Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

Gus, I have looked closely at www.brownteal.com and can find nothing in it that says Kevin Evans is co-author of my/BTCT management manual. Perhaps you could tell me where this is stated or implied.
The Manual is the copyright of the Brown Teal Conservation Trust and the author (Me). But allowance is made for any person to use any of the material, provided the extracts are being used to promote the welfare of the NZ Brown Teal.
As I mentioned before, Kevin played no part whatsoever in my brown teal dissertation writing and research. In fact he never knew if was being written. (Kevin was not in fact born when I started working with brown teal). And I have already mentioned what was added to the dissertation before the final version appeared in print.
But regardless of what I say in these posts you will always come up with more garbage.
Bring back Rich I say!
Dr Duck

 

What is BTCT? Perhaps it would help if you shared the official name of your manual rather than resorting to acronyms or jargon. Perhaps it would help if you could tell us whether you and Kevin have co-written any other manuals. Is there a reason to be so circumspect about all of this? Brownteal.com makes numerous references to a manual by Hayes and Evans published in 2002.

I am simply asking respectful questions. That you feel the need to respond with insults betrays the quality of your education.

 

Russell, do you know if this is available? Thanks!

 

Thanks for your kind comments Gus. If you had read my earlier posts you would know that BTCT is the BROWN TEAL CONSERVATION TRUST.
The manual you refer to in the www.brownteal.com site - Hayes & Evans 2002 - is the Husbandry Manual., which is not yet in print in its final form. This manual is not the 50,000 word Management Manual - NATURAL HISTORY, CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & SURVIVAL OF THE NZ BROWN TEAL, written by Dr Duck and published by the BTCT. Kevin's only input to the final edition of this manual was supplying information on Disease Screening - which was not mentioned at all in the dissertation, and which appears in drastically modified version in the Manual. Kevin gets due acknowledgement for this in the Acknowledgements section.
Dr Duck Still smiling in spite of Gus S!

 

Perhaps part of the confusion stems from the fact that you refer to your manual as the BCTC/management manual. Moreover, just so you know, your previous message in this thread was the first time you referred to your manual as the BCTC/management manual.

It’s a bit confusing to have an unprinted manual referenced as having a publication date of 2002, isn’t it? And I was aware that the husbandry manual was not yet published, as brownteal.com references it as follows:

• “A draft captive husbandry manual (Hayes and Evans in prep.) will provide guidance to holders of birds for providing maximum quality and numbers of birds for the release programme.”

However, they also reference it this way:

• ”Use accepted pateke foods, e.g. grains and prescribed pellets as per captive husbandry manual (Hayes and Evans 2002).”

That’s what I always though the official title was. I hope you can understand how confusing it is to see the following reference on the brownteal.com Web site.

• “… and the draft captive management and survival manual (Hayes and Evans 2002).”

As you can see, the words “captive management and survival” appear in the title of your manual and the manual referenced by brownteal.com authored by Hayes and Evans. If this is just an error on the part of brownteal.com, it might behoove you to contact them and have it corrected.

No need to thank me.

 

Joe, will you send me another copy? I had to wipe my hard drive and lost it. Thanks. BTW, any plans for a second edition?

 

Thank you for pointing out these matters to me Gus. I will certainly attempt to get the website clarified and look forward to you requesting an email copy of the NATURAL HISTORY, CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT & SURVIVIAL OF THE NZ BROWN TEAL. The offer is also open to any DegreeInfo members who would like to read about this unique species - and at the same time see that unaccredited dissertations can have some value!
Dr Duck

 

Joe? I thought it's Neil?

 

Oops! My infallibility ceased to exist about six month's ago.

 

Hi Jimmy, Hope the emails arrived okay. We will certainly look at updating the brown teal manual in a couple of years. Positive things are happening at the moment, with lots of Government money being poured into the programme. But Governments change and money can easily be directed elsewhere, which is why we are seeking a major private sponsor for at least a substantial part of the recovery programme. Perhaps Gus may wish to become 'the' private sponsor?!
Dr Duck

 

Gus,

It is interesting that you should interpret my earlier responses as 'difficulty explaining why dissertations [from Knightsbridge] were unavailable to the public'. Since I provided a clear answer to this. But you knew this already.

