Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

And if Trinity C&U (not TCU) printed their bogus diplomas on softer stock, that's what one would have.

 

Neil,

If your dissertation creates enough awareness to prevent the extinction of and cruelty to the Brown Teal, then I say humanity, the animal rights movement and the environmentalists owe you a great debt of gratitude. I would imagine God, the Creator of all, is smiling on you.

 

Dear Dr. Hayes, having value is a much larger superset over the discussion of whether or not a dissertation has made an academic contribution to mankind. I do not need to read your dissertation to know that it was not researched under academic oversight and guidance. You yourself have essentially admitted that you did the research on your own and even published your dissertation on your own. You then paid money to Trinity to get a pretend doctorate diploma.

If I was to try to really evaluate the value of your study, I would of course need to read it. If it was a pile of total bullshit then I could judge it as having no/little value. I believe it is very safe to assume that this is NOT the case. To further evaluate the potential contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind I would need to study for many years what the current state of knowledge is or I would need to have the paper read by doctorates in the field and get their opinion. Even if they judged it as having potential academic value, you would still not have a true doctorate in my opinion because Trinity is not a real school.

So my intent was to again try to explain the difference between having value and making a contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind.

I call you Dr. Hayes because I do respect your passion for the Brown Teal and assume that your research does have value to society and our environment. (Even if it wasn't done within the academic environment.) On the other hand your recent personal attacks against Gus has caused you to loose a lot of respect, at least in my eyes. I must admit that I've considered instead of Dr. Hayes, calling you Academic Fraud Hayes because that is the true nature of your claim to a doctorate degree. Again, because you don't have a real Ph.D., it does not mean I don't think that your study has value. It is because your study was not done in academia. It is no more a dissertation than the extensive software engineering specifications that I've researched and produced over the years. Some of these were very cutting edge and if done in academia rather than the commercial environment very well could have qualified as a dissertation. I'm sure that I could take one of these documents and send it (along with a big check) to a huge number of unaccredited institutions and get a bogus doctorate diploma for myself, your own alma mater included.

 

This posting is pretty much on the mark as far as I'm concerned. There is research done every day that makes a contribution to mankind, professional journals are full of this reseach. This doesn't mean that every journal article is a "dissertation." Books are written all the time, by all sorts of people (some of them brilliant and some of them morons and some of the lunatics, etc.) These are not dissertations either. Regardless of the quality of your research, your writing, etc. the fact that you simply submitted a document, paid the fee and voila, a PhD appears in the mail, indicates to me that you did not earn a legitimate PhD because you did not go through the widely known, widely respected, virtually universal process of earning a PhD. This does not take anything away from the value of your research, although I've got to say that we'll never really know since you essentially published it yourself (let's face it, it would mean something more if someone else published it) In any case, you're doing a good thing for the ducks and I appreciate it, even if I'll never see one of the little suckers.
Jack

 

...but if your posts entice just one single unsuspecting person to follow in your footsteps and get a degree from a degree mill like your alma mater, then the Devil is laughing in glee.

 

Personally I don't think Dr. Duck is a quack.

 

This from someone who holds five or six (maybe more?) fraudulent degrees and is the process of pursuing another. How many fraudulent degrees are required before and individual can be considered a quack? I draw the line at one.

 

I don't know enough about wildlife biology to comment on dissertations involving antipodean birds.

But that really isn't the issue here, is it?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Dr. Duck's dissertation was a fine and valuable scholarly work, every bit the equal of what comes out of places like U.C. Davis.

Does that fact, in itself, validate the credibility of Trinity C&U Ph.D.s?

It's certainly a data point. Assuming our assuption about its quality is true, Trinity C&U has turned out at least one scholarly contribution. That's nothing to sneer at.

But does it validate Trinity C&U doctorates in general? Not unless we can be reasonably assured that everyone else completing TC&U doctoral degrees was held to a comparable standard.

