Alternative/additional Forum

This spurious "quote" of yours is what's wrong with this whole thread, Frenchy. It's an intellectual donut: all kinds of chewy stuff on the outside, surrounding nothing at all.

It doesn't name the "qualified academic". It doesn't define "out of the mainstream", it don't tell us which "well known non RA schools" should be immune from negative comment, it doesn't specify who or what this "RA Nazi party" is or how they operate... it don't say anything tangible at all and just vents a vague and amorphous sense of resentment.

More fog. While no one would argue with creating an area to discuss "various issues, schools, and other topics", I will certainly argue with the suggestion that we can't do that here.

If the moderators here can be faulted at all, it's because they are too laissez faire, not because they suppress unorthodox opinion. Anyone can say anything they want about DL.

So it seems to me that the real complaint is that many of the participants here disagree with some of the things that somebody would like to say. Unfortunately you won't tell us clearly and unambiguously what those things are or even who precisely wants to say them.

If the majority here holds an opinion that somebody thinks is mistaken, then the burden is on *them* to explain precisely what their position is and to argue effectively for it. We need to be convinced, not denounced.

"He's"? Is all this anguish really directed at John Bear and not at Degreeinfo at all? Degreeinfo is not John Bear, and I frankly resent being called an "RA Nazi" because some anonymous "academic" has a personal issue with one individual.

And what is an "alternative program"? Alternative in what way? Alternative with regards to delivery medium, or alternative with regards to incorporation, recognition and accreditation? If accreditation is being dismissed, and if we are supposed to think that the intent isn't to promote degree mills, then what is being championed? People literally don't know, Frenchy.

Degreeinfo didn't **exist** years ago.

 

Couldn't it be that this "group" isn't a "group" at all? After all, each of knows only a few (or even none) of the other members. Is there really some sort of group dynamic, ethos, etc.? Or is there a simpler answer?

Perhaps there are good reasons why so many people here have come to very independent, yet consistent decisions. Maybe there is reason to think that regional accreditation is what defines a university here in the U.S. Maybe there is reason to be concerned about the utility of DETC accreditation when it comes to degree acceptance. Maybe there should be ample skepticism regarding unaccredited institutions and the myriad of interesting ways they claim legitimacy.

Logic demands that, when presented a complicated and a simple explanation of an event, when all other factors are equal, we take the simple explanation. To refer to the participants of this board as a group implies that we somehow work together, that there is some sort of organization (formal or informal). Well, I've met exactly one person who posts here face to face: John Bear. I've spoken with a few others on the phone on one occasion, and have exchanged the occasional e-mail with a few others. The number of people I've communicated with one-on-one in whatever fashion cannot possibly number more than a dozen. (And that includes Peter French.) This isn't a group.

So many people come to similar yet independent conclusions about DL and accreditation because the facts are very compelling. It's those that do not like the facts who chose to fight with the ones who do. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be debate on these issues, but don't blame the people who stand one one side of it. They didn't do it out of some group conspiracy. They do it because they feel it's right.

Rich Douglas

I feel strongly that recognized accreditation is what defines whether or not a school is or is not a recognized university in this country.

I feel disappointed and concerned over the shortcomings of DETC and other national accreditation. I recognize it and hope it gets better.

I feel there are a few legitimate nontraditional schools that have remained unaccredited, but readily recognize the severe limitations their degrees have to offer.

I recognize that a lot of really bad schools shuck-and-jive their way around accreditation and legitimacy issues and I'm sick of it. They fail to distinguish themselves from diploma mills, and I don't really care to do it for them.

 

While I am an ardent proponent of competition and freedom of choice, I don’t understand how one would support a particular agenda (such as not allowing the expression of well-founded individual biases against unaccredited, DETC accredited, and regionally accredited schools) in a forum while at the same time allowing the free flow of information.

I have seen no evidence of a cabal or a conspiracy in support of a particular agenda here at DegreeInfo. Has it ever occurred to any of the DegreeInfo detractors that if there is anything even remotely approximating a majority opinion, it is because that opinion is well justified? DegreeInfo has become as successful as it has (and with success always comes criticism) precisely because of the freely expressed opinions and information provided by its members. By insisting that members to subscribe to a particular belief, or set of beliefs, in order to be allowed to post, a forum will quickly take on the characteristics of a cult. And isn’t this one of the primary reasons cited by the detractors of DegreeInfo for the need of another forum?

