Getting a DEAC-Accredited Doctorate

Cheap, fast and possibly in a field (New Age Metaphysics) that interests her. May not have any idea how bad some of those dissertations are. As well, I have met people earning an accredited Masters who see the doctorate as the next step to call themselves "Dr." but don't want to pay the money or time in to earning an accredited one. There certainly are some stringent unaccredited programs out there but they don't want those either. Cheap, fast and legal (so their conscience is clear).

 

It just amazes me how one can go from such a highly regarded institution to one that is...not.

 

That's one I've encountered far too many times to count. There are a lot of dummies out there. Some of the things I've read on education topics at Reddit has made me lose what little faith I had left in humanity.

 

I'm willing to consider the proposition that within a health care delivery setting such as a hospital, being introduced as a doctor without an additional disclosure should be restricted to physicians, dentists, and podiatrists. A disclosure could be simple; "I'm Doctor Y; I hold a doctorate in social work." The same social worker teaching a college class that evening is Doctor Y without qualification.

 

Why people are earning multiple terminal degrees?
Maybe at some time, a person wanted to be an expert in their field, and later to earn a Ph.D. to be able to be more research-oriented, and be a professor.
But when comparing Doctorates one can't ignore the tiered system and name recognition of the university, the respect, and perception of such degree grows exponentially when it is earned
from top tier recognized university.
I didn't say don't compare degrees I said compare degrees but more to its own class. We like it or not this is a reality.
We can compare and mix tiers. Some of it is perception, some competition. Many universities have top researchers and laboratories, some students work in top environments.

 

Maybe the proposition should be that all medical Doctors identify by Physicians, MDs instead of Dr's.
We call Lawers or Attorneys by their professional designation. We can call Medical Doctors - Physicians?

Physicians began to access other disciplines to help heal patients. They also began to draw on multiple facets of medicine to cure ailments.

Why restrict Dr. only to medical fields even in the hospital? I understand that today it's impossible because we been calling Medical Doctors- Doctors for a very long time.
We have Psychologists working in hospitals. Why deprive PsyD of the title of Dr?

Some history:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Doctor

 

Perhaps this person wanted what Sedona had to offer educationally and was not too worried about how others might perceive the doctorate.

 

The only time anyone wants to talk about Leicester to me is to discuss the Leicester City football team and its 2015-16 Premiere League championship season.

Another silly note: I have degrees (if y0u count the associate's--another argument) from five separate schools. None of these schools has intercollegiate sports, nor a team nickname. No CCAF Falcons or National University Seagulls. No Union Institute and University Chili Cooks or University of Leicester Plantagenets. And no Excelsior Bluebirds, who had to change their name when they moved the franchise to the private sector. I was a full-time assistant professor at San Diego State University for four years, so I guess I can claim that. Go Aztecs!

 

Interesting. I have degrees from 3 universities so far, and a certificate from another one. Three of the four do have intercollegiate sports. Florida State is, of course, Seminoles, so this is my primary attachment so far. Kyiv Polytechnic sports are far less-known, but they have many sports since Soviet times, in the "Burevestnik" students' amateur sports society. In fact, my father is basketball coach there; at some point, he co-created a Division II semi-pro team based on his school team; not sure if it still exists. I know nothing about CSU-DH sports teams, except they definitely exist.
Humber College, where I adjuncted, has college sports as well; I never learned anything else beyond seeing posters on campus. And finally, the school where I teach now lacks a football team, but otherwise Division I. Go Islanders! (and Seminoles; always Seminoles!)

 

That is fine and dandy. More power to them. However, I just could not imagine going from that level of academics to a much lower level. Personally preference I guess.

 

Yes. Sedona is pretty far down the food chain. Makes Andersonville look stellar in comparison.