Dr. Duck's hard work doesn't prove TC&U's legitimacy if the next guy got his degree with a lot less.

So, unfortunately, we are back where we started. We still need some evidence of Trinity College and University's general standard.

OK, even if it doesn't validate the university, does Dr. Duck's accomplishment validate his own individual doctorate?

Well, since we are assuming that the work really was of satisfactory standard, the manual certainly would prove that Dr. Duck has produced research of doctoral quality.

But again unfortunately, his work would prove exactly the same thing if he had never received his Trinity C&U Ph.D. at all. Countless scholarly contributions come from people without doctoral degrees. It's not exactly clear what the degree is adding that wasn't already there.

It seems to me that a doctoral degree is a certification that publicly certifies that a graduate's work was of doctoral standard. The value of this certification is apparent precisely in those cases where it is impractical for other people to assess the graduate's work directly. Even if I'm in no position to read Dr. Duck's opus myself, if I trust his university then I can trust that scholars did read the work and found it sound.

But that only succeeds if the assessment process itself is trustworthy. If I have no reason to trust the "scholars" that passed on Dr. Duck's work, I have no way of knowing if it is a valuable contribution or not. I'm back to where I was originally, having to read the brown teal manual myself, which renders the degree certifying its value superfluous.

Bottom line: I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that Dr. Duck has made a real contribution, but I'm more skeptical about whether his Ph.D. means anything.

 

BillH, I agree with most of what you have to say, except for the piece about personal attacks. In every thread our friend Gus has been involved in he has attacked - rudely and crudely - everyone who has chosen to disagree with his one-eyed opinions. Whilst the ideal may well be for everyone to ignore his rude comments, the fact is that life rarely works like that.
Take Jimmy's latest post and the reaction of Gus to it! Take his
incredibly obnoxious treatment of Henrik - by far the rudest comments I've ever seen on an internet forum.
In another earlier thread I recited comments made by waterfowl experts in the USA, UK and NZ, after they had read the manual. I have been well known to such people for many years, and today it is difficult to find a modern book on waterfowl and waterfowl management that does not list some of my brown teal papers in the references. To my mind this is certainly the 'academic' recognition of my involvement.
To people have read the manual, and some of my published papers on the subject, recognition of my non-traditional, non-accredited, qualifications are the last thing on their minds. They are far more interested in the content, previously unpublished new material, value, quality, philosophy, management ideas, the message, and recommendations - which is what I (possibly incorrectly) believed this thread was all about.
Dr Anatidae

 

BillD, Thank you for following BillH and between you getting a 'degree' of sanity back into the discussions.
I forgot to mention earlier that when TCU was in South Dakota - they were there when I was involved - they approved very few PhD enrolments, and today they do not offer PhD enrolments. Mine may well be 'unique', just like the brown teal.
Dr Anatidae

 

Whilst Bill Gossett may be an excellent site administrator his comments do nothing to help these discussions.
Dr Anatidae

 

TC&U was never in South Dakota, only their MailBoxes Etc. postal box, something amply demonstrated when the Sioux Falls television station visited the "campus". TC&U, along with most of the other scam "schools" fled the state as soon as SB160 was implemented.

No, they weren't. Gus Payne was in New Orleans and Brett Loebel was in Delray Beach, Florida. Gus and Brett, the web site, two phony accreditors, and an offshore business incorporation in the BVI being all there is to TC&U.

 

But BillG, similar things can be said about a number of higher profile unaccredited universities, as well as a number of accredited universities - who have off-campus mail order post boxes in a number of different places, one person offices and one phone line. You are not really telling anyone anything they did not already know, and it has really nothing whatever to do with the thread under discussion!
Dr Anatidae

 

Neil, you brought TC&U into the discussion.

TC&U is not an unaccredited university, it's a diploma mill, a business whose corporate name happens to include the phrase "College & University". It is not recognized as a school in the BVI, where it's incorporated, and it's certainly not recognized in the U.S.

