Please explain UNISA doctorate???!!!

This is an odd reaction. Your comment about visiting the campus is vital to understanding the UNISA experience. I purposely attributed it to you because of its value. There is nothing there regarding "tone."

People often point to UNISA as a low-cost option. As we have more people like yourself with experience and insight into UNISA, our knowledge grows immensely. If you didn't want it discussed, why did you post it?

Again, thanks for your insightful post.

 

I would think so.

 

Okay cool, I get it. You are welcome. I can comment on a very narrow personal experience with the DBL program only. All the other doctorates at UNISA are very different I'm sure. The DBL program is as far as I know the only one that requires the 3 visits, and for me that was a good thing. I comment here because I want to help others, since I was helped by people here throughout my journey toward my doctorate. To be honest, the wording "who says he/she did a doctorate at UNISA" rubbed me the wrong way since I had just posted that the piece of paper was on the wall in front of me. I'd have the same reaction if I was being introduced at a conference as "Dr. So and so, who says he did a doctorate at..." Yes, you have no independent proof, yada yada yada, but why not take a person at face value if they state they completed a degree. Perhaps it was an oversight.

 

No. It was on purpose, but without malice. Over the years (about 14 for me) of online posting regarding nontraditional higher education, we've seen fantastic contributions made by people who withhold their identities. But we've also seen some really bad stuff, too. We are often confronted with contentious posts from anonymous people who make some incredible claims about their experiences--and why we should accept their perspectives because of those experiences. So, if you're an anonymous poster, your own experiences are not necessarily to be accepted at face value. They can be, of course, but not necessarily so. I choose to accept your statements because (a) what is being discussed is non-controversial and (b) your statements seem consistent with what others have said, even the new (and important) insights you provide.

Please note that this is just my perspective. I've been lit up by too many anonymous trolls to ignore this distinction. What I said was factual, and I did make the distinction. But as we both know, that is probably a distinction without a difference in this case, which is fine.