Canyon College and the PhD(c)

Copyrighted EMail ... wow

Well, I will have to admit I learned something on this one.

However, your point is not as crystal clear as you think:

1. While you were correct that the EMail was indeed copyrighted when it was fixed to a tangible medium, in order for damages to be sought, it would have to be registered;
2. As I would chacterize my derivative work as one of criticism, I would assert that my quotation of the EMail was done under "fair use" doctrine.
   [/list=1]
   http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
   
   But I do thank you for opening my eyes to a more thorough examination of this area

 

But on the other hand ...

Here you pretty much have left me tired of listening to those who play the "holier than thou" card.

I have been very clear about my reasons and rationale for posting what I have. However, I have spent the majority of my time defending myself from that slings and arrows of you and the "truthiness" police.

When true and legitimate discussion and debate gets shouted down by a few because under the guise of false morality and intellectualism, there is little motivation to continue.

My anonymous self has already been attacked, I will not take your bait and subject my true persona to the same treatment.

 

Re: Copyrighted EMail ... wow

Glad to hear that it could be helpful. There are some other points in the code about transmission of copyrighted works to a public medium and using all or substantially all of a copyrighted work that are germane as well.

Dave

 

Re: But on the other hand ...

You should have spanked those guys in private email (if you think that is right) and and then raised the general issue of quasi-academic designations in this public forum; both of those actions would have been appropriate for an anonymous poster, in my opinion. Instead, given the context of your actions, some might (needlessly) wonder what sort of scholar is being produced by your alma mater. Context is king. Named wrongdoers should expect to be challenged appropriately by named accusers, me thinks.

Dave

 

Yes indeed, context is king ...

And, in fact, that is what I did.

Which, again, was my primary concern as some of the PhD(c) crowd are currently students at my alma mater. But, yet, again, you obfuscate my previous efforts with your faux morality by ignoring the fact that some of the EMails I posted were to refute others' claims that the institution in question was nothing more than a diploma mill. The institution's responses surprised me and did not seem in keeping with the actions of a dubious program. (In fact, I am still receiving updates about records corrections from a program official.) Apparently, demonstrating intellectual integrity is not as important in modern discourse as adhering to someone's self-established rules of conduct.

Which you seem to ignore when I am the one to point out the context of this forum makes full open disclosure potentially harmful. One not need look too far to see how many of these threads devolve into vitriolic pissing matches all because one person decides to begin enforcing his/her own brand of moral starndard keeping. The problem, of course, "enforcement" entails sublte and not-so-subtle character assassination.

But, thank you again for teaching me another lesson: Online forums are simply not capable of hosting true and honest discussion and debate. As soon as something that challenges someone's "truthiness" is posted, the namecalling, false analogizing, vemon spewing begins.

In the future, instead of attempting to seek honest insight or make intellectual contributions, I will my postings to nothing more than "For further information, see this (website)."

 

Re: Yes indeed, context is king ...

Look, you violated netiquette by posting private emails. You concealed your identity. You accuse others of misusing academic designations. You embarrassed your school by bringing this matter to a public forum. You accuse me of obfuscation and practicing faux morality, as I try to reason with you. You suggest that those trying to discuss this are assassinating your character. You claim intellectual integrity yet defend posting copyrighted material without the permission of the author. You continue to post to this discussion while whining that it is unfair. Did I miss anything? You might want to stop this line of reasoning and move on.

By the way, I think you'll find that most everybody on this board is smart and reasonable, if you'll change your approach.

Dave

 

This PsychPhD person is exhausting. I really don't care how people claim their real, fake, or in-progress degrees. There are many more important issues in the world.

 

You're not the only tired one

Didn't realize your accomplishments meant so little to you that you wouldn't mind if others claimed them as well without doing the work you did. Why did you put the effort into earning an MBA if you didn't feel the degree had some worth?

I will agree with you, trying to maintain integrity is exhausting, especially when there so many who believe it isn't an "important" issue.

 

Re: You're not the only tired one

I never said my accomplishments meant little to me. I really couldn't care less about what someone else claims. My MBA has a tremendous amount of worth to me. I don't believe any of that worth is diminished if someone else lies and claims the same degree. Its not like I forget everything I learned just because someone lies and says they have a degree they did not earn.

The man [or woman] makes the degree, not the other way around. Focus less on others and more on yourself and you will find yourself a much happier person

 

Obviously this thread is not leading to anything productive or of value to the majority of posters. Yes, if we were speaking about a professor from one of the reputable distance graduate schools who engaged in a misrepresentation of their actual academic attainments then such a discussion would potentially be very enlightening and therefore meaningful. However, because of the unaccredited status of the school in question it of no significance how a faculty member of such a school represents their academic credentials because it really does'nt matter. The degrees offered from such programs are literally useless in the majority of work and professional contexts as well for licensure and certification. Therefore the actions of a faculty from such a school is not representative or reflective of the vast majority of faculty serving in RA distance doctoral programs.

In addition, PsychPhd appears to present himself as a martyr who has been victimized by a number of posters on this thread. Unfortunately he does not comprehend that his "victimization" is of his own conception due to the fact that what he perceives as being very significant and valuable is interpreted by a consensus of posters as being irrelevant.

 

OK ... just stunned

Unless/until that person takes a job from you or causes your profession harm to its reputation because of his/her misrepresentation.

