Columbia State Rolls On

Barry, now that you've cooled off a bit, perhaps you can look at this thing a bit more objectively. Your main beef seems to be with me, but what have I really done? Posted links to Internet sites to a board that has a very small and very specific audience. Anyone with 5 spare minutes and an interest in the subject (which everyone here does, I would guess) could have found them with no problem. If you can find even a scrap of evidence that I've ever personally contacted the media about a bogus degree holder, I'll write you a check for $10,000 and kiss your ass on live webcam.

Go to Kristin Hirst's site, and you'll find pages of stories about fake degree holders that had it blow up in their faces. I don't see any outrage from you about that....after all, haven't these poor people suffered enough without dredging it up all over again?

I'll ask you what you asked me...where do we draw the line? Do we sit silently when we find a fake degree holder, just to spare their feelings? I think not.


Bruce

 

Within in the law, as a matter of fact, yes. It's called discretion, which among the most valuable tools a police officer has.

But...you're comparing apples & moonrocks. Exposing a fake degree holder isn't illegal (as administering "street justice" is), and ABC isn't acting as a government agent (quite the opposite).

Is exposing a fake degree holder on national TV a nice, politically correct thing to do? No, probably not. Is it an effective means with which to get out the message concerning fake degrees? You bet.

As I mentioned before, we (police) have found out that the most effective way to get rid of street-level prostitution & drug sales is to target the customers. When we run a reverse sting for prostitution (called "Operation Squeeze"), we make the names, addresses, and photos of the "Johns" available to the media, some of which publish them. It's had a dramatic effect on prostitution around Chinatown in Boston....the word got out among the customers that they were facing arrest & public humiliation if they were caught, so the customers stopped coming. No customers, no prostitutes. Same with degree mills, if you discourage the customers enough to stop buying the product, the product dries up.


Bruce

 

I stand corrected. You're all right.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

Bruce most importantly, I've got nothing against you at all. We disagree in regards to tactics.

Second, I'm not "cooled off".

 

What you do is your business. And I'd prefer that you not kiss my ass .... ever.

 

If that's the case, why do you get so hysterical when I post links to fake degree holders? It's my business, right?


Bruce

 

Please, reread my posts with an attempt to understand what I am saying. I don't believe I ever said you should spare anyone. The *way* it is done needs to be ethical.

I am not asking to spare the feelings of fake degree holders. Fair, open and honest treatment, that's all. To me this means the things I've already said over and over ...

I don't believe there is a "line" to draw here. Such is too simplistic while attempting to solve a very complex problem. The mixture of personal motivation, intention, differences of how much work a person actually does for the degree, level of naivity regarding academia, whether or not the requirement for the degree is legit, etc., etc. makes this an extremely complex topic.

You can't do it by drawing a line or doing a search on the internet.

That's why a ethical process is so critical. In any research that has the potential to damage people, there should be a formal plan that answers questions like;
- how are you going to collect data?
- how are you going to manage data?
- how are you going to analyze data to get the right results?
- Who are you accountable to? Who keeps the researcher in check?

But I tire of this.

 

I am not hysterical. I've always had this thing for fair treatment of people. I believe that we are all the same and are created equal, regardless of life choices. And I believe people can either help each other - or they can damage each other.

You choose to "out" fake degree holders. I choose to argue for ethical practice .

So you have your business. And I have my business.

 

I'd like to remind the good Dr. Bear that it took only 4 or 5 terrorists to take down each of several planes. And, the entire terrorist organization who likely knew of the specific plans of those terrible acts of 9/11 probably amounted to less than a thousand people.

Bob

 

There will always be those who want success, power, prestige, or money (or whatever else they believe a degree might grant or ease their access to), and the individual who believes that he or she can accomplish these goals without the requisite expenditure of time, money and effort, or by being dishonest and deceiving others, are the fraudulent degree purveyor’s legitimate prey.

However, the vast majority of those with degree mill credentials are much more akin to co-conspirators than victims. And their incompetence, slothfulness or dishonesty unfairly tarnishes and diminishes the utility of all degrees earned via distance learning. Moreover, because all degree mills offer “degrees” at a distance (are there any residential degree mills?), the general bias towards distance education degrees cannot be ameliorated until the unwarranted associated sleaze factor is minimized or eliminated. Thus, in reality, the biggest victims of degree mills are those individuals who have, through sincere efforts, earned legitimate accredited degrees at a distance.

With the ease that purveyors of fraudulent academic credentials can set up shop, as well as, the numerous institutions that pass http://www.degreeinfo.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000650.html]
GAAS that have been around for years, it appears that the only way to deal with this problem is to minimize (as elimination is probably impossible) demand. For better or worse, this can only be accomplished by making the public more aware of both accreditation and other important issues, including the danger and penalties associated with the use of fraudulent degrees and credentials. And, as such, only the greater audience provided by the media can accomplish this goal quickly and efficiently. Moreover, let’s face it, the individuals contemplating a bogus degree do not participate in this forum or read The Chronicle of Higher Education. National television might be the only way to reach (and warn) these people.

Frankly, I don’t care if exposing fraudulent credentials ruins an individual’s “career”. A career based on fraudulent credentials is a sham. What is being “ruined”, therefore, is not a career, but a perpetrated fraud. Moreover, these individuals didn’t seem to care if someone else was cheated out of a job or promotion, or if their employer would be subjected to increased liability.

And, it’s not as if these individuals are going to jail or be unable to provide for their families; at worst they will have to share in some of the pain and embarrassment they have caused others, and take a job that is more in line with their true academic achievements. Without public exposure, many of these individuals would simply go elsewhere and continue to pull off their scam.