Mine representing an unaccredited institution does not mean that I have anything at all to gain from the motives and decisions of UMI/Proquest, whichever way they turn. If your assertion that they do not accept documents from unaccredited institutions because they do not trust their inherent quality is correct, it makes no difference as we never have even attempted to submit anything to them for inclusion in their database. This I have previously made clear.

What effect it would have, in the event that we were to have documents included in a database, is that we would simply enter with another body, or make the documents freely available via our own web-site. It is not a big deal.

However, the fact remains that UMI/Proquest drew a line in the sand. You obviously want to think that this is purely and exclusively a quality/trust issue, where my view is that the resource issue mentioned meant they had to establish a cut-off point, and that 'accredited institutions' was determined as that point. I do not dispute at all that trust/quality could have influenced this decision. You assert that had it not been a trust issue, they would have not mentioned it. Indeed, you assert that because the trust issue is mentioned as the final sentence, this is the most important issue, so much so as to virtually deny the preceding words.

Establishing cut-off points is useful for all bodies handling information, as it means that front-line staff do not need to make decisions, they can simply refer to the policy, and focus on whatever lies within the boundaries established.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
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.

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

HFK: This is the sort of thing I was expecting. You have thought it appropriate in the past to suggest that I was in violation of the TOS here, yet you seem to think it perfectly acceptable to persist with this sort of nonsense. In contrast to what you seem to think, adding cute emoticons to your sniping does not remove the impression that apparently you can only get your point across by resorting to below-the-belt manners.

I told you exactly what I felt about the matter, and you have chosen to not believe this. Just to rub it in, you give me the above. So much for your claim that you're 'all for polite and civil discussion'.

Do feel free to infer anything you wish from the UMI response. However, show me evidence that you are correct. You're pretty hip on asking everyone else for watertight evidence of anything, so perhaps you could provide some of your own, instead of just what you have inferred? Adding emphasis to other people's statements is not evidence that your interpretation is accurate. And is this a good place to ask what the Danish authorities told you in response to your enquiries?! You must, I am sure have plenty 'evidence' to support the unfounded opinions you have posted in other threads.

By the way, what's this about 'our intelligence'? Have you several identities here? Is that a royal 'We'? Do you represent everyone here?

You think you addressed the objective. You did not. You addressed what you inferred to be the only correct interpretation. At the same time telling me that I was not allowed to add an interpretation of my own. And then rounded off by casting aspersions on my motivation.

I know the expression related to the demise of bringers of bad news. You're so wrapped up in your desire to correct me that you fail to understand the significance of the amendment.

I wonder if you realise that your final paragraph exactly highlights why you are unable to enter into any kind of productive exchange with me.

You demand evidence. And you will not believe what I tell you, nor do you have any wish to concur with any conclusions I am ever likely to make. I suggest you contact UMI directly, and see if you do not receive similar responses.


Henrik

 

You chose to ignore this earlier. I believe that it provides further evidence that while the "UMI resource issue" may be true, the fact remains that it is unreasonable and does border on "insulting intelligence" to argue that it is the over riding concern.

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 scientists. They employ clerks, librarians, and salesmen.

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 customers will continue buying their product. 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. (my reasonable conclusion)

Getting back to the thread topic, I believe that 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. (This is speaking generally as I've already mentioned what I believe are exceptions in previous posts in this thread.)

 

Henrik:

Here’s what you had to say why dissertations from Knightsbridge were unavailable to the public:

• ”a) There is no list of dissertations/theses available. This, in fact, is a bone of contention here, and one that has been gnawed on several occasions. More than likely there will be such a list made available. This, and a few other things that we wish to do, requires manpower, however, and so additional cost.”

