Calamus International University

Comes now Calamus International University. The campus is a secretarial service in the Caribbean (Turks and Caicos). The administrative center is a mailbox service in London. The accreditation is from the Non-Traditional Course Accreditation Board of Ireland. The website is registered to Morris Berg who lives in another mailbox rental service in London, but may be in Karlsruhe, Germany. And the degrees are just as useful as you could imagine from the above information.

 

Here's Morris Berg:
http://website.lineone.net/~kadmon/berg.htm

The 'Dublin Metropolitan University' webpage is also registered to Berg in England. Tech and billing contacts are in Karlesruhe Germany, though.
http://www.dubmetro.org

The name 'Dublin Metropolitan University' seems intentionally chosen to cause confusion with the legitimate 'Dublin City University'. Perhaps the latter's attorneys might be interested in Berg's activities.

Dubmetro's site links to what seems to be closest to Berg's heart, his weird pop psychology practice:
http://website.lineone.net/~kadmon/

 

I see that Calamus International University now advertises in the Mensa Bulletin.

Tell me, if a Mensan actually gets one of these degrees, does that automatically relieve him/her of membership in Mensa? The IQ meter surely goes down!

Craig

 

"Calamus International University is truly international in scope and does not restrict itself to the outmoded or arbitrary educational norms of any one country."

Awesome!

 

I love their accreditation statement:

Calamus International University is not a UK university & therefore does not have UK accreditation or recognition by the UK government. CIU is not a US university and so cannot come within the official US regional accreditation system. CIU is not an EU university. CIU is an international private distance-learning university. There is no government-approved accreditation system for such universities. :shocked:

 

One of the requirements of accreditation is that the university in question has formally adopted an 'appropriate' vision and mission. Sickening that universities offering alternative viewpoints are denied engagement based on anothers' view of what is appropriate. Is such denial also undemocratic? Degree courses offer the opportunity for in-depth research and study of a subject. Stipulating degree curriculums as inappropriate, denying accreditation signals to students their ideas must remain within the bounds of what an authority deems to be appropriate and that if they continue none of their work and study will be recognised as valid. Not surprisingly the fall out of that means the number of students enrolling in alternative studies in such distance learning universities as Calamus International University, is not enough to sustain it, and it falters and disappears along with the opportunity of developing alternative view points. The status quo maintained, usurpers vanquished.

 

Maybe ineffective is the better word. If formative and summative evaluation processes are not sufficient to adequately measure outcomes, then that might make the curriculum "inappropriate" from a functionality standpoint, not a content standpoint which is what you are arguing.

 

An opinion then, on deciding what an appropriate function would be? Still an authority effectively banning content. Shame because as well as turning enrollees off, it ensures tutors won't engage.

 

It's more than an opinion, it's a consensus of peers - and it is in every single field when one wants to be associated with one's peers. "Best practices" are developed and peer reviewed in just about every field - engineering, medicine, law, etc. They change as new peer reviewed evidence emerges. If you want to do your own thing, fine - no one is stopping you - no one is banning anything they just aren't accrediting it as being in line with their best practices. You seem to want it both ways, one- you want to do your own thing however you want to do it and to whatever arbitrary standard you personally decide on - and two: You want the legitimization of full accreditation by a body of peers that asks you to do things a certain way. You can't have it both ways. Either get in line with accepted standards for accreditation by a particular body, or do your own thing and convince your potential customers that what you offer is just as good or better than what else is on offer in the marketplace - but don't whine about it, own it. .02

 

Consensus of peers of course good, best practices of course good, developed and peer reviewed of course yes. The argument is not re doing own thing, which it is realised is obviously completely possible. Equally realised there is no ban on doing so. Not a both ways argument. An arbitrary standard personally decided on, of course not viable and in doing own thing accepted standards must of course be acknowledged and embraced- again content - more inclusive content. On two not a question of legitimization but of body of peers stretching perhaps limited views. You seem to argue that accreditation equals legalization! Cries of the child crying out 'mine, mine', come to mind, akin to your comment: 'accepted standards, get in line'. Your comment re potential customers. It's the crux issue is it not? My income is fine. No need to convince that what is offered is just as good or better, only that it is different and you may be surprised at how many people welcome that. As for your comment re whining-a recognized cry of the abuser- cheeky monkey.

 

You are still arguing content - which, possibly is an issue. If I hand you a trifold brochure and then quiz you on the content of that little brochure and then proclaim that is PhD level work, I suppose that might be an issue to an accrediting body. And no, I am not implying "accreditation"="legalization" - that is what you seem to have been arguing, that whatever Calamus offers is "legal". Anyone can form an institution and gain the legal status to issue a degree or diploma. Accreditation is another matter altogether - It's like saying you want to join the football team, but you don't want to pass the tryout because you play by your own rules, and the team should just let you join because they are too closed minded with their standards. It's a persecution narrative that everyone from quack doctors to MLM ponzi scheme real estate hucksters and sham religious institutions use to justify the selling of their wares and in their attempts to garner confidence from the public. "Here's what the experts don't want you to know!" As for the whining comment, I apologize. It was a general comment directed at "those who would advance such complaints" and not you in particular.

 

Using the analogy of the little trifold brochure, quizzing on content of, followed by proclamation of Ph.D or Psy.D level work definately qualifies as an absurd analogy. If such was the case accreditation would not be requested, surely not, imbecilic to think so. Such analogy does give insight into your view of study, ie one of testing, convergent thinking ie data, fact, data: Answer A or Answer B. Rather divergent thinking ie idea, fact, data, idea,idea (obviously my preference). Not much data or fact in a trifold brochure although a couple of ideas might emerge. I asked a question re accreditation as legalisation. Asked, answered, clarified. Thanks. Re your trifold brochure, such might be an issue with a legalising body - raised eyebrows at what was to be legalised. Do not argue re Calamus that whatever it offers is legal, Calamus is not an empty vessel far from it. Accreditation, your example of trying out for a football team. Obviously wouldn't apply knowing you couldn't play the game with some expertise and believed skilled enough to be in a try out. Obviously that would include as a given, awareness of the rules of play. Have to make an observation that there is a great deal of foul play in a game of football. Have to assume a donkey wouldn't apply for a try out! Persecution narrative... characters you describe as having such. Persecution is not a good descriptor - preferred would be fast easy buck characters who prefer that no information is given. Again, not applicable to Calamus and others. Apology accepted, yet applied to anyone remains the quip of an abuser with a locked down and fearful view of what lies outside their own remit- narrowed and channelled.