Bias and A.E.D. Advertising

I, for one, am concerned about the bias that seems to reside in certain people on this group. This group was set up as an alternative to a.e.d. as it was hyjacked by some individual(s) of dubious intention and or parentage. I, as well as many others had hoped that the bullying tactics and discriminatory attitudes that marked the Gang and their mates and fawning followers, would be gone here.

But as with many things, a change of location does not result in a change of character. As with the alcoholic, he changes cities to change his life, but takes his underlying weaknesses and problems with him and is simlpy a freshly located alcoholic.

This is the case with degreeinfo as it has inherited the diseases of the a.e.d - Gang. I am not going to beat around the bush - it seems that wherever John Bear, Chip White and George Brown go, that the shit sticks to their boots and they leave marks on the carpet and a pong in the air. Levicoff must have a new 'freind' as his energies are suprisingly being expended elsewhere, or he has passed away.

This is the case of degreeinfo as it stands today.

Consider the following:

1. The repeated unqualified forcing of "RA IS BEST" down everyone's throat. A recent example is when Neil Hynd uses Bear's very own words and references to bring to our attention remarkable and genuine chnages in Mexico. No, not good enough for Chip is it?

2. Bear coming out and introducing to us his 'heir' in George Brown and lamenting that they failed to get someone sacked because of a degree mill qualification - failed simply because the parties they alerted weren't interested.

3. The incessant 'advertising' of 'DEGREEINFO IS BEST' on a.e.d - people go there of their own free will, and don't need to have this site rammed down their throats, and when they ask genuine questions, for God's sake, can't one of you hyporcitical poofters give them a reasonable asnwer? ... no, come to 'DEGREEINFO and then you'll get your answer.

4. When someone genuinely tries to bring some reality and impartiality into the RA - nonRA discussions on a.e.d., they get flamed and attacked and treated as morons. The chrage is that they are FLAMEWATCHER - yeah? Who says so, and where is your proof? Sorry I forgot - Chip demands proof of others but gives none himself. Double standards AGAIN!

RA is but one, and remember one VOLUNTARY criteria for Universities in the US. It is primarily about funding, is a cartel-club, and as with most peer assessments is at best not reliable. Every university must start at the nonRA end of the spectrum, but with the vitriolic attacks that emenate from the bullies here, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Who can afford RA anyway? Just do a simple calculation and look at what your break even cost point becomes. Does it make your education any better? No way - it simply hinges on rediculous and non relative standards that don't guarantee quality of content or delivery.

I think that on this group we should completely review our stance regarding the nonRA Universities club just as the nonIVY LEAGUE have had to reconsider their positions.

This group is moderated and supposed to be otherwise open. Post your opinions while you can before Chip changes the rules and shuts off this topic, and deregisters me!

Peter French
Australia

 

Originally posted by Peter French:
I, for one, am concerned about the bias that seems to reside in certain people on this group. This group was set up as an alternative to a.e.d. as it was hyjacked by some individual(s) of dubious intention and or parentage. I, as well as many others had hoped that the bullying tactics and discriminatory attitudes that marked the Gang and their mates and fawning followers, would be gone here.

And I believe that much of that *is* gone, as evidenced by the numerous people posting here who used to be lurkers at a.e.d., and feel much more comfortable posting, because they know that flames and personal attacks won't be tolerated. The regulars may engage in spirited discussion and defense of the issues
from their own viewpoint, but there's very little flaming or bullying compared to a.e.d.


It seems that wherever John Bear, Chip White and George Brown go, that the shit sticks to their boots and they leave marks on the carpet and a pong in the air.

Peter,

Your opposing viewpoints are welcomed, but I must ask you to avoid the personal attacks. Tnose *aren't* OK, whether they are about me or about Tim McVeigh...



1. The repeated unqualified forcing of "RA IS BEST" down everyone's throat. A recent example is when Neil Hynd uses Bear's very own words and references to bring to our attention remarkable and genuine chnages in Mexico. No, not good enough for Chip is it?



RA, in the US, *is* the gold standard. DETC is second rate, and most everything else (i.e., state approval/registration) is of much more limited utility, ranging from marginally useful (California) to almost completely worthless (South Dakota). The researhc that John and Rich Douglas are doing appear to support this, at least in the academic sector. Very limited anecdotal data seem to support this notion in the employment sector as well.

I do not believe that we have flamed anyone for discussing non-RA programs, however those of us who hold opposing viewopoints to the non-RA contingent will certainly air those views.



2. Bear coming out and introducing to us his 'heir' in George Brown and lamenting that they failed to get someone sacked because of a degree mill qualification - failed simply because the parties they alerted weren't interested.


I've not seen any indication of George being introduced as an "heir"... he has put a lot of effort into exposing fraudulent programs, and is a great guy, but I don't think there's much more to it than that.

