GAAP is not RA

What's your point, Wes? All of this has been discussed at great length on this board. Do you have anything new to add, or are you just going to repeat the same old things? You are a member of a small minority that seems to have a problem with it. (Normally the a.e.d. spammer-types.) And what does any of this have to do with the issues discussed? You ignore those and resort to this cheap crap? Very unimaginative.

Perhaps you can get back to your points about schools "accreditated" by DETC, instead of ignoring them when they've been slam-dunked back atcha.

 

If I could put a finer point on Anthony's statement (and perhaps contradict myself in the process) . . .
While there can potentially be DL components to the HES degrees, they can not be completed entirely though DL. A degree can be considered to be "DL" even if there is a residential component. The question becomes, "What percentage of a degree program must be completed on-campus before this degree program loses it's "DL" label. I don't know the answer to this question but it invites opinions.
Jack

 

For someone who makes bold (if utterly wrong) statements about this field, you sure don't know what you're talking about. It is reasonable to say that Levicoff's book was very different from the Bears'. I imagine people would agree the same is true of Marcie Thorsen's book.

Gus is almost never wrong. You are almost never right.

 

So, I assume that based upon your own expressed standards of accountability and anonymity that you will be posting your full name, address, telephone number, email address, place of employment, full resume and complete description of all academic endeavors both past and present. Put up or shut up.
Jack

 

No one on this board has done that. No one has provided any proof that the degrees they claim are true. However, from people that are otherwise candid, it is easy to accept such claims. Gus is one of those people. I don't need to know where he earned his degrees unless he makes claims about them. (Or starts criticizing mine. Then I would want to know the basis for it.)

One's claims of degrees, experience, etc. are only relevant when one is using one's self as a point of evidence. THAT'S what I mean about anonymous flamers. Full disclosure is irrelevant, unless you're using yourself as an example. "I'm an expert in this or that." "I have such-and-such degree." But Gus doesn't do that.

 

I'm not sure why I post here, but that isn't it. I think it's because I can't stand to see bizarre mis-statements go unrefuted. But I absolutely know that my posts and experiences here will have absolutely no positive impact on my career opportunities. In fact, given the few-but-prominent crazies we see, the opposite may be true.

 

Thank you for correction, Dr. Douglas.

 

Exactly.

My research into Gus is finally coming to fruition. Before he changed his name, he was known as Lyle or Erik. I'm just not sure which one.

 

My credentials would still be irrelevant, as I would never use my own credentials as the basis for criticizing someone else’s. Frankly, I cannot think of a weaker or more dishonest basis on which to comment on someone else’s choices. My criticisms are usually offered in the public interest and are typically accompanied with sound logical arguments and justifications that stand on their own. No one knows that better than you, Rich.

"Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am not always right, but I am never wrong."
—Sam Goldwyn

 

Unfortunately, this is all too typical of your contributions to this forum.

 

It's called humour Gus, but then you wouldn't know anything about that.

 

Unfortunately, this is all too typical of your contributions to this forum.

 

"Criticize" my degrees isn't the right word. All of the schools I've attended have reasons for criticism. (As would any.) If Gus says National offers, say, an easy degree--and backs it up--it doesn't really matter what degrees he has. I've just been getting a lot of flack from the British Columbia spammer on a.e.d. for the school's I've attended (misrepresented, of course). My response to people like that is, "So, where did YOU go to school?"

 

"Sarcasm is the only intelligent person's response to irritating stupidity."
— Matthew White.

 

DWCox, perhaps you should re-read this thread. You've really gone off the deep end, at least it appears that way to me.

Here's my post. Am I accountable for it? What does the word "accountable" mean to you? Since anonymous didn't work for you, you switched to accountable. Guess what accountable doesn't make anymore sense than "anonymous".

"Going off the deep end" means to me (in this context), that you are no longer thinking and are just desperately spewing nonsense in a hopeless attempt to win an argument. When your brain is no longer connected to what you type then you've gone off the deep end. You've stepped into the deep end of the pool and you have already drowned. What I seem to be witnessing is a few bubbles bursting on the surface. I would ask Gus to let you up for breath but he's standing at the side of pool with me, no where near you.

 

This thread began with Wes making some statements about the relative utility of foreign GAAP degrees vis-a-vis regionally and nationally accredited degrees. Those points, IMHO, were resoundly refuted. Rather than sticking with the issue--or even amplifying or modifying his stance, Wes went after the ones who refuted his arguments.

Look again through this thread. You won't see anyone else making the kinds of statements Wes did. Did anyone attack Wes?

Calling people "Nazis," labeling Gus "anonymous," and tossing the same tired crap at me were all tools for what? The facts remain, and he was wrong about them. The rest is irrelevant vitriol.

 

It was a joke. It was a comment on the absurd proposition that while state approved schools are not accredited, they are also somehow not "unaccredited." Read 1984 sometime.

If you've already read it and the social commentary of "newspeak" was lost on you, try Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language." It spells things out more overtly.

 

Your initial statement was:

"IMHO Mexico does not have as much as one institution which offers equal to quality as any teir 4 US RA institution."

Well, guess what. There are at least four Mexican universities that are RA. I only checked with SACS, and they have two Mexican universities with Level III accreditation and two with the highest level - Level V - which gives them the ability to grant doctorate degrees.

Here's SACS' own publication:

Member List

 

Hmmm: (Even Costa Rica)

EXTRATERRITORIAL
Level III
Instituto Centroamericano de Administracion de Empresas, Apartado Postal 960, 4050 Alajuela
Costa Rica 99999, Central Am, Roberto Artavia

Universidad de Monterrey, Ave. Ignacio Morones Prieto 4500 Pt, San Pedro, Garza Garcia, N.L
66238 Mexico, Francisco J. Az 2001 2006 Pr 6,731 7,456 B M

Universidad de las Americas - A.C., Calle de Puebla #223, Col. Roma, CP 06700, Mexico D.F., 06700
MEXICO, Alejandro Gertz Maner 1991 1997 2007 Pr 1,415 1,415 B M

Level V
Fundacion Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Santa Catarina Martir, Cholula, Puebla, 72820
MEXICO Nora C. Lustig

Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Avenue Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur.
Monterrey N.L., 64849, MEXICO, Rafael Rangel-Sostmann

 

------------------------------

Rich, you spent over one year of your life defending the limited utility of a doctorate from a little known Mexican institution. There was a time that you understood the value of a degree even if your degree would not afford you the same degree -- no pun intended -- of utility. Your degree you would say, is no less valid -- because of course it was GAAP accredited. You acknowledge that you would have to educate some folks about GAAP and that other might discriminate because of the Mexican origin, but that you understood most of these issue to be those of others and not of you.

Any accredited degree is a VERY valuable piece of paper. But you no longer want to acknowledge any degree inferior to RA.

Your opinions change like the wind.