Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

A most excellent post Tony.

A theme of the post seemed to be that one could make the dissertation part of the body of academic knowledge but it just requires additional work. The implication seemed to be that it was the responsibility of the graduate to put out this additional work. I would agree with that. I have heard of accredited schools that required doctorate students to go on a tour to present their material and disseminate it at other universities.

What I have problems with though is the idea that it is the students' responsibility to not only do the additional work but to initiate this additional work. Isn't it the responsibility of the school to make sure that this gets done? Wouldn't not doing this indicate that the school may not really be part of the greater academic community?

 

Thanks, Bill and Uncle.

I would agree with Bill’s assessment that it should not all be the responsibility of the student to initiate. The institution (if it is truly interested in its students and if it truly has academic merit) has to be a partner in the student’s education by facilitating the process, identifying opportunities, challenging the student to do excellent work, and perhaps most importantly, by fostering an ethic of scholarship. The institution/committee can’t, and shouldn’t, do all of the leg work for the student, but they have to help provide the framework for the student’s educational and research programs.

In my view, the development of a true spirit of scholarship is, to some extent, what graduate school is really about. It is also clearly not something that should begin with the candidacy exam, but rather must be developed consistently and robustly from the start of the student’s program. I think that it is doubly important to have this pedagogical emphasis within an unaccredited program.

Interesting thread. Thanks for pointing it out to me, Bill.

Cheers,
Tony

 

I have to ask, what does Akamai Universtiy do that, you believe, makes it part of the greater academic research community?

 

Excellent post, Tony. Thank you.

 

Very interesting post. It occurs to me that another problem with unaccredited doctoral programs is that the prospective student doesn't KNOW all these ins and outs until AFTER he's heavily committed.

 

Why Gus is right...

You don't get it; Gus is ALWAYS right, and all others are illogical, ignorant, misled or perverse--perhaps all at once. And, of course, I 'm simply bitter at having my ridiculous ideas exposed as such in a public arena.

 

Re: Why Gus is right...

Two points-

You are qouting comments from over a year ago from a degree mill poster that no longer posts here.

You may be right about Gus. After reading his comments for several years I can't remember one that was wrong. I may not agree with his presentation, but his comments are always well researched and thought out. It must be hard to be Gus!

 

Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

In matters of truth and substance, time is hardly the issue. Moreover, are you so sure that Fryst is a mill poster ?

As far as being right is concerned, if you check out Gus's debate with me on the importance of the body present in the value of education, you will see many times when he is wrong, dead wrong; he just can't see it. Anyone who thinks, as he seems to, that the meaning in language comes from dictionaries or lexica and is or should be stable, (the lingusitc theory of abstract objectivism) is very far from right in his basic approach to all linguistic matters regardless of any knack for sounding right, quoting the right sources or eloquent presentation. Logocentrism often appears so believeble on the surface. Of course, he'll say that my remarks are just a cop out for illogical or preposterous claims and propositions. Or shall we say that Gus is the perfect product of the type of education he defends.

 

Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

A third point is that Gus probably won't read it either. I haven't noticed any of his posts in the recent weeks.

 

P.S. Tony, I really enjoyed your "ethic of scholarship" statement. To me, it fits very nicely with the "greater academic community" theme that I keep harping on in this thread only with a focus on the individuals rather than the institutions.

 

A real eye opener is to go back and read the dissertation of someone who has an earned doctorate for 10, 15 or so years. The dissertations I have read are quite simply NOT eye openers. In total they are easy to recognize as being composed by someone with little worldly experience. I'm not sure if this is true for dissertations from "good" non-RA schools since there is a significant age difference in the students at the time the dissertation research and composition is completed.

 

Re: Why Gus is right...

This is an inappropriate, unfortunate, ad hominem attack. What, exactly, does this contribute?

 

Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

If Knightsbridge University is a diploma mill, then yes. If not, then Fryst is a promoter of a business that awards degrees without any academic recognition, and without any legal basis (other than the lack of any legal restriction). I'm not so sure distinguishing between the two really matters much, but perhaps I am mistaken.