I find it curious that you frequently refer to TC&U as an "unaccredited, non-traditional university". Do you not believe your own school's claim of accreditation?

 

I would be interested in learning more detail about these accredited schools that have Mailbox Etc. type addresses in different states.

P.S. Dr. Hayes, I appreciate your real contributions to the discussion in this thread. I also appreciate Mr. Gossett's contributions which in my opinion are very relative to the thread's topic.

 

Jack Tracey wrote:
This posting is pretty much on the mark as far as I'm concerned. There is research done every day that makes a contribution to mankind, professional journals are full of this reseach. This doesn't mean that every journal article is a "dissertation." Books are written all the time, by all sorts of people (some of them brilliant and some of them morons and some of the lunatics, etc.) These are not dissertations either. Regardless of the quality of your research, your writing, etc. the fact that you simply submitted a document, paid the fee and voila, a PhD appears in the mail, indicates to me that you did not earn a legitimate PhD because you did not go through the widely known, widely respected, virtually universal process of earning a PhD. This does not take anything away from the value of your research, although I've got to say that we'll never really know since you essentially published it yourself (let's face it, it would mean something more if someone else published it)
UNQUOTE

If I may take issue with a point that Jack has made here, in fact, published work is considered a valid method of submission for the PhD as an alternative to thesis at practically every university in the UK and quite a few elsewhere as well (including, IMHO, Australia and New Zealand in the case of higher degrees such as the DLitt). Candidature is usually restricted to faculty or existing alumni. What happens is that the person in question publishes significant work in his or her field as an independent scholar or outside the academic arena, and then applies to the university to assess this work. They often have to write a paper connecting the publications submitted and contextualising them in the academic spectrum to accompany the books/articles they are submitting.

Although this method of doctoral assessment is little-known in the US, it is actually older than the PhD, particularly as far as European universities are concerned. Until the early 20th century, all UK (higher) doctorates were awarded on the basis of published work or an equivalent unpublished Exercise. The concept of the doctorate at that time was that the applicant would demonstrate through his standing (women weren't admitted then!) that he had made a contribution to his field sufficient to be considered an authority in it. That contribution didn't have to be through research - for example, in music (my field), it could be evidenced through an exercise in the highest branches of the art such as the composition of a symphony or oratorio. Oxford and Cambridge graduates, together with many more at their respective universities, can still supplicate for DMus in exactly this way - and there is no requirement that their work be supervised by faculty or that they register for a period of time before proceeding to examination.

A point that arises is that it might indeed be possible, if one could find a university that would waive the faculty/alumni requirement, for Dr Hayes to submit his manual and related articles and earn a respected doctorate from a GAAP institution. The University of Luton, UK, offered this route for non-alumni/faculty until last year when they ceased to accept new PhD applications. This process would validate his work as a contribution to academic knowledge and his standing as an expert in his field, whilst avoiding the need to deal with dubious institutions such as Trinity C&U.

With reference to Bill Huffman's manuals, I do know that work of an authoritative nature in the computing field would be just as eligible for this type of program. The *published* requirement usually means that the work has been made available to the public - through refereed journals etc. Self-published work may also qualify, usually where it has an ISBN and has been deposited in copyright libraries. So can internally-published work.

The research *process* may be commonplace nowadays, but it isn't the only way to earn a valid doctorate. Few people seem to know about the published route, but there's no reason to regard it as necessarily inaccessible. My view of it is that it's a logical extension of the life-assessment practices practised in DL to the bachelors level by TESC, COSC etc. to the doctoral level.