On my Web site, I describe DegreeInfo members as some of the most knowledgeable distance learning experts on the planet, but not a day goes by without completely divergent ideas and opinions being expressed here. It is, however, incumbent upon each member to support his or her position rationally and consistently. Those defending their viewpoints with a paucity of logic may find solace with others of like mind, but that will not increase the veracity of their arguments.

So there are those who do not like the preponderance of evidence stacked against their personal convictions; what else is new? Unfortunately, the only way for the views of a minority to take on the appearance of being the consensus is through radical editing and expurgation. This kind of censorship does not take place here on DegreeInfo, and I can offer no better proof than this thread. If a thread advertising a competing forum is allowed to remain, what does it take to get censored around here?

My prediction is that if the new forum proceeds as described, it will quickly degenerate into an unaccredited degree love fest. The majority of posters will be touting unaccredited degrees and schools (an amalgam of the good, the bad, and the ugly) in the mistaken belief that if others make the same choice, it will enhance the utility of their own degrees, with a few dissenters whining and complaining that if they hadn’t followed a certain famous author’s advice, or if this author’s opinion hadn’t evolved with the times (a recent disturbing trend), they wouldn’t be in their present predicament.

From a business standpoint, however, a different forum does make sense. Chip is on record stating that DegreeInfo will only accepting advertisement from accredited institutions. Therefore, there is a niche to be filled (and therefore money to be made) by a Web site that accepts ads from (and whose members support and promote) the likes of Kennedy-Western, Century, Barrington and others.

I wonder whether I have already been branded persona non grata on the new forum…

 

A few thoughts:

1. Degree mills aside, most of us were much harder on the legitimate unaccredited schools in AED than we should have been; there was no logical reason, for example, as to why Rita Laws and Neil Hynd should have been cut out of discussions to the degree that they were. Yes, CCU is unaccredited, and yes, CCU may even be inadequate by RA standards; but it's not a degree mill, and it is a legitimate opportunity for many people (particularly for people who want to set up a psychology practice in California). We were also too hard on Rick Walston. He never bought any of his degrees; anyone who saw his dissertation work at Greenwich knew that he deserved the Ph.D. he earned there, regardless of what the school did later; and there's no reason why we should have anathematized him for running an unaccredited Bible college unless we had proof that something ridiculous was going on over there. And, yeah, Peter French was a victim of this, too--I saw his thesis proposal. The man earned at least one legitimate Ph.D., but he had to take it off his sig file because people--myself included--just wouldn't let the matter rest. I'm not saying we shouldn't be going after the Prestigious Unaccredited Degrees of the world, but if there's a chance that a specific unaccredited school (or specific program at an unaccredited school) is the real deal, our standard should be "Am I being fair?"--not "Am I saying anything that might get me sued?" I don't know about you folks, but I had an unhealthy tendency to rely on the second standard.

(It does bug me that John's name is constantly brought up by the critics as if he were the worst offender; he actually took the most logical and tolerant route with his standard "an unaccredited degree may or may not meet your needs" response, and many of us ridiculed him for it on the grounds that it was too wishy-washy. In retrospect, we all should have been more "wishy-washy.")

2. As far as Degreeinfo goes, I have never seen advocates for legitimate unaccredited schools "moderated away"; I've seen people who happen to favor unaccredited schools, and also act in an inappropriate manner, get "moderated away," but I've seen the same done to some folks who were RA-focused and acted in an inappropriate manner. Bottom line is that this forum is pretty lenient and very well run; the problem rests with the intellectual climate, not the moderators. So what would the moderators of the new board do differently that could bring about a change of intellectual climate (presumably without censorship)?


Cheers,

 

Tom,

Thanks for your post. You are always so very level-headed.

I commend the moderators of this forum for the job they do. It is not an easy one and is usually thankless.

Rital Laws and Neil Hynd, two very knowledgeable people. I wonder why it is that we don't hear from them?

Hmmmm...