And as to the people whose fraudulent degrees have been exposed, yet they haven't been canned... this is very unfortunate. It sends a very poor message to kids considering what to do. Why work for a real degree if a fraudulent one you can get instantly will do the same job? THat's the message we send when we don't punish or censure people for using fraudulent credentials.


3. The incessant 'advertising' of 'DEGREEINFO IS BEST' on a.e.d - people go there of their own free will, and don't need to have this site rammed down their throats, and when they ask genuine questions, for God's sake, can't one of you hyporcitical poofters give them a reasonable asnwer? ... no, come to 'DEGREEINFO and then you'll get your answer.


I do often answer there, as do a couple of other regulars. But nearly everyone else posts here... and I continue to suggest that others join us, so that they'll get dozens of opinions from lots of sharp folks, instead of one or two opinions, including those by people with a vested inteerest in fraudulent programs.


4. When someone genuinely tries to bring some reality and impartiality into the RA - nonRA discussions on a.e.d., they get flamed and attacked and treated as morons. The chrage is that they are FLAMEWATCHER - yeah? Who says so, and where is your proof? Sorry I forgot - Chip demands proof of others but gives none himself. Double standards AGAIN!


I would like to see documentation of this. We *do not* flame people. In the rare cases where a moderator (me, for example) goes over the line, my post gets edited or deleted just as anyone else's would. Nor have we accused people on degreeinfo of being Factwatcher, other than the person who attempted to register by that name. We do monitor registrations and suspend people who violate our TOS, but that's to do our best to ensure that the board *doesn't* get overrun by folks posting under multiple identities.


RA is but one, and remember one VOLUNTARY criteria for Universities in the US. It is primarily about funding,

No, it's primarily about peer-reviewed quality control, and a guarantee of minimal academic standards that simply aren't available without RA.


[it]is a cartel-club,

No, there are a lot of new member schools, including some very unorthodox ones.


and as with most peer assessments is at best not reliable.

Evidence, please?


Every university must start at the nonRA end of the spectrum, but with the vitriolic attacks that emenate from the bullies here, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.

There are definitely some legitimate programs that are actually progressing toward that standard. Those programs I have no problems with. But don't compare an unaccredited school following the RA path with bogus programs like Columbus University that have no intention of *ever* seeking legitimate accreditation... because they aren't interested in academic quality.


Who can afford RA anyway? Just do a simple calculation and look at what your break even cost point becomes. Does it make your education any better?

In most (but not all) cases, the answer is yes. It depends if you're considering legit unaccredited programs or worthless/near-worthless ones like Earlscroft, Trinity, Columbus, Hamilton, etc..



This group is moderated and supposed to be otherwise open. Post your opinions while you can before Chip changes the rules and shuts off this topic, and deregisters me!

Peter French
Australia

Peter, the debate is welcomed. Personal attacks and abusive language are not. I will encourage you to continue to post, but I will also ask you to please not attack others or to use excessive abusive language as you are currently doing on a.e.d. We do our best to apply the TOS equally to everyone, and I hope that it will be possible for you to comply.

Thanks

Chip

 

Excellent response, Chip!

For non-US posters, the American RA system may seem difficult to understand, however, it remains the "gold standard" for acceptance and recognition of academic credentials in the US (i.e., RA or its GAAP equivalent).

1. Does RA offer a 100% guarantee that one will receive a quality education? No.

2. Could the RA system be enhanced? Yes!

3. Will non-RA degrees enjoy recognition equal to RA degrees? No.

4. Will non-US students continue to confuse RA and state-approved programs? Probably.

5. Will holders of state-approved degrees continue to equate them with RA degrees? Yes.

And the debate goes on and on and on and on......

Russell

 

Peter,

I do not believe that nonRA programs are discriminated against in this forum. Holders of nonRA crentials may be asked to defend their degrees here because we are interested in knowing if the person was able to gain employment, was admitted to an RA program, etc. based on their nonRA credential. Generally we find just the opposite. The nonRA degree holder had to go out an earn an RA credential or their career success had no basis in their nonRA degree. Exceptions do exist such as nonRA degree holders obtaining a license in a profession. Or the nonRA degree holder who sought out a nonRA degree in order to learn something in a structured program but did not intend to use their degree professionally.

It is a matter of fact that RA is the standard whereby minimum standards are met. Professional accreditation and other accreditations, as we know, also come into play. Blasting the RA system doesn't help because I bet we can find holes in any education system from any country. If you can build a meaningful case why nonRA education is better or just as good as RA education then do so.

The forum is open and I for one diagree with your position.

John

 

See! ... same old thing. You go away and have a feed of Crnflakes and come back as big and as ugly as a shithouse and start threatening me - what did i say?

Gee you are brave Chip! Probably on a one to one as about as effective as a sparrows fart.

