California Pacific University

Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

Given their vast differences, is grouping RA schools together, grouping non-RA schools and the comparing the two groups an exception fallacy or an ecological fallacy?

"A fallacy is an error in reasoning, usually based on mistaken assumptions. Researchers are very familiar with all the ways they could go wrong, with the fallacies they are susceptible to. Here, I discuss two of the most important.

The ecological fallacy occurs when you make conclusions about individuals based only on analyses of group data. For instance, assume that you measured the math scores of a particular classroom and found that they had the highest average score in the district. Later (probably at the mall) you run into one of the kids from that class and you think to yourself "she must be a math whiz." Aha! Fallacy! Just because she comes from the class with the highest average doesn't mean that she is automatically a high-scorer in math. She could be the lowest math scorer in a class that otherwise consists of math geniuses!

An exception fallacy is sort of the reverse of the ecological fallacy. It occurs when you reach a group conclusion on the basis of exceptional cases. This is the kind of fallacious reasoning that is at the core of a lot of sexism and racism. The stereotype is of the guy who sees a woman make a driving error and concludes that "women are terrible drivers." Wrong! Fallacy!

Both of these fallacies point to some of the traps that exist in both research and everyday reasoning. They also point out how important it is that we do research. We need to determine empirically how individuals perform (not just rely on group averages). Similarly, we need to look at whether there are correlations between certain behaviors and certain groups (you might look at the whole controversy around the book The Bell Curve as an attempt to examine whether the supposed relationship between race and IQ is real or a fallacy."

http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/fallacy.htm

Dave

 

Re: Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

Probably neither. I am one of those who differentiate between accredited and non-accredited institutions, and I don't believe that I have committed any fallacies by doing so.

You are still being too cute. If you have a point to make, why not try to state it clearly and directly?

If you think that it is somehow fallacious to differentiate between accredited and non-accredited schools, then tell us why you think so.

Actually, I think that some interesting issues can be raised here. But you can't expect us to make your arguments for you.

 

Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

Actually, both. The answer is that the original posting contained reasoning based on both the ecological fallacy and exception fallacy.

Ecological fallacy: "...it seems silly to consider CCU, CPU, K-W and the like." Grouping non-accredited institutions together because they are all not rated by the RA process is not an accurate grouping because of their many dissimilarities. Each of these schools has a different background, constituency and reputation.

Exception fallacy: "It is a choice that can only come back to hurt a student and their reputation." Has it ever been reported by a social researcher (i.e., causal research) that attending a non-RA school "...can only come back to hurt a student and their reputation?" The vast majority of schools that are not rated by the RA process do not hurt students (or intend to hurt students) and very few of them seem to give students a bad reputation.

In sum, a modicum of critical thinking is in order with respect to the RA process and schools that are or are not rated by that process.

Dave

 

Re: Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

 

Re: Re: Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

Bill,

Thanks for this thoughtful post. I really would like to spend time answering it in depth but I must run off to take care of some obligations at church. Here are some quick thoughts:

1. I'm for RA schools and not against non-RA schools, but I am concerned about non-RA schools that claim false accreditation and have low standards. I have experience with both RA and non-RA schools and the sharp distinctions that are argued for on this board typically don't exist, in my view. Consider that standard college textbooks are a form of propaganda, congealed opinion and received wisdom used by RA schools and otherwise.

2. I'm against the squelching of non-RA academic programs because this seems very similar to fascist book burning. There is an ebb and flow to academic shools and systems of thought -- some are in fashion while some are out of fashion. Leave these schools alone to teach whomever wants to be taught whatever, as long as basic consumer protection exists -- this is probably what is arguable.

3. I'm very concerned about the RA process in a religious context. Schools that want to teach whatever religious teaching they want should be able to do so. For example, an RA M.Div. produces students who might have very little working knowledge of the scriptures, but a great working knowledge of stuff that really doesn't matter. Without the RA designation students can't get federal dollars, so well-meaning individuals have to compromise academic programs to conform with the least common denominator to compete for dollars/students.

So I'm for educational pluralism and against fraud.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Dave W

Thanks for responding,

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

 

Re: Re: Degreeinfo.com Not a Generalizable Sample

I'm going to respond with a definite "yes and no". (No, that's not a contradiction.)

On one hand, I agree with you that non-accredited schools are a diverse group. They range from truly excellent to flat-out mills. I have made many posts in the past talking up CA-approved schools that I particularly like.

On the other hand, I agree with Dave Hayden. Here's the reason:

There are thousands of colleges and universities in the US. Probably no one alive is familiar with every one of them. That means that all of us are going to be frequently confronted with schools that we know very little about. So in order to decide which of these places are credible, most people defer to the judgement of the educational and professional communities. That's accreditation.

That means that even if we restrict ourselves to the very best non-accredited schools, they are going to be of most use within the communities that already know them. Outside those niche communities, whether or not a school is good is rather irrelevant. If people making judgements about the school know nothing about it, they will know nothing about any of its descriptive subtleties. But if they consult the usual authorities, they won't receive the expected verification. They will certainly know that.

So I agree with you that the non-accredited universe is diverse. But I disagree with you since most of the public can't be expected to know these details. What we do know is that the verification procedures that people are most likely to use will fail in these cases.