Accredited vs. non-accredited doctoral degree?

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by PhiloScholar, Jun 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    Whether by WHO or local governments, the Caribbean nations are pumping out medical doctors maining for the Developed countries. I do not put much stock in WHO or the UN, these organizations are inept-different topic.
    However, the debates are always mostly focused on the ability of developing countries to accredited other degrees. Why are business schools or engineering schools more difficult to police than a medical school? Well, they are not.
    Also don't forget the ton of nurses and midwives that are trained in these developing countries, then poarch by developed countries. I know of many from my tiny country.
    This debate is a genuine one, but I am always puzzled why doctors, nurses, and widwives are okay but not trained MBA, macc, psyD etc.
  2. Jan

    Jan Member

    FTFaculty, with all due respect you are missing the point entirely! I was referring to the stringent requirements to practice Psychology in the US and in no way or form, by intimation or inference, alluded to Euro doctoral programs as being inferior or loosely structured. I was SPECIfICALLY referring to IUGS's loosely structured doctoral program which in way is on par with Euro research PhD programs which are very rigorous, valid and acceptable degrees.
  3. FTFaculty

    FTFaculty Well-Known Member

    Well Jan, I guess perhaps we're both missing the point, because as it turns out, while I'm extrapolating about your criticisms of the program also being an indictment of other completely unrelated programs on other continents, because there are superficial similarities, and according to you this is evidently totally missing the point (and you're probably right), you're extrapolating PsyD programs to chemistry programs and apparently trying to indict the latter because of some hypothetical issues with an accrediting body of the former, which has not a single thing to do with the latter.

    And here we're are firing shots across the others' bows over irrelevant stuff that's all hypothetical anyway and beside the point--then again, hypothetical and beside the point pretty much describe much of what goes on in academia, so I fit like a hand in the ol glove.

    Evidently I'm also being a rude ass, per Heirophant, who didn't technically say "ass" but surely thought it (and Heirophant's probably right), but then again, tell me something new, there are 300 students this semester here at State U who'd lustily agree with that assessment.
  4. Jan

    Jan Member

    Heirophant, I appreciate your cogent, insightful and well thought out questions and feedback regarding IUGS.

    As you note, IUGS is open to providing doctorates in specific fields but also indicates on their website that they are open to consider other degree specializations. This is where a doctoral degree in Chemistry may be a possible candidate for a doctoral program.

    As you mention, Steve Levicoff agrees with Steve Forester but is ambiguous as to what specifically he agrees with. In addition your insightful comment that it may be a matter of Levicoff's solidarity with Steve Foerster is right on mark, because Levicoff is not "thrilled" with me and is engaging in "splitting", a common pattern he employs with posters he adamantly disagrees with. The fact that Levicoff has frequently expressed his disdain towards DEAC doctorates which are accredited by the USDOE but suddenly becomes a defender of Forester's position regarding his positive perception of NAB accredited degrees, without one iota of substantive evidence, also raises a red flag.

    Your point about Stanislav's statement that he likes IUGS's model and then asking for specifics as to what "model" he is referring to, is also right on mark. Obviously there are "corners' being cut, as described in detail in my previous posts, enabling many of these students to obtain a doctorate that I am quite certain they would have difficulty obtaining were they to go through the traditional route to obtain through either regionally or even DEAC accredited doctoral programs.

    Your questions pertaining to the qualification of the faculty of this school are also valid and remain unanswered regardless of whether IUGS is NAB accredited.
    The issue of whether IUGS is a stable school that is situated year round on the island of Dominica or is rented space, is an extremely fair question to ask.

    Issues relating to the academic reputation of this school and whether substantive research has emanated from IUGS, are vital to the reputation of this school and lead to the need to clarify if any such viable academic work has emanated from this school.

    Your points regarding the financial motivations in running such a school cannot be dismissed and also need to be clarified

    Finally, your insightful thoughts regarding the actual meaning and relevance of NAB accreditation of a school such as IUGS is right on target.