 

There are a variety of disaffected degreeinfo members who are eager to try the new board. But some of these folks will be mutually incompatible, and hence at least a subset are going to be disappointed. For example, some people are disgusted with the anonymous trolls here. And some of the anonymous trolls are upset about the lack of respect they receive here. These two groups are not going to get along very well on a new board!

In any case, I wish the administrators of the new board well and hope that something valuable arises.

 

Hi Colleen,

Maybe I should ask myself that question.

Actually I find targetted Listservs to be more satisfying and fruitful these days - also, getting mails easily delivered and circulated just seems to work better.

Also, the AED FAQs say more or less all I want to say (although in need of a bit of an update just now).

Good luck with posting here ..... but there should be an equivalent bit of Latin to "caveat emptor" meaning "poster beware" !!!

Are there any classicist out there ? I dropped Latin at school some 40 years ago ......

Best regards,

Neil

 

Tolerance and the interaction of ideas are the keys to a successful forum. I believe that Degreeinfo and their moderators have been successful in that endeavor.

While I do see many members who show constraint when confronted with an illogical summation of ideas, there exists a number of members who time and time again, illustrate a certain zeal and intolerance for those posters with opinions outside of the mainstream thinking. Too often, rather than presenting one’s opinion or expertise, their posting degrades to name calling, belittlement, muscle flexing and bouts of pettiness.

I am not a big fan of unaccredited schools, however, who am I to say what is right or wrong for someone else. There are a variety of reasons why an individual might select an un-accredited or state-approved school and I believe that we should provide the poster with respectful encouragement and alternatives, whatever they may be. To bully and harrangue them into “our way” of thinking casts a greater shadow on us all, when Degreeinfo should be the beacon.

As to the "new" forum, best of luck. As to anonymity of members, grow up!

 

Well, actually, that is a group, Rich.

Yet often a mob will act as if it were a single organism, seemingly directed, of one mind. It seems to me that has occurred here more than once. The unorthodox and the heretical have paid a price in ridicule and derision.

.

 

Does this answer your question:
(quote is from a reply to an inquiry to about.com about this subject)

"Thank you for your interest in becoming a Guide for About!

Unfortunately, we're not accepting applicants into our training program
at this time. About.com has begun restructuring the training program
and working on new and exciting ways to prepare you for becoming a
Guide. We will be posting details on the http://beaguide.about.com site
when we resume training."

Darren.

 

Greetings.

My two cents (before taxes):

a. I don't think that another DL forum is a good thing. Quite frankly, I think two is too many. One central location for DL information is ideal. The more, the worse.

b. I think this board is swell. As the only people who disagree with me on my opinion are, for the most part, the many faces of A.E.D.'s least wanted Mr. Peters, this board must be doing something right.

c. The best option would be to convert the A.E.D. newsgroup into a moderated newsgroup, and I am disappointed to discover that Mr. French's mystery solution (as it was advertised on A.E.D.) does not involve fixing A.E.D.

CAUTION: BRUTALLY FRANK TRUTHS AHEAD!

d. I think the willingness of DL'ers to flee is a sign of their lack of testicular fortitude (or surfeit of wisdom, or both), and I am slightly suspicious as to whether the desire to profit by the implosion of A.E.D. might not be getting in the way of fixing A.E.D.


Cordially,
Richard Kanarek
(No, the signature wasn't particularly frank.)

 

Would that it were that easy.

It is near impossible to convert a.e.d. into a moderated newsgroup. Even creating a new newsgroup called alt.education.distance.moderated isn't an easy task, because getting ISPs to pick it up wouldn't be easy... there are lots of new newsgroups created every day (two of the most entertaining titles I remember were alt.sex.fetish.jesse-helms and alt.barney.die.die.die) and many ISPs simply don't pick them up.

Additionally, many of the regulars here (former regulars at a.e.d.) posted in both places for almost a year; only a very small handful post there now -- at least, under their own names -- largely because the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so abysmally bad, and having dozens of fake personas that are really two or three people simply make it impractical.

With the exception of, I think, one person at a.e.d. who is a diehard opponent of web-based discussion boards, even those who didn't like the idea of a moderated board have shown up here and participated... and I like to think that, for the most part, we've done a pretty good job of limiting flaming (as well as defamatory posts) while permitting differing opinions.

