Douglas Dissertation Proves Value of Unaccredited Degrees

I once watched an interview conducted by a small biotech firm that was searching for a Ph.D.-level applicant for a research job.

Accreditation never once came up. I can't say how sophisticated the interviewer was about subtle accreditation issues.

But the interviewer was a company scientist himself. While he never mentioned accreditation, he did go into the interview briefed on the candidate's school, department, who his doctoral supervisors were, what his dissertation topic was and what he had published.

Most of the interview was the interviewer laying out some of the problems that the new-hire would be working on and seeing what the candidate had to say about them. The point of the interview was one researcher trying to size up whether another researcher would be able to contribute to the effort.

I suppose that applications for the position had already been sifted by personnel people back at the company to remove clearly unsuitable applicants before things even got to the interview stage. But I can't imagine a degree-mill graduate successfully getting through that kind of interview.

My point is that, at least as I see it, hiring at the advanced degree level isn't just a matter of putting out a requirement for a generic Ph.D., or rubberstamping 'RA/Gaap? yes/no.' Maybe that happens at the crummiest business colleges or something, when they need an adjunct instructor, but it doesn't happen in the tech industries when big money's on the line, or in most academic hiring where candidates fly in from all over the country to interview and give lectures. Applicants are examined through a microscope by interviewers who know their subject very well and who are seeking specialized expertise to meet specific needs.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Rich's fine dissertation and its conclusions and people are trying to argue with me???

If you think the conclusion of at least a somewhat positive level of acceptance of 96 % is in error, please question the author and not me. I am not the coach, just a cheerleader.

 

Maybe work around you is more like it. We're still not used to your miniskirt and pompoms, stodgy people that we are.

 

I heard on NPR that the word is "pompons". "Pompoms" apparently were a type of anti-aircraft weapon in WWII.

Webster's says that a pompon is ALSO a food fish allied to the porkfish and a type of chrysanthemum.

I can just imagine some cute young thing waving a FISH at a football game...

Don't look at me; I wouldn't know either object if it bit me!

 

Of Rich Douglas’ research, Kirkland says, “It seems clear to me from the descriptions of State Approval (which stressed the negative) and Regional Accreditation (which stressed the positive) that the investigator was leading the respondents and that bias was introduced.” I don’t know Kirkland’s qualifications, and I have not seen the dissertation, but if he is correct research objectivity was sacrificed. Such a gross error should have been caught during the proposal process. It is hard to imagine, especially in an RA institution, that the research was allowed to move forward until the methodology and the various instruments used to gather data were validated. In such cases the doctoral committee is probably more to blame than the student, since he or she is still a learner dependent on input from so-called experts.

 

They were 40mm guns that were placed in every free space on warships during WWII. They got their nickname from their relatively slow rate of fire (compared to machine guns), which sounded like "pom pom" when they fired.

From the King of Useless Trivia.

 

If respondents were given a choice between what was described to them as a stronger and a weaker standard, and if they consistently altered their initial opinions in favor of the stronger standard, then conclusions might arguably be drawn about how deeply the initial opinions were held and about how respondents are likely to react to receiving new accreditation information in the future.

 

I believe this is one of the risks and a potential problem with survey research: how to design items or descriptions in such a way as not to bias the results. I've seen surveys that have included cover letters that clearly had a strong potential of biasing the results of the survey. In this case where respondants apparently had little knowledge of State Approval, I would think that any description provided of State Approval that was negative in tone would have great potential to bias the results. If under these survey conditions 65% of respondants still considered state approved degrees as having at least some usefullness how could one not conclude that the results are favorable with respect to the acceptability of state approved degrees?

 

IMHO, There's no way to accurately describe what little state approval means without being negative! State approval is a ridiculous joke that is typically used by institutions to mislead. That is by institutions that are generally outside the academic main stream. The state approval here in California is held up as some great thing by many here on DegreeInfo. Yes, there are some decent CA state approved. There are also some real lemons that are plain old degree mills. So what does CA state approval mean? It means that 3 out 3 CA state approved schools recently approached by a journalist pretending to want to buy a degree needed in 2 to 3 weeks, were apparently able to arrange such a deal. CA state approval is meaningless except to mislead consumers into believing that it means government oversight.

I believes that it's a testimont to how hard Rich attempted to be unbiased that after explaining what state approval was that such a high percentage of HR managers still thought that it meant something more than it does.

 

I guess everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how incorrect and uninformed it might be. ...and the negative bias invalidates the study, even though the state approval results were positive (the results could have been even more positive).

All schools are approved or licensed (or both) by the State before they are accredited. Some go on to accreditation, some don't. Some States have extensive regulations, such as California, some don't. Please provide your facts to the California Postsecondary Education Commission www.cpec.ca.gov and the bppve. Or the other State agencies http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=228 They will all be very interested to know that their purpose is to help mislead the population.