I guess this is where you got the idea of limited resources being the reason dissertations aren’t available. It strains credulity that the best excuse you can come up with for why dissertations from Knightsbridge University aren’t available to the public is that you are incapable of even compiling a list. As such, I would characterize that as difficulty explaining the reason why the dissertations are unavailable. How much trust does a university inspire if they can’t even maintain a list of their dissertations?

Anything that enhances the prestige, apparent legitimacy, utility, and acceptance of unaccredited schools benefits you and Knightsbridge University.

I do understand that you have not, would not, and cannot submit any Knightsbridge University dissertations to any body or database. How could you? Knightsbridge University seems incapable (or unwilling) to even compile a list.

Guess what, Henrik? UMI's original words are posted for everyone to see. There’s no need to regale us with your ability and expertise in taking Brobdingnagian leaps of logic.

I didn’t add any emoticons to message, nor was there any sniping. What are you talking about? Moreover, I am under no obligation to believe everything you say simply because you said it. Why do you feel the need to play the victim? Do you consider it an acceptable debate tactic, or do you do it out of sheer frustration at not being able to logically counter an argument? At least in this regard, you are consistent, Henrik.

I did. In fact, I used UMI’s own words as evidence. I didn’t paraphrase or spin; I simply highlighted the key terms you chose to ignore.

You posted your interpretation; I posted mine. What’s your problem? The members of this forum can read both and make up their minds for themselves without you having to continually spin UMI’s statement. The big difference between your conclusion and mine is that I pointed out the specific statement and terms that led to my conclusion. You chastise me for doing so only because you cannot do the same.

As you are now alleging that I have posted unfounded opinions, could you please specify exactly what they were or provide links to them? Otherwise, you are just making baseless accusations.

What I meant about “our” intelligence is that I consider that the members of this forum (you are aware that I am not the only one reading this, right?) are much more intelligent than you acknowledge. You habitually post information, opinions, and conclusions that strain credulity, and then have the hubris to act indignant when they are contested (just as you are doing in this post). In the future, if you wish to insult only my intelligence, I suggest you send me a private email.

What aspersions? This paragraph exemplifies everything I have been saying. When you try to convince us that Knightsbridge University would not benefit from something that would enhance the legitimacy, utility, and public acceptance of all unaccredited schools, it strains credulity. It also insults our intelligence when you play the victim by making asseverations such as stating that I said you were not allowed to add an interpretation of your own (my posts are here for everyone to read).

The significance is that you were trying to cast yourself in the role of the victim before any contradicting opions were expressed.

It seems that your definition of productive is to either agree with you or remain silent. I have no intention of changing your mind, Henrik, as I don’t believe that is possible. The intent of my posts is to protect the public.

I will concur, as is my wont, with those conclusions that I feel are logical and have a firm basis in fact. Moreover, unlike you, I don’t have a dog in this fight.



Tell you what, Henrik. Why don’t you, instead of posting messages that are nothing more than long-winded, nausea-inducing spin, answer the polite questions that Mark Israel asked of you? He (and other members of this forum) have been waiting for days for your promised reply. Moreover, these questions have been asked many times before, yet for some reason, you keep evading them. I’ll even make it easy for you: click here.

 

It is UMI's policy only to catalog dissertations that they consider to be legitimate scholarly contributions. They lack the resources to ensure that themselves by reading and evaluating each individual work, and instead trust that the university that issued the degree made that determination for them.

In the case of non-accredited schools, UMI can't simply trust the universities to vet the dissertations. If UMI were to include dissertations from non-accredited schools, they would need to create a resource-intensive method for individually evaluating them, essentially duplicating the university's work.

This is all directly relevant to the questions of this thread: the academic participation and scholarly productivity of non-accredited doctoral programs.

You Henrik, are the owner and proprietor of a non-accredited "university", one that at least superficially appears very doubtful. To suggest that UMI's policy is irrelevant to you strains credulity.

It's not "below the belt" to point that out. To suggest that it is implies shame.