Am I flmaing you? NO - I am saying what everyone knows and thinks but hasn't got the guts to say. Whereas you can say what you want again Peller, Chase, Factwatcher, Dan and anyone else you coose to.

Must be nice being you.

Peter French

 

Big brave gutless Russell

Woof woof Russell

Peter French

 

Peter,

If your comments were about someone else, they would be deleted, because they are clearly in the realm of personal attacks. However, since I am the one you are attacking, I will choose not to delete your response this time, but I will once again ask you to please conform to our terms of service and convey your messages (the sentiment of which are within our terms of service) without the personal comments and attacks.

If you persist in doing this, we won't have any choice but to restrict your posting privileges, and edit or remove material that is offensive to others. I really hope this isn't necessary.

This is *not* in the realm of censoring opposing views... it is in the realm of maintaining civilized discourse amongst our 600+ registrants.

 

So Levicoff can say "BITE ME" and I can't? Maybe you have quietly given him the flick also.

Gee you are powerful Chip.

PF

 

Peter,

I do hope tomorrow has you in a better mood, because you seem very frustrated today. Have a good day!

Russell

 

My opinion is that that the moderators of this forum have shown great restraint in their censoring. Very few posts have been censored. The clear vision is that they would like to make "lurkers" feel comfortable when posting. They don't want the lurkers to be hesitant to post.

An example of this is that I know one of the very few posts ever removed in this forum was a post by someone that was attacking me. Personally I would have rather the post stayed. However, I understood and supported the decision to remove it because of the chilling effect it could potentially have on others.

Peter, I really do appreciate your alternative views but in this forum the personal attacks won't be tolerated simply because the vision is that this forum is friendly and all views are being encouraged even the views of the people that might normally just be lurkers.

 

RA is but one, and remember one VOLUNTARY criteria for Universities in the US. It is primarily about funding, is a cartel-club, and as with most peer assessments is at best not reliable. Every university must start at the nonRA end of the spectrum, but with the vitriolic attacks that emenate from the bullies here, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.

Interesting arguements. Could apply to AQUA and the AQF too. Why don't you have a go at them...for the hell of it.

One could argue that AUQA and the AQF are keeping legally incorporated Universities ( l Greenwich for one) from Australian shores. same arguements apply.

Incidentally Greenwich U was knock off the AQF by peer assessment. Perhaps Peter feels that peer assessments by Australians are better than Yankee ones.

Billy

 

My concern here is that I am uncertain what Peter wants to offer here. On many threads there have been constructive posts. Peter claims a lot of knowledge in DL so I am asking that he formulates and provide some constructive discourse on nonRA education and its benefits in the US. Otherwise, I just see this discourse as pushing the envelope to see what he can get away with.

Patiently waiting....

John

 

Two observations:

1. Factwatcher's latest clone "Benny" suddenly disappeared at the exact moment "Peter French" appeared out of nowhere and moved to take over alt.education.distance.

2. This thread is 100% personality driven. Although "Peter French" is posing as the free-thinking iconoclast, he is apparently unwilling to state his own position or to defend it.

I am going to respond in detail to "Peter's" first post, and I will be very interested in seeing whether, and if so how, he replies.

Everyone has his or her opinions, even you. If you want to present an alternative point of view, get off your butt and do it. But don't insult others simply for having views.

In the context of the United States it is. That's simply a fact. If you disagree, you will have to state in detail how you see things.

If you had bothered to read the posts here, and weren't so obsessed with your own personal enemies, you would have seen that a number of us had disagreed with "outing" people and trying to get them fired, unless they represented threats to the public safety or were engaged in fraud.

People go there in search of information and discussion about distance education. And it must be obvious to everyone that virtually none occurs there. I think that it is a valuable service both to those individuals and to distance education itself to inform people of alternate venues where intelligent DL discussion may be found.

I agree with you on that and think that you are totally correct. I think that there have been those, some among the creators of this group, that have only posted teasers on AED, saying that we will answer you but will only post the answer on degreeinfo. That is juvenile and I don't respect those who do it.

That's false. If there has been a realistic and impartial post on accreditation made on AED (besides my own) I must of missed them. Are you talking about Samuel Xavier? I responded to him several times, politely and respectully, and he ignored me. As you usually do as well, since your purpose is more to tweak Chip than to discuss issues.

True. But the fact remains that regional accreditation is by far the most widely recognized criterion of credibility employed by the American educational and professional communities. In fact, in most cases accreditation IS recognition by the relevant professional or academic community. If a school lacks regional accreditation, a much greater additional burden is placed on it to demonstrate its credibility in other ways.

That's simply false. The Department of Education process that recognizes accreditors was set up to ensure that federal funds go to credible institutions. But the federal government is clear that they defer to the judgements of the relevant educational and professional communities. And the accreditation mechanisms those communities set up are not dependent on the USDoE's purpose in recognizing them. They have their own purposes.