I also don’t care if such an individual is subjected to public humiliation. Let us not forget that it is usually an individual’s own publicizing of his or her fraudulent degree for profit or gain that leads to the public exposure. Moreover, in the case of the UCLA soccer coach, wasn’t UCLA (as well as previous employers Cal Poly Pomona and Loyola Marymount University) humiliated as well?

I also was going to comment on the parallels that can be seen in law enforcement actions taken in regards to prostitution, however Bruce not only posted before I did, he also explained it much better than I could’ve. But it is true; communities that have taken the controversial measure of publicizing (sometimes on television or on large outdoor billboards) the names of soliciting johns have experienced a significant decline in prostitution. It simply wasn’t effective, or even fair, that only the suppliers bore the brunt of the punishment.

The bottom line is this. If exposing an individual with a Columbia State (or any other degree mill) degree on national television prevents just a single person from becoming the innocent victim of a degree mill operator, it would be more than justified; it just might be the best use I can think of for such a degree.


Gus Sainz
http://collegedegrees.tripod.com

 

SPOEMMING! hahahaha... oh, that is classic!



------------------
Quinn

 

Come on Bruce, I'm no cop but even I know that there are guidelines for appropriate Police behavior and if you cross the line then you yourself become one of the bad guys. Don't pretend that Police have authority to do anything they want. Plenty of cops have been kicked off the Force for using their "discretion" inappropriately.
Jack

 

That's a very nice, utopian philosophy. I personally don't think it's very realistic.

Let's look at a hypothetical fake degree holder, we'll call him Johann Keppler. Keppler bought his M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia State, using these phony credentials to secure a teaching job at an RA school, beating out several applicants who had real degrees. Unfortunately for Keppler, someone discovers that he bought his degrees, and his secret is now out. What shall we do?

The "ethical" approach:

1) Keppler's employer is discreetly contacted, alerted to the fraud in their midst.

2) Wishing to avoid bad publicity, the school most likely will allow Keppler to resign and move on with a minimum of fuss.

3) Keppler moves across a few states (or even area codes) and starts all over again.

4) Others comtemplating a fake degree are unaware of this silent timebomb detonating, and go ahead with their purchase.

The take-no-prisoners approach:

1) The local paper(s) near the school is contacted, amd most likely will do an expose on the fraud (insert "national media" if appropriate).

2) The school is alerted in a very dramatic fashion that their hiring procedures suck, and Keppler is fired in record time.

3) The public is educated about fake degrees, as well as legitimate DL degrees.

4) Keppler is so rattled by the explosion that he likely will throw the CSU diploma in the trash & never try that scam again.

5) Some people with the Ratchford or Palmers Green order forms will say "oh, shit" and decide against that course of action.

Now, I have no doubt that life is a lot more difficult for Keppler using the second approach, but I think it's a no-brainer that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.


Bruce

 

Even though you quoted it, you apparently either didn't read or didn't comprehend the part about "within the law".

If the police arrested every person they caught breaking the law, the courts & prisons would be so overloaded that the system would break down. Any cop worth his salt comes up with alternative strategies (once again, within the law) to deal with minor infractions that don't warrant an arrest in the cop's opinion. THAT is discretion.


Bruce

 

BTW, I'd like to see you prove this assertion without comparing apples and moonrocks. Have you got any evidence that this practice actually serves as a deterent? Or is it just that you hope it's so?
Jack

 

Do I have empirical evidence? No, I base my opinion on what I've seen regarding targeting the customers in other vices (see above). Do you have any evidence that it *doesn't* serve as a deterrent?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to turn this into an academic study, but feel free to do it if you have both, and please share your findings with us. Should anyone do so, I'd wager a fair amount that I'm right.


Bruce

 

Bruce and Gus have clearly stated the reasons I believe there is nothing wrong with fake degree holders being exposed. We are not talking about anything other than their employers, the public and the media discovering what these people have done. Certainly nothing illegal. Again I can be sypathetic to their situation and still understand the responsibility belongs to them not others. I always thought this was a forum we could discuss ideas and positions without getting hysterical. Perhaps we can get there again.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden

 

The Los Angeles Times has picked up the Daily Bruin story, based on the Las Vegas TV report. For the record, this is one I had absolutely nothing to do with. The reporter in Las Vegas discovered and researched the UCLA coach with the fake degree entirely on his own. http://www.latimes.com/la-000006617jan26.story

The same reporter has a much bigger one (in terms of far reaching implications) under investigation. If it pans out, I think we'll see it on page one everywhere.

 

I say expose everyone [degree mill diploma holders] and let the cards fall as they may. Punishment and/or the fear of punishment alters behavior, nothing more. If we (our society) sit back and allow these frauds to use degree mill qualifications than the problem will never be cured. I for one, have worked very hard for my education and don't intend to sit back and watch others' advance despite their lack of character and commitment to education.

Regards, Wes

 

Now, now, Bruce...don't get testy...you're on the verge of becoming insulting and that would spoil it all, wouldn't it? The fact is that I did read it and I did comprehend it. You point of "within the law" is exactly my point. Police DO have guidelines and limits to their behavior. They cannot do "anything" they want, they have to obey a code of behavior, the law. It has been my impression that what we have been discussing in this thread (as well as others) is "What should be the code of behavior for members of this forum?" You and I obviously draw the line in different places. The part that I don't understand is why you're arguing so hard for a position that you've clearly stated you don't actually believe in.
Jack