Compare my example from early in this thread of City of Hope. This is a major LA-area medical center with a long established research tradition. In the 1990's it rolled out a Ph.D. program that was initially CA-approved. (It was subesquently accredited by WASC in 2001.)

Prior to its accreditation by WASC, the UMI issue was clearly relevant to CoH and I'm sure that they would have cheerfully admitted it. They would have also directed our attention to the other ways that they made their research product known, such as journal articles, conference presentations and patents.

 

Bill,

Didn't mean to ignore you, did not particularly get the impression that your point was for my attention more than anyone else's, so didn't rush to it.

How come that if I interpret something different to Gus, I am insulting his intelligence, and when he interprets the same thing in a different way he is free to just insult?

What I posted was what I thought it said, and how I read it. I did not refuse to acknowledge that the trust/quality element could be at all important. Nor do I at this stage. I just still do not agree that it is the, as you put it, 'over riding concern'. I think we agree to differ on this.

You ask a question about UMIs actions and the reasons for same. I have no idea what caused them to call documents from unaccredited institutions something other than dissertations. I am not sure if you know, either, it's my impression that you're guessing. You may be guessing correctly, but a guess it appears to be. Anyway, I just thought I'd get an idea of what the beef is nowadays, as apparently noone else had contacted them directly.

It really does not make or break my day or even a couple of my seconds if you or Gus get a statement from UMI to say that they don't accept documents from unaccredited institutions because they do not wish to use the UMI name to vouch for their content.

I did promise to follow up, by the way. I wrote them back as follows:

"When you say that you 'trust in the decisions made at accredited institutions to maintain the integrity of our database', does this mean that you would not similarly trust in the un-accredited institutions to do the same? Or are you saying, as was my interpretation, that resource considerations means you had to establish a cut-off point, and accredited institutions was the most obvious place to set this?"

And they answered:

"You interpreted it correctly. A line had to be drawn in the sand and this was the most obvious place."

Let us assume for a second that it was reasonable before to infer that because they referred to being able to trust the accredited institutions, they were in effect saying the could not trust the unaccredited institutions. Now, when asked directly if they in fact do not trust unaccredited institutions, they answer that my other interpretation was correct. And this is the one I've argued all the time.

By the way, I suspect that documents from unaccredited institutiouns would have been but a drop in the ocean in terms of numbers.

Your comment about not being part of the academic community has merit. Employing exclusively adjunct faculty means that there is no staff research being undertaken in our name, even if the faculty we use are well placed in the academic community to which you refer. This again is linked to funding. Most academics undertake funded research only, and funds come from external sources. We are not attached to such income streams.

The publishing of documents also in fact links to the funding concept.

However, the idea of a doctoral thesis (which would be the US dissertation) from an unaccredited institution as not being capable of adding to the sum total of human knowledge is rather unsubstantiated. We're not talking of 'the academic knowledge of mankind', in some sort of way that 'this knowledge has merit only within these spheres'. If the assessment guidelines are clear on what is expected, and the supervisors and assessors are qualified, there is no reason why the outcome should not measure up favourably or comparably to what is done at accredited institutions.

What you refer to as 'the academic community' would appear to encompass accredited and similar institutions only. If this is a correct interpretation of your concept then the notion that anything from any unaccredited institution will not form part of the 'academic community' is obviously self-fulfilling. I am not ruling out that I've interpreted this incorrectly, these are wee hours.


Henrik

 

Henrik’s opinion, supposedly before he contacted UMI for the second time:

An exact quote of UMI’s response to Henrik’s second contact:

Now, what are the odds of that?

 

Henrik, I'm sure the majority of DegreeInfo members enjoy your posts and your knowledge about unaccredited DL institutions is most certainly an important part of this site - otherwise there would not be a section on 'Accredited versus others'. Don't read too much (if anything) into the rude comments which emanate from Gus and his cohorts.
Whilst Gus and his two mates may have something to offer any knowledge is invariably poorly displayed by their intrinsic confrontational style.
As I've said before, these people would not survival two minutes in the real DL world, as they would very rapidly be devoid of any students.
Dr Duck

 

Gus,

I know what I stated, and I know the context. So do you. Twist what you like, you're wrong.

