SCUPS strips doctoral programs... AGAIN

This is the type contribution to the forum that I've come to expect from you Dennis. Did you misread or misunderstand Rich's post or did you just feel a need to lash out?

 

The person didn't ask the question here. It was no attack, just my observations which are going to differ from yours. Of course I have no personal interest.

 

The individual was simply giving an opinion from a position of ignorance and I simply stated such. I am in a position of knowledge and know his statement to be incorrect. Perhaps he should thank me.

 

You accused Rich of saying things that he never said and then insulted him for something which he never said. If you have some real information then perhaps you would share it? You could take this opportunity to dash my expectations because I find myself in the situation that I don't expect to see an informative post from you.

 

Bill

I guess he really didn't say this.

From someone who has no first-hand knowledge of CCU's programs.

 

Several of the applicants are established Australian state universities. So meeting DETC's academic standards won't be an issue with them, though completing all the paper work may be. Lansbridge certainly looks accreditable. I thought that the Institute of Hebraic Studies looked kind of promising too.

DETC seems to have suitable applicants. So the fact that nobody was accredited suggests to me that maybe DETC didn't intend to accredit anyone at this recent meeting.

 

Dennis - I guess that I'm a bit confused with the stance you've taken here. Rich says that CCU and SCUPS are not worthy of DETC accreditation. You say he's wrong and knows nothing about this. It seems to me that what Rich knows is what we all know, that both CCU and SCUPS failed in their most recent bid for DETC accreditation. There's been some speculation as to the reason for this failure but there's no denying that they applied and were found "unworthy" (it wouldn't be my first choice of adjectives but it fits, nonetheless). What's the problem?
Jack
(BTW one doesn't need first-hand knowledge to know this, just as I don't need to attend a specific basball game to know who won/who lost.)

 

Nor you Doctor, nor you....




Veritas,

Michael

 

Apparently SCUPS failed.

The statement is then "CCU is not worthy of accreditation."

The statement was not CCU "was" not worthy of accreditation.

CCU's decision was delayed, I am told, because their programs had radically changed less than a year before the accreditation decision and there was insufficient data on student outcomes. This comes from CCU itself, not an independent source.

CCU is going to be accredited or denied based on the existing programs in the present time-frame. I just don't think that Rich has any knowledge that would lead him to his conclusion.

I do have knowledge of CCU. That knowledge is that CCU is a serious school requiring serious work of a nature that would warrant accreditation. Its rigor is along the lines of what I experience at a regionally accredited school and I probably spend a similar amount of time on a course. It isn't a particularly difficult program, but then what is?

I also had third hand knowledge that all went well up to the end and accreditation was expected. That and a dollar will get me a cup of coffee, but it's something.

Rich makes an inaccurate statement with no background knowledge whatsoever and it somehow has merit????

 

Do we really know that Cal Coast and SCUPS were found "unworthy"? Or is that an inference that's being drawn from the fact that they didn't receive accreditation at the last meeting?

The thing is, none of the current applicants received accreditation at that meeting. So are all of them unworthy? They include some pretty strong candidates, in my opinion.

Actually, the reports that SCUPS has restarted their doctoral programs does suggest to me that DETC either turned them down or asked more of them than they wanted to give. But Cal Coast still seems to be in the hunt.