The big answer between Touro and NCU

Re: Re: Re: Re: The big answer between Touro and NCU

IMHO I believe that the quality of one's dissertation comes after the dissertation has been completed, approved by the university, and then submitted for publication in a scholarly journal, where it will be subject to peer review.

If a UoP Dissertation stands up to peer review and is published, but an MIT one falls short, what does that say about quality? NCU has a course, RSH930 where the dissertation is submitted for publication after its completion (whch I HIGHLY reccomend that NCU PhD candidates do to help the university, as well as themselves).

I believe, just as anything, one gets out of a program what they put into it. In this respect, I hope to get a lot.

 

Re: Re: Re: The big answer between Touro and NCU

There are a lot of students that come in with graduate degrees from other schools and write well beyond the 10th grade level. What I have seen is that many of these students come in lacking a sound understanding of graduate level multivariate statistics. These tend to be, at least in the psychology programs, people such as yourself who work as counselors (you never said what you do so I'm making a guess--I know you are not a psychologist; otherwise you would've said so) family therapists, or social workers. Now lets not forget that online programs tend to adhere more to the practitioner-professional model anyway, so what they lack in statistical rigor they make up with more clinical practice coursework.

Those are strong words, Sensitive Simon.
So have you ever been on anyone's doctoral committee?? Have you published any material in respectable journals?
So would you care telling us a bit more about your credentials? I'm not trying to pick a fight here so please don't have another heart attack. You obviously do NOT a PhD, and we know you are attending an online proprietary school trying to get one. You must also be a social worker or a counselor without any significant academic or research experience. No, just reading someone's work doesn't count. And yet somehow you come here and pretend to be an expert on conducting/evaluating dissertations.

 

This is an unfair blanket statement that "lacked substantive" proof. Are we to take your word for it? If so, please make us all feel better and provide us with your credentials, specifically reference citings of your published work. Thanks!

 

Simon: Poor, poor, poor Susanna why are you personalizing my statement and displaying a heightened level of defensiveness? Is it that I struck a discordant note by making a statement that rang true and applicable to you?

In fact, I was not making a "blanket statement", as you misconstrued, but was was making an obvious anecdotal observation based on MY experiences as an advanced doctoral level student.

No, you don't have to take my word for it and in fact can disagree with my observations or take any other position you wish. However, what is clear is that you are not an online doctoral student but an unidentified troll who suddenly appears with no history of contributing anything to this forum but demands that I provide proof for my observations. Sorry to have inadvertently "hit home" with my observations and statement but as the aphorism goes " If the shoe fits wear it".

 

A new member questions you on strong statements, and your immediate judgment is that it must be a "troll" attacking you?!!? Is this the way the board retains new members?? Failure to cite references and defending your position is a frequently called “foul” on this board, and I don’t recall a paragraph in the “terms of agreement” that gave you an exception.

Knowledge isn't gathered specifically through this forum, and I thought Susanna’s questions legitimate. Instead of denigrating the number of postings required to address your “August Presence”, how about simply answering the questions? Or do my measly “less than 40” postings disqualify me from questioning one of the “elders”?

 

Whoa knight in shining armor, whoa! Dismount from your charging steed and take some deep breaths because if not, the only jousting you will be doing will be with yourself.

So if you have specific questions about my previous observation and statement ask them because quite frankly it is apparent that you do not understand the distinction between a poster's expression of their anecdotal experiences and observations from a statement that requires substantive research corroboration.

 

Your arrogance is almost comical. It seems to me that you ought to try wearing that shoe yourself sometime. So you have now clearly established that I am not an online doctoral student. Well, I certainly hope that you don't draw conclusion this prematurely in any of your doctoral studies.

Regardless, if my question is beneath you, then why not answer Roman's questions instead which seemed similar to mine.

 

Interesting... Well then, lets use some statistical data here...

Your hypothesis is that dissertations written by students attending proprietary institutions will be of poorer quality than those written in a more traditional setting.

OK then, what is your measurability of poor?

What would be the DV & IV?

How big is N?

How big is your n?

What will the confidence interval be?

Will you use Chronbach's Alpha and or a Chi Square to test the validity of your results?

HA!!!! I just presented someone with a dissertation topic! If I see one written on this topic, I will demand that I be cited in it, or else I will sue for theft of intellectual property!

 

Just a reminder for everyone to keep things on-topic and non-personal.

 

Poor, poor, Simon is being challenged on his "high horse". Oh, dear me, am I overstepping my boundaries as a new member again?

I find it interesting that Simon told Eli that "feelings are not facts" so to that let me add, dear Simon, neither are your observations. Observations without objective documentation are much like feelings, they are only as credible as the source they originate from. Yours are losing credibility by the minute.

 

Susanna: But he started it!

Simon: Did not!

Susanna: Did too!

Simon: Did not!

Susanna: Did too!

The bottom line is facts should be backed up with a credible source while personal experiences do not. If you are going to make blanket statements about your personal experiences, please enlighten the rest of us of your personal experiences that gave way to your opinions.

Aside from fact finding, people come to this forum seeking advice based on what others have experienced. If you are going to offer opinions, people are entitled to the reasons behind your opinions.