It is no more a cartel than your own AQF. In fact, all countries with credible higher education systems have some mechanism that restricts entry to only those institutions that are credible.

And if you are attacking peer-review, what would you replace it with?

Again, that's false. Personally, I like seeing new schools created, and I applaud those that are moving on a path towards recognized accreditation. Please review my posts on the California approved schools. Although that sector is largely a haven for substandard schools, it has also served as an incubator for a number of small but fascinating educational start-ups that help make California one of the world's centers for intellectual ferment.

Just here in the San Francisco Bay Area, CIIS, Saybrook, ITP, the Wright Institute, the American Conservatory Theater's graduate school among others. All of these things are small independent graduate schools that have acheived regional accreditation without going broke in the process.

Nothing is guaranteed in life. But considering that there is very little overlap in quality between regionally accredited and non-RA schools, it seems to work pretty well.

And keep in mind that ANY quality assurance mechanism could be hit by the same complaint.

OK. Your serve has been returned and the ball's back in your court. It is time for you to stop ranting and to make your case. What would you replace RA with? How would you fulfill RA's legitimate functions in your new system?

 

The real truth is that they are currently fighting amongst themselves and there is serious division there.

They know that they are fighting a losing battle, and that what i state in the undeniable truth.

They won't throw me off as they can't - the whole moderation would fall apart. Chip isn't even one of them but has the server located at his place so in effect totally controls it.

It is quite amusing. Chip who is not an academic, who none that we can believe has ever met, who has no traceable degree, probably is someone else altogether. The whole thing possibly is a conspiracy of a bunch of self interested persons, and who they are we really don't know. The owners of 10 speed press? Maybe. DETC management? Maybe. A group of backers of RA universities?

We don't know how many messages never even get aired here do we? Filtered out and if the writer is blocked from day 1, we would never know.

Bear hasn't got any interest in selling any more books, so has shown the true reason for his involvement - he has simply pissed off. But who controlled him anyway? Rememeber that he was not an academic - he was a journalist and I'd trust a cop before I'd trust a journalist.

Let's see how long I last around here, but I'll always be on a.e.d.

Peter French

 

Peter:

While I agree with much of what you say how you are going about this is wrong! This group does more good than bad.

Degreeinfo:

I agree with Peter that virtually every member of this group will belittle a person with an unaccredited degree. The theme here is RA and only RA and anything less is not worth the paper it's written on. Let's not forget that the primary purpose of education is "knowledge" not a piece of paper. Having said that I still support RA mostly due to the increased utility of the degree.

Wes Cox, who has three RA degrees and is enrolled in a doctoral program at Northcentral University -- primarily because of RA potential.

 

As with the 6 RA's, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) is also a private organization but the US government uses them to keep standards of hospitals in line (you won't get Medicaid/Medicare payments without passing a JCAHO survey). So there is a prescient for private organizations doing work that others may think is Government work. (Keep in mind, the most feared words in The United States are “ We are from the government and we are here to HELP!”)

RA = pretty much credits are transferable between each school (there may be some specific courses that will not transfer, but for the most part transferable) but will not take "lesser" accrediting association's (DETC, Cal approved etc)

DETC = transferable upon themselves and will accept RA school credits, not real interested in Cal approved and non accredited

California Approved = will take all above may or may not take other non-accredited school's credits

This seems to be a ONE WAY STREET with RA at the top.

Now here is the question for all that think unaccredited degrees/courses are ok...

HOW can you tell the difference between a non-accredited 'good' school with a degree mill or any other totally worthless school?

Dan

 

Peter, you have a point here. IMHO, what should be considered is when deleting a post for personal attacks is just replacing the body of the message with a note indicating a personal attack was deleted. I suspect the concern is that then people will use this to possibly denigrate the attacker by mentioning the deleted message. But I think it would demonstrate just how seldom messages are really deleted here. It would also make it all more appear more above board, IMHO.

 

Peter,

That you are still around at all is a clear indication that the moderators are showing restraint and making an honest attempt to be fair minded. No one likes being scolded, but quite frankly, that appears to be what you are asking for. You are being mean and rude for no good reason.

Please provide information and don't attack other posters and admins as you are doing.

Speaking for myself, after reading what you have been posting in this thread, if I had the power to ban you I probably would have done so already.

Finally, if you don't like the way this forum is being operated, start your own. Perhaps you can start a distance education forum for people who enjoy being verbally abused and belittled.

Jeff

 

Now you're talking! Verbal abuse and belittling sound like a fun way to go. Peter, how about you and I both be moderators for your new board. If posts aren't abusive enough then we'll warn the poster and ban him (or her) if they don't make their posts more abusive. Oh wait, we need some posters just to abuse so instead of warning them that their posts aren't abusive enough we'll just abuse them!

I'm sure this will be a very popular board.