Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

Charles Stanley earned the Th.D. via Luther Rice years before it obtained TRACS accreditation. His writing project, according to LRS, was titled "Groups in Prayer."

One will find more than a few Baptist ministers who have earned RA undergrad degrees, RA/ATS master's degrees, (some have even obtained RA/ATS professional doctorates, such as the D.Min.), then earned academic doctorates (Ph.D./Th.D.) at schools such as Luther Rice. This was certainly the case of Stanley (minus the D.Min., his only doctorate is the LRS Th.D.), who served two terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

Is that a Duckhead shirt you are wearing?

 

Gus, Kevin Evans played no part in my research on brown teal, which extends over thirty years - read the manual! Kevin is a young enthusiast and brown teal fanatic; just like myself.
If you are so smart Gus read my manual and become really educated in brown teal matters, instead of passing snide comments which have become all too typical of your posts. Please do a Rich Douglas on us as soon as possible - but do read the manual first. However, I doubt that you will ever do that as you
may find that unaccredited dissertations can in fact have some value.
Dr Duck

 

Hi plcscott (another Sherlock Holmes), the shirt I'm wearing is a Eketahuna Gun Club shirt (a clay target shooting club - not a duck hunting club). The club's logo hidden by a delightful brown teal.
Dr Duck

 

Before Gus goes he should also do a google search on the NZ Brown Teal, and knowing of his serious interest in ducks he should also read some current literature on waterfowl of the world. (Gus - please refer to the Reference section of my manual for guidance!)
Dr Duck

 

According to Stanley's new book he also earned his master's at LRS.

 

Degrees and dissertations are not accredited or unaccredited, schools are. Anyway, I commend your work. I have long been concerned about the way humanity treats the animal kingdom. The beauty of creation is vastly slipping away to greed and profit.

 

I really appreciate your comments Dr Clifton. I've always enjoyed your posts and great to see you posting regularly on DegreeInfo.
Dr Duck

 

Gus,

As I do not have any stake whatever in the issue, my conclusion could not be self-serving. I do admit to an interest, and that is why I tried to get some information.

The response from UMI/Proquest seemed to me to indicate that resource considerations has forced them to establish a fixed cut-off point, and that they have decided accredited institutions should be that cut-off point. This makes sense to me, as otherwise where would they put it? If they deal with accredited (or similar) institutions they really must include all as eligible.

If I had had an interest in presenting a self-serving conclusion, I could have simply not included that last sentence. You'd have been none the wiser.

So, we disagree on what is, as you call it, 'the real gist of the message'. Apparently, however, we do not agree on what I've said before, due to resource constraints they have decided to establish a cut-off point.

However, it is stretching your interpretation to say that because the message says they trust accredited institutions they're implying they don't trust un-accredited institutions. This may be the case, I don't know, but have asked further questions out of interest, but they're not actually saying this. They may very well do so in future responses, I have certainly given them the opportunity to respond in such a way, and I'll be happy to share the results.

As I said before, I am quite happy to concede that quality concerns could be an issue. Only, that's not what I am reading into it. And I have nothing to gain from concluding in either direction.

As for 'characterising any disagreement with [my] opinions as a personal attack' (in reference to my headline 'Kill the messenger'), might I suggest that I brought something to the thread that nobody else had done, and dared venture an interpretation. You return with a different interpretation. Fine. In fact, I think we're probably not that far apart on the interpretation.

However, you chose to add emphasis to a select part of the response, and end your post with the conclusion that 'unaccredited institutions cannot be trusted'. They didn’t say that, you did.

And, 'in light of the precise wording of the message received' that particular conclusion of yours has no basis in fact and, dare I say it, appears to be 'conveniently self-serving'.

It seemed to me that rather than address the objective, you slanted your response towards the sender and the sender's methods and motivations. Hence the 'Kill the messenger'. This, I am sure you will acknowledge, is a common enough expression the meaning of which is pretty widely understood. Perhaps I should have added a variety of emoticons to convey the right impression. As I did not refer to 'ignorant sluts' I did not really consider this a necessity.

I hope this brings us closer to mutual understanding.

Henrik

 

You seem to be having some difficulty answering the question. Why does Brownteal.com credit Kevin Evans as co-author of your manual, and what role did he play in the original dissertation or the writing of the manual?

 

fnhayes:

I was just trying to be funny about the duckhead shirt question. Duckhead makes shirts like that with a symbol of a duck that resembles one you were holding.

Scott

 

Gus makes real substantial contributions to this forum, unlike yourself.

 

Have you read it?

 

You're welcome. But it's "Jimmy." "Dr." will stir up the natives!

 

I believe that Alan Contreras would appreciate Dr. Duck's dissertation even if he didn't appreciate the degree. If my memory serves me (increasingly questionable as I get older), Alan is a well-known birder.

 

I’m sorry, my mistake. I thought you were the Henrik who owned the unaccredited Knightsbridge University. You know, the Henrik that was having a bit of difficulty explaining why dissertations from his school were unavailable to the public.

We already knew that the cut-off point was between accredited and unaccredited before your post. The real question (and the one you ostensibly asked) was, why? Their answer was quite clear: because they trust accredited institutions.

The possibilities are endless. For example, they could choose to accept only dissertations in certain disciplines (such as business or the hard sciences), or, alternatively, they could accept dissertations only from institutions with a specific Carnegie Classification.

Why? What evidence do you have to support this statement?

I hope you realize that, by admitting this, you are agreeing with my assertion that the last sentence is crucial to the gist of UMI’s response. Unquestionably, without that sentence (the one you chastised me for emphasizing the key terms) you could have presented a conclusion that was even more self-serving than the one you proffered. In any event, in formulating your conclusion, you chose to ignore that last sentence, as it did not (admittedly) suit your purposes.