Rather than make the excuses you seem to think, I responded to a straight question, whether a list of dissertations was available. A list. It was made clear from the outset that we had not ever tried to submit documents to UMI. So the issue of a list existing or not as related to the issue of submitting documents to UMI is completely beside the point.

In that same exchange I was also asked:

"Can people (colleges) request copies of these dissertations?"

And I responded:

"Individuals and organisations with a proper reason can request the loan of such documents. Such bodies would usually be sponsoring parties or colleagues. Their knowledge of the document would have come directly from the author."

A list is not needed. All submissions are in the library in alphabetical order. As we do not receive hundreds and thousands of these, it is no great trouble to locate the documents without referring to a library listing.

Show me where I said that the documents are not available to the public. What I said was that there was no list of these documents available. The list, however, of things that you will deliberately fail to believe is getting pretty long.


Originally posted by henrikfyrst
Mine representing an unaccredited institution does not mean that I have anything at all to gain from the motives and decisions of UMI/Proquest, whichever way they turn. If your assertion that they do not accept documents from unaccredited institutions because they do not trust their inherent quality is correct, it makes no difference as we never have even attempted to submit anything to them for inclusion in their database. This I have previously made clear.

GUS: Anything that enhances the prestige, apparent legitimacy, utility, and acceptance of unaccredited schools benefits you and Knightsbridge University."

We're talking about UMI and unaccredited institutions here. I knew from the outset that they did not accept documents from unaccredited institutions. By your logic, if I had wanted to benefit Knightsbridge I'd have done better to ignore the whole thing. I was curious and interested, and did what nobody else seemed to have done recently, seek information directly.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
What effect it would have, in the event that we were to have documents included in a database, is that we would simply enter with another body, or make the documents freely available via our own web-site. It is not a big deal.

GUS: I do understand that you have not, would not, and cannot submit any Knightsbridge University dissertations to any body or database. How could you? Knightsbridge University seems incapable (or unwilling) to even compile a list."

Let me see how I can make this clear to you: If we were to submit documents to a database, we would not submit a list, we would submit electronic files, one at a time, in the format specified by the people behind the database. They would be probably not very interested in receiving a complete listing of all the documents we hold with each new submission.

There are numerous such databases available. Would you like to contact them all to confirm your 'cannot' claim?

QUOTE:
"Guess what, Henrik? UMI's original words are posted for everyone to see. There’s no need to regale us with your ability and expertise in taking Brobdingnagian leaps of logic."

Original words on what, exactly? Are you talking about what I posted here, or referring subliminally to some other source of information?

QUOTE:
"I didn’t add any emoticons to message, nor was there any sniping. What are you talking about? Moreover, I am under no obligation to believe everything you say simply because you said it. Why do you feel the need to play the victim? Do you consider it an acceptable debate tactic, or do you do it out of sheer frustration at not being able to logically counter an argument? At least in this regard, you are consistent, Henrik."

That's odd. Go back and look at the toothy individual after this sentence:

"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."

And this one:

"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. "

And several others in your various other posts. It seems we have different views of what 'sniping' constitutes. As for logically countering an argument it becomes a bit tedious to try when the other party keeps adding to or twisting their original points. Victim? In your dreams, I am sure. By all means use age-old on-the-floor tactics, there are many fond memories.

QUOTE:
"You posted your interpretation; I posted mine. What’s your problem?"

Well, yes, exactly, that's pretty much what I said from the beginning. Only suddenly you want me to prove that my interpretation is accurate. I simply ask you to do the same, and so you change tack. Now it's back to 'we just disagree, see'.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
And is this a good place to ask what the Danish authorities told you in response to your enquiries?! You must, I am sure have plenty 'evidence' to support the unfounded opinions you have posted in other threads.

