from a non-RA school. May a GAAP, but we would not accept most other degrees - DETC, no; TRACS, maybe, depending on the school.

 

Actually, I just mentioned Presbyterian as an example since there is a Presbyterian church two blocks from my home. I promise I'm not picking on your denomination. The disclaimer I was thinking about reads something like:"...officially approved for the training of individuals for ecclesiastical vocations and ministry by the REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GENERAL ASSEMBLY. . . ."
I can no longer even find the site of the school I was thinking of, which has probably merged with something else. From my observation, many schools preparing ministers for a certain denomination will avoid RA out of a fear that the government and/or outsiders will come in and interfere with doctrinal issues. These fears are probably way out of proportion to the facts.

 

This is very true and there are what I believe to be good examples at DegreeInfo that proves it.