Once again, we knew what the cut-off point was before your post, however, it is not dependent on the available resources. UMI’s reply made it clear that available resources do not allow them to scrutinize even the dissertations they already receive (from accredited institutions), therefore resources to not determine the constraint. Even if we accept your premise of a cut-off point, the question is still why they accept accredited and not unaccredited (we are back to the beginning). As there are not sufficient resources to scrutinize dissertations from either kind of schools, why is one acceptable while the other is not? They answered that question. They trust accredited schools. Trust determines the cut-off point.

Really? It’s the only thing in their reply that addresses the question of why accredited and not unaccredited, which you claimed was the gist of your enquiry. If the question you posed was a different one, then, and only then, could UMI’s reply be interpreted differently.

Please do.

As the owner of an unaccredited school (I am being kind and diplomatic), of course you do. Don't insult our intelligence.

I agree. UMI’s response does not allow a lot of wiggle room. You seem, however, to be trying to avail yourself of every bit you can.

First, you have already agreed that the last sentence was paramount; I simply highlighted the key terms that lent the statement it’s meaning. Second, as for drawing inferences, let me share an analogy. Peter and Paul both ask me to lend them money. Since you know them both well, I ask you if I should lend them the money. You reply that I should lend it to Peter but not to Paul. When asked why, you respond that you trust Peter. What am I to infer is your opinion of Paul?

But I did address the objective; I addressed the precise words (words you seemed to overlook or ignore) in UMI’s reply. I only addressed your motivations because your conclusion was so off base. As you were expressing an opinion, rather than fact, your motivation is a suitable subject for discussion.

The correct term is “don’t kill the messenger” (not, as you said, “kill the messenger”). The phrase is employed when it is believed that the message is damaging or injurious to those who will receive it. What made you think the members of this forum would be look upon your assessment of UMI’s response in that manner? Can you see how employing that term could bolster the argument that you believed your conclusion was somehow favorable to your point of view, and hence, self-serving? Moreover, what about the reference to “duck flailing hatchets?” I stand by my statement that characterizing a difference of opinion (especially before that opinion is even expressed) as a personal attack does not bolster or facilitate civil discussion.

I’m not sure. I think I had you pretty well pegged some time ago, and nothing you have said or done has done much to change my opinion.

 

While in undergraduate school one of my most favorite courses was Ornithology. I often wish I had pursued a second or third career in the field. While taking this course I decided the Painted Bunting was (and still is) my favorite bird. It is simply gorgeous (The male is the most colorful, if I remember correctly.).

 

UMI no longer carries unaccredited dissertations because their customers didn't trust unaccredited dissertations. UMI used to carry unaccredited dissertations. When they did carry them, they didn't call them dissertations. Why didn't they call them dissertations? Obviously because it was important to explicitly and easily distinguish between the two. Why was it important? That too seems obvious, because they weren't held in the same esteem as accredited dissertations. They weren't as trusted. They wouldn't even call them dissertations. They called them "Research Abstracts".

They didn't try to inspect or evaluate unaccredited dissertations then. They don't even have personal that could do that. UMI doesn't employ researchers or scientist. They employ clerks, librarians, and salesman.

UMI is a separate independent company that has managed to leverage itself into a rather unique market. They are out to make a profit and the best way to continue doing that is to make sure that their most important customers are happy. Their most important customers are accredited schools. I would therefore guess that their most important customers weren't interested in unaccredited dissertations. Since so few copies of unaccredited "Research Abstracts" were ever requested, UMI decided to stop carrying them.

Getting back to the thread topic, UMI not carrying unaccredited dissertations is a symptom of unaccredited schools generally not being part of the academic community more than a cause. When they aren't part of the academic community then I don't see how an unaccredited doctorate coming from such an environment could have reasonably made a contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind.

 

Gus, You obviously have no understanding of website preparation, or, as your posts imply, little understanding of anything else. Whenever you poke your nose it you lose all comprehension on what is being discussed.
As I mentioned before, Kevin Evans is the webmaster/instigator of the brown teal website. He has combined the brown teal manual, fossil research, the Dept of Conservation's brown teal recovery programme, the 2000 Government Audit into the whole programme, solicited illustrations from a wide source (including my extensive brown teal photographic library), etc., etc., into an outstanding website. Even you, if you can be objective for more than a minute, will agree that it is impressive, and that if you were capable of such work - I've seen your website - you too would claim co-authorship. Or more likely you would claim sole authorship?!
I believe that Jimmy Clifton read the original draft of the brown teal management manual. Six DegreeInfo members have now received email copies and all have made positive comments about it; as have most of the world's leading waterfowl authorities. As I've said before, why not educate yourself Gus?
Dr Duck

 

Considering that it is my question you are evading, I believe I have a firm grasp of what is being discussed. Why don’t you just answer the question instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Why does Brownteal.com credit Kevin Evans as co-author of your manual, and what role did he play in the original dissertation or the writing of the manual?

You seem to have difficulty understanding plain English. The question has nothing to do with authorship of the brownteal.com Website; the question concerns authorship of your manual.

Why does Brownteal.com credit Kevin Evans as co-author of your manual, and what role did he play in the original dissertation or the writing of the manual?

I wouldn’t mind reading the manual, Dr. Hayes. Could you please tell me who the authors are? Is Kevin Evans the co-author of your manual? A simple yes or no will suffice. Did he assist in its preparation and writing? A simple yes or no will suffice.

In other words, why does Brownteal.com credit Kevin Evans as co-author of your manual, and what role did he play in the original dissertation or the writing of the manual?