 

There was recently a renewal of the attack on Gus on another forum; the old familiars all rejoiced in whatever harassment has been done to Gus; plc scott alone objected. This is an echo of that event. That's all.

The attack was removed by the other forum's proprietor a few hours after it blossomed with several concurring posts.
- - - - - - - - -
I continue to be amazed at the apparent belief that posting on one site carries along with it no moral responsibility for one's postings and comments on another.
- - - - - - - - -
Fyrst, not Fryst.
- - - - - - - - -
Back to Knightsbridge...

 

Rather than post provocative messages here, you could go to UMI and do the research that you, yourself, suggest. Go and read some dissertations from well known well respected schools. Make some comparisons.
I would like to offer my own opinion. Dissertations are nor required to be "eye opener." They are required to add to the existing knowledge base. This addition might seem small to someone who is unfamiliar with the controversies that exist within any given subject area. It might even seem small to someone who is familiar. There is no rule that states that this addition must result in a quantum leap. It might be a small addition and still be valid. BTW, the concept of "worldly experience" is difficult to define. Would you are to offer a definition? Would you care to describe how, according to your own ideas, "worldly experience" is related to the formal requirements doctoral dissertations?
Jack

 

Why is it that the only critics (found on this board and others) of doctoral dissertations done at RA schools are those who have not done one themselves? James Crabb, Neil Hayes, Byran Lee (in his many aliases), David Andersson, and many others.

It's like the situation where the most vocal critics of accredited schools are the ones who claim degrees from unaccredited (or worse) schools.

Perhaps these questions are self-answering.

 

Re: Why Gus is right...

I must disagree. However, I do understand how you may have arrived at this erroneous conclusion; as I have previously explained to you, the only information or opinions I post on a public form are those for which I have overwhelming evidence concerning their veracity.

Once again, I must disagree. Only those who suffer from confused, convoluted, or unintelligible thought processes are illogical; only those who lack information or knowledge are ignorant; and only those who are marked by immorality and deviate from what is considered right or proper or good are perverse. Is it possible for an individual to be all three? Yes.

This just might be one of those rare instances in which we are in agreement on something.

 

Hi Gus,

I guess you were here to read the post.

I do have to correct you on one point. That is, I believe that you are in fact always right. *


* I couldn't resist the amusing dichotomy created by such a claimed correction.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

I disagree; truth and substance may both be time sensitive. If I were to ask you for the correct time, the truthful answer now would be false in just a very short amount of time. Moreover, after 24 hours had elapsed, it would be true again.

I, for one, am; Knightsbridge University is a degree mill.

Why should anyone now believe your opinion or simple undocumented assertion that I was wrong, when, in the thread in question, anyone can see that you expended an enormous amount of time and effort to prove me wrong, only to fail miserably?

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that I believe (as you contend) “that the meaning in language comes from dictionaries or lexica and is or should be stable?” If you cannot, then you are being intellectually dishonest and owe me an apology.

Moreover, I find it ironic that someone who misspells both terms is lecturing me on linguistics and believability.

If you cannot prove your contentions, then I have far harsher words to describe your behavior than “cop out,” “illogical,” or “preposterous.”

You are now, Mrs. Evans (I had forgotten about you; I am now reevaluating my assessment of who voted how on Dr. Gina’s sexual orientation poll) simply paraphrasing an accusation I leveled at you some time ago. The very least you could do is to be original.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

In the past you've pointed to Plato (without quotation or citation) to back up your position and, at different times you've also made reference to distictively Postmodern ideas to back up your position. I refer, of course to the following,
"Of course I don't believe all I think or write ... As my place in dialogue changes (context) so does what I think. There is no final word, only evolving dialogue. (rocco5, distinguishing between ducks, 08/24/04)
Now you're saying that context (time) means nothing. Clearly you cite philosophy to suit your current need. Do you not realize that the foundations of Platonic philosophy run in direct opposition to Postmodernism? You cite both freely as the situation dictates. The TOS forbids a frank response. Members are invited to draw their own conclusions.
Jack