    In sum, your insights, questions and perceptions are the basis for any prospective student to consider prior to making a decision regarding attending a school such as IUGS or any other highly questionable school. Thank you for taking your time in doing so.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2016
  5. Jan

    Jan Member

    Sorry Steve, by your own admission you have admitted your personal involvement with NAB and attempt to sweep it under the rug as if it does not play a role in your strong defense of this accrediting agency. Btw, when you state that "I expect most people here are aware that I have a personal interest in countering misconceptions of NAB since they're the institutional accreditor for our project", in fact you do NOT have any idea how many posters on this forum know of your personal involvement with NAB and your expectations that they do are not acceptable. In fact, in all fairness, you should have stated this for all to see in your initial post on this thread and then recused yourself from your staunch and defensive stand on behalf of this accreditation agency.
  6. Jan

    Jan Member

    FTFaculty, let me answer your diffuse accusations straightforwardly. You are ascribing all sorts of devaluing and irrelevant motivations to me which have no basis whatsoever. Out of the blue, you misconstrued the points I was attempting to make regarding my questions pertaining to the general credibility, validity and acceptability of degrees from this school, using their PsyD program as the basis for doing so! In lieu of asking me for clarification or elucidation for my doing so, you went into a tangential rant, misconstruing and misrepresenting my intent. That is your prerogative to do so but quite frankly you missed the point I was attempting to make which I would have gladly clarified has you not gone into a defensive disconnected rant.
  7. Jan

    Jan Member

    Kizmet, I'm not "condemning" this school but raising relevant questions that without substantive evidence demonstrating the validity and general credibility of degrees from this school in the US, we have no basis to state affirmatively that their degrees will actually assist individuals in promoting or enhancing their professional status or careers or and whether or not it may actually be counterproductive. Yes, we can engage in speculation about its possible benefits or provide anecdotal examples of a person here or there who has benefited from such degrees or talk about how some believe in the acceptability of NAB in the US but without A shred of evidence to support such positions. However, in fact there is no way in good faith that we can currently recommend this school which does not imply that my opinion may not be altered if their doctoral program offerings demonstrate changes in their curriculum requirements and standards.
  8. Jan

    Jan Member

    FTFaculty, there is nothing better than a disagreement that leads to a more positive mutual understanding. Have a good evening. Jan
  9. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    I wasn't endorsing what the WHO does. I was just suggesting that their practice of depending on local approvals might lead to a wide variety of standards in medical education, depending on what country one is talking about. Some countries seem to be taking advantage of this situation by making themselves attractive to off-shore medical school entrepeneurs.

    Policed by whom? The countries where the schools are located? They don't typically want to become known as degree-mill havens, but they also want to attract medical schools to their shores. So they have to ensure that it's easier for medical schools to become accredited in their country than it is in Canada or the US.

    By the WHO? That's a UN affiliated body that doesn't want to insult any of the UN member states, so it treats them all equally by treating their medical school approvals equally, at face value.

    By the the Canadian provinces and American states that license foreign medical graduates? I notice that my own California has stopped using the WHO list and maintains its own smaller list of foreign medical schools that they recognize as qualifying foreign medical graduates for California licenses. My understanding is that several other US states have started using the California list as well. I don't know how the California list was compiled and that process can be and probably has been criticized by somebody.

    Medical Schools Recognized | Medical Board of California
  10. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    OK, fair enough. I can play. But just so we don't needlessly go in circles, maybe you would describe what specific evidence you would need to see in order to prove this point, one way or the other.
  11. novadar

    novadar Member

    So Steve's a judge now? May I approach the bench?

    This is getting testy. Why on earth does this topic have to be so serious? It feels so "Don Quixote-esque".

    Now my best reply of the night goes to FT -- meow. lol.
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Given that I was the one who mentioned it, if my goal were to "sweep it under the rug" then I kind of suck at it.

    Sorry, but I don't feel obligated to repeatedly introduce myself to every newbie with an axe to grind. When you've been a part of this community for a while, then you can tell us what you think the rules should be around here. That's especially so in that I post under my own name for all to see while you hide safely behind pseudonymity.
  13. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    For those who have asked what specific statement of Steve F. I agreed with, it’s the one quoted above. I find Jan to be smug, obnoxious, judgmental, and hardly qualified to pontificate. End of story.

    Now, if Jan mellows out and ceases to smugly attack others, I’m willing to soften my opinion. But I doubt that matters to him or her. (I am not aware of Jan’s gender, since it can be a male or female name, and it doesn’t matter anyway.) Bottom line: Jan is still a newbie around here. As welcome as any other newbie, but one who should lighten up. The people he or she is attacking have been around much longer, are well known to many of us, are not anonymous, and have established their credibility over the long haul.

    As for my opinion of IUGS, I think it borders on being a degree mill. It’s mickey mouse at best, as there is a lot of institutional information missing from their website. Having said that, I have not done any significant amount of research on them, but am going on a quick review of them on the web. I’m not impressed, but I’m not sufficiently interested in them to invest much time in checking them out.