 

This is a good point and I'm glad someone made it. I'm not certain that it refutes my argument however. My understanding of the "PhD by publication" process is that the individual completes a series of research projects, getting them published in their turn, and then writes a paper, usually a major work in itself, that ties them all together. This is just as Dr. M has described above. There are several aspects of this process that the good doctor has neglected to mention. The first is that the research must be of the quality required for peer reviewed journals. This frequently means having some governing body such as a university department having at least some oversight of the original research process, or some other sort of supervisor who's involved (as Dr. M metioned, the person usually has to be a faculty member already in order to qualify). Secondly, the research must be published. I do not think this means self-publication. The research must be presented in a specific form to the peer-reviewed journal and they will then review the research to see if it meets the quality standards of that journal. Finally, the paper that ties the various pieces of research together is also reviewed by the degree granting institution. I assume that it gets submitted in draft form and goes through a re-write/revision process until it meets the quality standards of the university. This process that I've just described is not that different than the standard PhD process. It probably takes longer as I believe that the number of published research articles necessary to qualify is not especially small, but more importantly, all the work that is completed receives ongoing review and oversight and must pass several steps in the quality assurance process. This would appear to be substantially different from the process used by fnhayes in obtaining his qualification.
Jack

 

The Ph.D. by publication has been discussed several times on this forum. Dr. Bear first broached the subject over two and one half years ago in this thread.

• ”You're right, Leon, it is extremely unusual for the Ph.D. to be given entirely based on work already done, although Luton University in England has done so. More commonly, the doctorate given for prior work is the D.Litt, or Doctor of Letters, but the majority of these go to older scholars, many of whom already have a Ph.D., as a second doctorate to honor them (although it is not regarded as an honorary degree).”

In the same thread, Tom Head had this to add:

• “The University of Technology at Sydney (http;//www.uts.edu.au) is the best Australian example of this phenomenon, but the Australians tend to ask for a comprehensive life review (you know, sort of like what happens midway through the core NDE).”

Tom went on to share this important information.

• ”A fiinal caveat on doctorates by publication: they're marked as doctorates by publication. In other words, you don't get an 'earned' Ph.D., at least not at Australian schools (I'm not sure about what British schools do in this instance); the diploma reads 'by publication,' just as if it were to read 'honorary,' and you're theoretically expected to tell the world how you earned it when you list it on your resume. So while it's certainly a valid way to earn a Ph.D. to cap off a lifetime's work in a given field, it's not a way to skip steps, or cut corners, or whatnot (an approach I totally respect as a guy who earned 114/123 of his bachelor's by examination but which does not, alas, fit this particular route).”

 

The doctorate by publication is a most interesting point within the context of this thread's topic. Since it must be a significant volume of work of already published material, it is even more stringent that the work has made a significant contribution to the academic knowledge of mankind than the more common method of earning a doctorate discussed earlier.

It could never be granted in my example of producing company confidential documents because that wouldn't even satisfy the publication criteria. What also seems clear to me is that producing a work outside the academic community and then sending it in to an unaccredited school and the "dissertation" is not listed anywhere that is publically available also fails either style of earning a doctorate, if for no other reason that it was never really published.

Taking Knightsbridge University as an example, we have no idea of the oversight or the level of work required, which is common for an unaccredited institution. We don't even need to know this in order to know that any doctorates bestowed are bogus if the dissertations aren't published. These type of unaccredited schools that aren't part of the greater academic community don't ever seem to really publish anything, except perhaps advertisements. If they did produce a public list of abstracts (which I've never seen) it probably still wouldn't qualify as publishing because the greater academic community would typically never know about the list or even care if they did know.

Now I really don't mean to pick on Dr. Hayes but he has on multiple occasions suggested his own work as an example of an unaccredited dissertation. It seems clear to me that Dr. Hayes could not earn a real doctorate from Trinity because no one could earn a real degree from a degree mill. If for no other reason than the work is not published. On the other hand, Dr. Hayes work might qualify for a doctorate by publication. Now, if Dr. Hayes had a Master's degree or at least a Bachelor's degree in a related field I think it might help this case? The work would also need to be published? I don't know if those criteria have been satisfied but if they have perhaps Dr. Hayes should try to get a real doctorate?