 

Most people are not willing to put themselves in other's shoes and consider all the variables that make each person's life experiences unique, nor do they consider how that affects each individual's choices. A person who went to a top school may have had the opportunity and means that another person simply didn't have. But, the "less fortunate" person still went on to do what he/she could do to better themselves and their life situation. Downgrading that is a common ignorance. It's silly to play the "mine is better than yours!" game, and it's usually based on giving favor to name brands over lesser-known entities, which like you said does not directly correlate with the quality of the education received, something that SHOULD be WAY more important than names, in fact it should be entirely more important in nearly all cases, but that's not how it shakes out in the real world.

There are obviously some exceptions like getting a degree from a school with poor academic rigor that can be seen from the outside like an ACI (that's really unaccredited) school I once looked at that awarded Doctorates with a course load comparable to a diploma program. Having said all of that, it's virtually impossible to take each program from each school and be certain of the quality of each, and that's the counterargument label hounds make to cling to the use of brand names to create rankings.

So the true key is to go for what fits your personal life goals, and not give a damn about what others think.

 

Will NA school ever become a top university like the well-known ones?

 

Like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia? Highly improbable but then will a completely distance learning school either? Will a school like Union, Capella, or Walden?

Could they top other lists? Sure. Columbia Evangelical Seminary (unaccredited) is listed as one of the top ten schools for Apologetics by the The Best Schools (only unaccredited school in the ranking). Those types of rankings are perhaps easier to crack.

 

Some people like to point out a few examples accredited by the New York Board of Regents.

Perhaps, especially with the notorious failure that is the ACICS and the spectacularly different NYBoR, the term "NA" is meaningless. The differences between DEAC, ACICS, and the NYBoR are enormous, to the point where I don't think they can be considered a category. And I have no idea what to do with ACCSC which, like DEAC before it, evolved from accrediting trade schools to now covering schools offering degrees through the master's. Then there are the religious-based institutional accreditors--what do you do with them?

I think "NA" is useless and needs to go.

 

And so it has. RA and NA are terms for the last century. Now accreditors are Institutional or Programmatic.

 

One last note: I have nowhere said, nor do I say now, that the D/L degree programs I completed were inferior to the training I'd have received at a similar B&M program. The problem isn't with rigor or scope. The problem is in how the degrees are often perceived.

 

How they are perceived is certainly a problem. However, I think they are becoming more accepted. When I applied to Duke, I had a phone conversation with the President and CEO of USPA Global Licensing Inc. He was a Duke MBA grad from the early 2000s and he said he thinks it is phenomenal that more programs are becoming available online because there are people who need to re-skill or pivot to a new field without having to worry about providing for their family. Is this universal among all executives/hiring managers? Of course not. However, I think it is certainly becoming much more acceptable and understood that distance learning degrees, when done properly, are just as rigorous as their on-campus counterparts.

 

I think the perception problem is quickly fading, at least in industry and technical skill areas. Employers are not easily impressed by where the applicant received the degree. Interviewers are now integrating problem solving scenarios into the interview to evaluate technical proficiency. The old saying, "where the rubber hits the road" is more important than I graduated from XYZ. With that said, this is only my observation from a masters level healthcare provider as well as family members in the computer industry.

I am considering pursuing a doctoral degree in the health sciences with an emphasis in administration but the MBA may actually have more utility. Does anyone have experiences with their doctoral degree actually making them less marketable for a job?

 

I think it depends on the employer. Are you trying to land a consulting gig with McKinsey, Bain or BCG? You better attend a Top 15 business school that has strong ties to consulting. However, the vast majority of people are certainly not aiming for that and in that case, the university the degree is received at is less important and your skills are certainly what will help you.

I will add, where you receive your degree does play a role in terms of the alumni one has access to. For instance, my MBA program has given me access to a few people who work at Boeing but for the most part, I do not have any high profile individuals to draw from in that degree program. Now we look the MSQM I am going to be doing at Duke Fuqua and the alumni base I have is HUGE and a lot of high profile individuals. Does my technical skills still matter? Certainly. But also having those alumni to draw from is very important...at least in my opinion.