    Again, end of story.
  14. FTFaculty

    FTFaculty Well-Known Member

    Jan -

    Glad we've reached a detente, but I do tend to agree with the Steves, Novadar and Kizmet. One ought to stick around a while before they shoot off too much.

    Once upon a time, a decade and more ago, I was a regular on this forum under another name that went by the initials "LF", and as a relative newbie there were a few times I made a fool of myself, such as needlessly belittling a fellow who posted here often and frankly had better credentials than me. Never was able to make up with him after that, pushed it a mite too far, and then he died suddenly. Still feel like crap over that one, I was in the wrong--and now it's irreparable.

    So Jan, you might want to dial it back a bit, perhaps establish your credentials before you act like you know everything. You've been resident all of a couple months, these people have largely known each other for a decade or more. Bad form to blow in here like a know-it-all, especially around people who do really know about this stuff, something you have yet to establish.
  15. Jan

    Jan Member

    Yes, you mentioned it towards the end of this thread when your conflict of interest should have been clearly stated in the beginning. Reason? Because you are assuming that ONLY "newbies" weren't aware of your tight association with NAB when in fact you cannot reliably state that all or most of the regular "oldies" in this thread were aware of your ties with NAB.

    Furthermore, your constant use of the phrase "axe to grind" quite frankly is aimed at the wrong party, me, because it is obviously being used defensively to silence posters who disagree with you!

    As for your using your actual name versus my listing my first name has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is being used by you in a futile attempt to negate my position and comments. If you were correct regarding pseudonyms being the basis for negation of posters' comments and opinions, than over three quarters of the posters on this forum are considered by you to have "axes to grind"!

    Sorry Steve, I expected better from you.
  16. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I'm happy to say that we agree on this subject, at least. I've never bought into this whole "You're anonymous so whatever you say has no credibility" thing. Typically I consider it to be a last resort argument from someone who's losing the debate. The idea that the logic of my argument or the validity of my evidence is somehow "less than" someone else's based solely upon my choice of user name is false on it's face.
  17. Jan

    Jan Member

    So according to Levicoff, I'm "...smug, obnoxious, judgmental, and hardly qualified to pontificate. End of story".

    Not quite the end of the story because Levicoff has just described the exact manner in which he conducts himself on this forum! A revelatory example of projecting onto another poster one's own characteristics! I don't engage in name calling, derail other posters" threads, devalue their opinions using obscenities, but merely present my opinions and perceptions that Levicoff obviously don't agree with. So he engages in ad hominem attacks to attempt to negate their position rather than focus on the issues whenever anyone disagrees with him, claiming that they are engaging in "attacks" when in fact they merely have a different perspective and position than his.

    Come on Steve, you can do better than that or at least I hope that you can?
  18. Jan

    Jan Member

    FTFACULTY, I too am glad that we reached a "detente" but with all due respect your assumption that I'm acting " you know everything" is far astray from the fact. In fact, my aim in questioning the validity, acceptability and credibility of the degrees being discussed stems from NOT knowing " everything" and being open and accessible to lisening and learning from other posters whether in fact my impressions of IUGS and/or NAB were incorrect! If substantive information was provided to shed greater clarity on this issue and to demonstrate the benefits and strengths of these doctorates and NAB I would have been very appreciative and would have said so. Instead, all that was stated hinged around ad hominem attacks, axes to grind, put down comments, anecdotal and or hypothetical examples or dining with the director of NAB, that did not provide ANY relevant, credible feedback or information to support the relevance of the doctorates in question whatsoever.

    So I think it would be better served for you to direct your comments about knowing it all to those posters who cannot or will not present their perspectives objectively, and instead resort to all sorts of defensive ploys to undermine posters with whom they disagree.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2016
  19. FTFaculty

    FTFaculty Well-Known Member

    Jan -

    What are your academic credentials? What is your expertise in this area? What experience do you have in online and other forms of higher education?

    Let's start with that. Forgive my oversight if you've already laid that out in detail on this forum.
  20. Jan

    Jan Member

    FTFACULTY, your questions regarding my academic credentials and online experience is very fair but due to the level of many of the less than benign responses that I have received from a number of posters, merely based on my holding a perspective and responses they don't like, makes me feel very uncomfortable and wary regarding revealing any personal information that may be used by certain posters who personsonalize issues rather than objectifying them, and who have " axes to grind". Sorry that this is the state of affairs, but I need to be self protective to protect my professional status and identity.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2016
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page