I do applaud Richard's efforts at keeping the a.e.d. wolves at bay (and no, Richard is not me, nor is Glenda or Tish or any of the other personalities at a.e.d... when I post, it's under my own name) But, at a certain point, for me, at least, it's more hassle than it's worth to keep arguing with an anonymous troll whose sole focus is a fruitless attempt to prevent people from sharing the truth about fraudulent schools.

 

Aw come on Glenda, I mean Tish - sorry Chip!

The google groups concept was looked at in detail, I am told as a particular group was available. But that is not considered a viable option. Remember, I am NOT a part of this but simply the 'mug' who was prepared to go public with it, but this was not simply a kite flying exercise - it is a egnuien idea and proposal.

Neil Hynd has started a group on 'tropics' but that is not what i have been referring to and bears no relationship or resemblance to it.

The principal who can if and when they wish state who they are - I don't dob in friends - are quite serious about this and will take the necessary time to do it effectively. It will not be a big thing and will not be in the league of this group - there would be no point.

There was lengthy consideration given to the comment in 'the letter' that i posted, which I didn't write myself [sorry doubters], that if the was a 'moderation' in attitude generally here, that the 'need' may be met. Several voiced their disbelief of this [a pity really], and therefore the original proposal is definitely proceeding.

If it hels someone, somewhere is something - it is worth it. A bit like those of us who are teachers - we battkle against tremendous odds at times and wonder whether it is worth the trouble ... and then we get the result and know that it was worth it.

I have said this privately to you, but now publicly - thanks Chip for letting this topic run. I know that it has even angered some, but it wasn't meant to do that. Soem issues have been aired that may have some bearing on how you run/develop the group in the future. it is fulfilling a need, and very effectively, so good luck.

 

Originally posted by Peter French


Aw come on Glenda, I mean Tish - sorry Chip!


Actually, I know who both of those people really are, but neither of them is me I really, truly, post only under my own name at a.e.d.


There was lengthy consideration given to the comment in 'the letter' that i posted, which I didn't write myself [sorry doubters], that if the was a 'moderation' in attitude generally here, that the 'need' may be met.

I guess that depends on who is supposed to be moderating their attitudes.

If you're talking about the regular participants of the forum (excluding moderators), it is not the place of the moderators and admins to tell people what to say, outside of asking people to be respectful of one another and go after a point , not a person. We do send private emails to individuals (including one moderator to another) when there is a post that steps slightly over the line, and we do suspend posters who grossly violate our TOS, but both of those actions are pretty rare, because we really encourage the debate and diversity of viewpoint.

If you're talking about the moderators/admins taking a different approach to moderation, there is little we could do differently without opening up the forum to the spammer/troller contingent, though if there were specific suggestions, we'd happily consider them.

Some viewpoints are unpopular here and will get pounced upon because they are minority views, but that's a function of who hangs out here rather than a conscious moderation choice or process.

If an alternative forum is created, particularly one that has the goal of *less* moderation, my suspicion is that you'll have even more pouncing and flaming, because if folks know that courtesy is not a requirement, those holding one view will state their piece... and others with opposing views will lprobably flame back, and vice versa.


I have said this privately to you, but now publicly - thanks Chip for letting this topic run. I know that it has even angered some, but it wasn't meant to do that. Soem issues have been aired that may have some bearing on how you run/develop the group in the future. it is fulfilling a need, and very effectively, so good luck.

I'm glad to have the topic run, and yes, it creates controversy, but that's fine. This forum would be very boring if everyone held the same view.

 

Well, while I write and Rich replies that will NEVER be the case. .
Sometimes though, no matter HOW open a person tries to be, there is always fault to be found, and that is why some are unhappy, and I know how they feel. it gets tiring ...

There is no point in that attitude with me, so I'll keep off the air and read daily and smile often ... I can afford that luxury. Life is too short to take the other route...

Keep up the good work. I am NOT part of the new group nor will i be a moderator - just the mug who goes public. Some people like chucking muck so being a generous sort of person i have to give them the opportunity here on occasions.