GUS: As you are now alleging that I have posted unfounded opinions, could you please specify exactly what they were or provide links to them? Otherwise, you are just making baseless accusations."

You know full well. So, what did they tell you? I have this odd feeling that you received a response that you did not like. Why? Because otherwise you'd have plastered this forum up and down with whatever you got. Why not answer the question?

But let me take a couple, just to remind you:

" The bottom line is that Henrik stopped posting here because his answers were doing Knightsbridge University more harm than good. It’s that simple."

" I believe Henrik’s motivation to post here was both to attract prospective students and have Knightsbridge’s materials (Web site, etc.) scrutinized by DegreeInfo members in hopes of receiving suggestions that would make them appear more legitimate and less ”millish.” (He failed in the first goal but somewhat succeeded in the second.) If an individual as eloquent as Henrik cannot present a, honest, credible, straightforward and persuasive argument in favor of his own unaccredited institution, perhaps the value really isn’t there. What is certain, however, is that the same suave sales pitch that may be successful with naïve prospective students does not (and did not) pass muster here on DegreeInfo." (Pick any sentence you like. And while you're at it, why don't you show me where you found the universal link between external approval and legitimacy - it would be quite a miracle, as nobody else has been able to find it).

"As local consumers still probably won’t be affected (once again, who in their right mind would pay for lower quality when higher quality is available for free?), but sooner or later someone will come to the conclusion that a plethora of questionable “Danish” schools tarnishes the reputation of the legitimate ones."

Unfounded opinions.

Originally posted by henrikfyrst
I wonder if you realise that your final paragraph exactly highlights why you are unable to enter into any kind of productive exchange with me.

GUS: It seems that your definition of productive is to either agree with you or remain silent. I have no intention of changing your mind, Henrik, as I don’t believe that is possible. The intent of my posts is to protect the public."

If your assessment were correct, we'd have the same definition. We cannot have a productive exchange, as you deliberately will distrust anything I post, whatever it may be.

Protect the public? That's rich if ever I saw a rich thing. From what, if I might ask? From making their own decisions without asking Gus Sainz if they should? From enrolling in a 'sub-standard' programme, so called by you because the awarding institution does not enjoy external approval, and on no other basis? What qualifies you to assess quality standards? Or is your only criterion that 'if it isn't approved by an external body, it's sub-standard'?

I should be happy to answer Mark Israel, indeed I am writing the response in between addressing your mile-long defences of the public. If you were not so dogged in your approach, Mark would have received his response long ago.

Could it be that you're changing to this approach only because I asked you for details of what you learned from the Danish authorities?

Do let us know!


Henrik

 

Gus,

Is that really the best you can do now?

You're not playing victim, I hope, in order to gain sympathy?

Does the information I have posted in any way contradict what I have said before?

Does the information I have posted in any way contradict what you have said before?

Did I say at any time that the first quote was made prior to mine contacting UMI the second time? Did I at any time indicate how often I have communicated with UMI? Does the sequence or timing of communications between myself and UMI in any way detract from the information provided?

So, the only point remaining, Gus, is this: Do you also this time refuse to believe the veracity of what I have posted?


Henrik

 

Doc Anatidae,

I suspect Gus could probably do great services to any institution, as he displays a good combination of tenacity, productivity, insight and an ability to communicate this. His confrontational style likely stems from 'knowing to be right', and this has a place in certain circumstances. However, it could be that this particular forum brings out such a behaviour, for all we know he could be the sweetest guy on Earth.

Confrontation is not a problem with me. It goes beyond confrontational, though, when you keep stating that you simply do not believe what the other party is contributing. Where can you go from that?

'The real DL world' is quite forgiving, in fact. Most people should feel able to fit into some pocket of their own. Indeed, the organisational possibilities available are often a lot more flexible and thus appeal to a broader range of people than life in residential institutions. Of course, nowadays this is, if i may be allowed a pun, pretty academic, as most traditionally residential institutions offer distance learning programmes.

Right, 0130hrs, got to see some pillows, early morning coming up.


Henrik