 

Obviously the defensive responses from several posters appears to imply that I hit a tender spot. Let me once again clarify that I was basing my statement from my experiences in a distance learning doctoral program as well as from my professional interactions with a number of graduates from other distance learning programs. Based on interactions with fellow students as well as having had an opportunity to review quite a few of their dissertations while they were in the process of completion and when completed, I found that a significant number of these students would have not been accepted into a traditional brick and mortar doctoral program and/or would not have graduated.

Are my observations contestable? Yes. Any ones' observations are? Are my observations generalizable to the online doctoral community? I believe that they are but that is my opinion not an established fact.

So Susanna, due to your hardline position and demands for corroborative proof of my observations, I think that you should check your arrogance at the door before commenting on mine and provide us with substantive studies that conclusively refutes that my observations are grossly inaccurate. We are waiting!

 

Absolutety correct! The same goes for Eli's comment! It was his opinion that needed no further commenting. You seem to like to dish it out but can't take your own medicine.

Oh, this is truly priceless! I need to provide substantive studies that refute your unsubstantiated opinion???? Why would I bother doing that?

Further, I did not state that your observations are grossly inaccurate. I merely questioned the generalizability of your observations. Big difference there Simon!!!

 

My G_d, this guy is citing this stuff directly from a a statistics primer from "Cliffs Notes" )). Your mastery of the scientific method and statistics completely invalidates my observations and conclusively demonstrates that I am merely one of the ordinary denizens of this forum. Thank you for your revelations.

BTW, in all seriousness I don't believe that many online institutions would be very enthused regarding having a dissertation completed relating to this topic. The findings may be too controversial!

 

Inquiry

May I ask why someone who offers personal and anecdotal information on a board topic is required to provide credentials and a listing of publications? Is not anecdotal information inherently subjective on its face?

If I give my opinion on the state of baseball in America, must I demonstrate that I am currently enshrined in Cooperstown and show newspaper articles about my prowess?

I'm just curious because all sides seem to be taking this topic very personally.

 

SUZANNE: Absolutety correct! The same goes for Eli's comment! It was his opinion that needed no further commenting. You seem to like to dish it out but can't take your own medicine.

SIMON: Quite the contrary. I am able to nondefensively and objectively review valid feedback, not vindicativeness as noted in your statement above, as evidenced by my statement that my observations were possibly not generalizable or established fact. In addition you have a proclivity to wish to be in control of what other posters' should or should not comment on as evidenced in your arrogant perspective that because YOU did not feel Eli's comment did not need further "commenting" that I should abide by your perceptions. That is your observation and opinion, not fact. So once again lets be clear that prior to engaging in name calling (ie, arrogant) of others manage your own level of arrogance and control and then we will deal with mine.

Susanna: Oh, this is truly priceless! I need to provide substantive studies that refute your unsubstantiated opinion???? Why would I bother doing that?
Further, I did not state that your observations are grossly inaccurate. I merely questioned the generalizability of your observations. Big difference there Simon!!! [/B][/QUOTE]

SIMON: First of all what you meant to state in your inital post and actually stated are not the same. You did not merely "question the generalizability of my observations" in that post but state "This is an unfair blanket statement that lacked substantive proof". There is obviously a "big difference" between the two statements and defending in retrospect that you didn't state this leads to questions about your credibility.

If you would have initially inquired (rather than to attempt to get even with me regarding my alleged dissing of Eli as you have revealed above) specifically about the generalizability of my observations I would have forthrightly responded that it would be a valid research question to explore because I would not be able to state conclusively that my observations were generalized fact. However you did not do that but presented your personal vendetta as a challenge not as a fact finding mission.

In regard to your "shocked" response to my request that you provide conclusive proof to refute my blanket statement it is important to note that I have equal right to expect from you an understanding of the basis for your your disagreement. Your feelings of overblown entitlement that you can strongly disagree with others about their observations without any commensurate substantive data supportive of your perspective is ludicrous. So yes I expect that you present us with some substantial data that can clearly show my statement was "unfair" and a "blanket statement that lacked substantive proof. We are still waiting for your substantive response not further attempts to evade my request.

 

Re: Inquiry

You are absolutely correct. That is why I take with a grain of salt attempts to negate my observations with these fallacious requests for credentials and publications.

 

You call me defensive? Let's review, shall we? Who started the attacks? I remember being called a troll only after my intial post and you followed it up by stating that I "clearly" was not an online PhD student. Did I say that you did not have any credentials? No, I did not.

I will refrain from making any further comments. Construe this decision as you wish!

 

SIMON: Suzanna you got involved in this issue full blast without any provocation from me. In hindsight if you had sincere intentions to clarify my observations and statements it would have come across in that light initially but in fact it didn't because as you have clearly indicated in your words, you wished to teach me a lesson due to your misperception of my response to poster ELI. So own up to your responsibility rather than come across as a victim. Yes it is appropriate to question posters' observations and statements but in this case this was not your motivation. Furthermore you still have not provided any basis, indication, study, opinions other than your own, anecdotal evidence or otherwise that demonstrates that my observations are in any way inaccurate! All you do is demand and expect and hold others' accountable while you do or don't do what you want to do. Thats great but an unacceptable means of engaging others in respectful disagreement.