If you want to know what state approval means in CA then read up on it... here you go: California Education Code, Part 59 Sect 9400-94999. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=edc&codebody=&hits=20

To be more specific:

94718. "Approval" or "approval to operate" means that the council (bppve) has determined and certified that an institution meets minimum standards established by the council for integrity, financial stability, and educational quality, including the offering of bona fide instruction by qualified faculty and the appropriate assessment of students' achievement prior to, during, and at the end of its program.

 

This is untrue and is an excellent example of how you've been mislead by the CA Education Code. Quoting empty words does not prove that said empty words carry any substance. If the words weren't empty then explain to me how 3 out of three CA approved schools agreed to sell Bachelor's degrees to the journalist recently. If the words weren't empty then explain how a journalist was able to walk into the PWU office and told how they can cheat to get a degree for a lot of money and very little work. The PWU representative was clear and explicit, he didn't care in the least if you learned a thing at his school before he betowed the diploma. The CA Education Code is just empty words with no visible enforcement behind them for many years. Pointing at these empty words is a most excellent example of how they have mislead the public into believing that state approval means something, you've been tricked, hoodwinked, mislead, and deluded by these empty words and the degree mills that hide behind them.

 

You say they're empty words (in monotonous repetition) and I am saying it's the law. Ironic how I am on that side and you are somewhere else. There have always been cheaters in every sysem so let's not go overboard on that point. Have charges been made against the school(s) you mention? Has there been an official investigation? Is what you're referring to, an exaggeration, media hype, and hoodwinking for the benefit of the sensational loving and gullible reader? We certainly saw a lot of spin as a result of the recent Senate committe hearings. What's to say you aren't referencing the same kind of crappy journalism. The law provides mechanisms to deal with violators, empy railing against the system doesn't do it.

 

It's the LAW!!!!!! It's the law that what is happening shall not happen? It's the the law that state approval means that, "institution meets minimum standards established by the council for integrity, financial stability, and educational quality, including the offering of bona fide instruction by qualified faculty "? The law has magically made it all true?

Charges haven't been filed against the schools because the law is empty words! Now you're apparently making the circular argument that the law is good because the law says that it is good and any evidence that shows that it is empty misleading words is null and void because charges haven't been filed!!! Excuse me while I laugh my head off. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Charges haven't been filed because the law is empty words not because PWU is a real school! PWU is a diploma mill and a joke.

Did you watch the Senate hearings? How did someone pass 20% of the required class work for a KWU degree with only 16 hours of work and KWU is a real school? I saw the representative of PWU tell the journalist how to cheat to accomplish even more fraud at PWU for even less work! How is that possible when PWU is state approved? It is possible because CA state approval is a disgrace, a joke, and is simply misleading. It fools people into believing that it means something when the real facts show that it doesn't. Pointing at empty words about what the intent of approval is supposed to mean DOES NOT in any shape or form prove that the intent has been achieved. PWU is a most excellent example of what a joke CA State Approval has actually turned out to be.

 

This comment (and the one from Kirkland) conveniently ignores that the survey instrument, including the descriptions, were reviewed by committee members prior to their administration. Bias is an interesting concept, and such claims could be lodged at any survey (or any other form of research, for that matter.) But to imply that the committee didn't review survey is flat wrong.

Having said that, the purpose was to measure the effect of such a description. If a few simple lines could move respondents' values in a statistically significant manner, that was important. It did, and it is.

 

One other thing: I've said I have no intention of defending my dissertation all over again, and I don't. I'll be glad to explain something, but I really don't care to respond to people whose only agenda is to deconstruct a work I've freely distributed. There are other fora for that.

 

Sounds interesting. Rich, how can one get a copy of your dissertation? Hope you got my second PM (w/private email address).

Does anyone here know of any (other) literature reporting on the state of knowledge/awareness of HR professionals regarding degree mills and fake/fraudulent diplomas (NOT unaccredited degrees).

Thanks,

Russell

 

Typically you can get dissertations either from the school itself (as in interlibrary loan) or you can sometimes buy them from UMI/Proquest.

http://www.proquest.com/products_umi/dissertations/

 

Yes!
Were they the 40mm antiaircraft guns used? I think so, there is much footage around showing sailors in those gun tubs feeding the pompom guns with 5 round stripper clips as fast as they could go; Known as Bofors (spelling)
If not mistaken the military is reusing a huge amount of surplus WWII 40 mm AP's (Amour Piercing) rounds.
Not sure, but I also think the Air Force has been using for a number of years now a single barrel 40mm Bofors on their gunships, thus the need for the surplus ammo! Plus its a huge cost savings!
Something along the lines of 8 dollars in WWII money vs 100 dollars in today's dollars for each round.

Growing up around alot of WWII veterans & family members, I heard alot of slang, like pompom's, doodlebugs, plumbers, Sicklegruber, etc.

 

Does anyone have a link to quickly find Dr. Douglas's dissertation?

I'd be interested in reading it, or purchasing it if need be.

Dr. T

 

Do a search with the title;

The accreditation of degree-granting institutions and its role in the utility of college degrees in the workplace

http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb#search