Of course not, but how do you think teachers and psychologists feel about the work they put into their advanced degrees only to hear misinformed people assert "Oh, anyone can do your job"? Doesn't actually earning the degree/credential count for anything?

Oh, c'mon ... yes, you take your education and use it as a part of your whole "package." But have you no respect for those who actually do the work and earn the credential? If it is just about "the man [or woman]," why earn the degree in the first place?

Actually, I will be a happier person when we, as a culture, live up to our mythical belief in our society being a meritocracy and not more bound up in flash over substance.

 

Simon has spoken

Yet, here you are, once again presuming to tell everyone what is valuable/productive.

Actually, simon, if you'd actually read a thread before jumping in to criticize, part of my concern was that students from a reputable distance program were misrepresenting their credentials. There is something to be said for maintaining academic integrity in general. I'm sorry if this does not pass your "specificity test."

In reality, simon, PsychPhD is just annoyed at those such as yourself who don't contribute to a discussion thread, just whine about either its existence or the contributions of individuals. I was perfectly fine to ask the question, get some answers and be done. But no ... people like you had to start accusing me of everything from hijacking the forum to wasting your time. Hey, its like those people who complain that some television programming is not appropriate for children -- don't like it? Change the channel!

You don't think this thread is of value? Don't read it.
(And if it is worthless, why on earth would you post to it?)

The only reason I have hung around is that people have been defaming me personally. But given that you have, once again, ignored the content and jumped in to criticize someone personally, your motives are perfectly clear.

 

PsychPhD,
I suspect that some day, you could bring value and become a respected member of this forum. However, your e-persona is so abrasive, your message will never be delivered as intended.

Forums like this are great for exchanging ideas and opinions. You seem to think opinions are wrong if they do not align with your beliefs. I think you will find much more success on this forum if you start to accept the fact that others may not agree with you.

 

Re: Simon has spoken

PsychPhD: Yet, here you are, once again presuming to tell everyone what is valuable/productive.

SIMON: Not at all. Just expressing my opinion and observations.

PsychPhd: Actually, simon, if you'd actually read a thread before jumping in to criticize, part of my concern was that students from a reputable distance program were misrepresenting their credentials. There is something to be said for maintaining academic integrity in general. I'm sorry if this does not pass your "specificity test."

SIMON: Your points are obvious. Of course "there is something to be said for maintaining academic integrity". In fact I will take it a step further. Academic integrity is a critical factor and no one has contested this fact . So what else is new? However, the actual issue is the hyper-intense nature of your protestations regarding this issue that reminds me of individuals who engage in hyperreligious protestations. These individuals focus and speak incessantly regarding morality and hold others to their beliefs and worldviews. So the question one may ask is what is the underlying rationale for individuals to be so intensely preoccupied regarding issues of morality and ethics? I believe Shakespeare understood this mechanism very well when he stated "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much".

PsychPhd: In reality, simon, PsychPhD is just annoyed at those such as yourself who don't contribute to a discussion thread, just whine about either its existence or the contributions of individuals.

SIMON: More pompous and self-aggrandizing rhetroic. In fact you are clearly overstating the signifcance of your thread which quite frankly is primer level in content. What you have presented is not revelatory and you are disrespecting the sophistication and savvy of other posters by insisting that ONLY YOU understand the significance of "academic integrity".


PsychPhd: I was perfectly fine to ask the question, get some answers and be done. But no ... people like you had to start accusing me of everything from hijacking the forum to wasting your time. Hey, its like those people who complain that some television programming is not appropriate for children -- don't like it? Change the channel!

SIMON: No one is accusing you of anything BUT you are setting the grounds for your own martyr and victimization syndrome. You are entitled to do what ever you like and posters can do the same.

PsychPhd: You don't think this thread is of value? Don't read it.
(And if it is worthless, why on earth would you post to it?)

SIMON: And the same standard holds for you. Don't read and respond to my posts and if it is worthless why on earth are you reading and protesting so vehemently?

PsychPhd: The only reason I have hung around is that people have been defaming me personally. But given that you have, once again, ignored the content and jumped in to criticize someone personally, your motives are perfectly clear. [/B]

SIMON: Of course you discount the fact that you have criticized other posters personally because that would not fit in very well with your perception of being a martyr and a victim. This lack of understanding of your own online behavior and conduct is unacceptable to a number of posters and along with your "holier than thou" condescending attitude has resulted in the flurry of posts regarding this thread.

 

Ignorance is bliss

Ahem ... "Obviously this thread is not leading to anything productive or of value to the majority of posters." Please enlighten us as how speaking for "the majority of posters" is you expressing your "opinion."

Then how do you explain the several posts that said, in essence, "Who cares if someone exaggerates their academic credentials?" I realize I'm nothing but a "hyper-intense martyr" but that certainly doesn't sound like respecting academic integrity and accomplishment is a universal given.

Again, simon, if you'd actually read what I've written, I -- unlike you -- ask people to clarify their positions when I am puzzled by them. I have never asked anyone to "hold" to my beliefs, but have asked them to clarify theirs.

This time read your own posts!

Oh really? So why then are you here (once again) posting, not about the topic, but about the person who authored the thread?

Are you really this oblivious? I began this thread and you are addressing me directly. I'm supposed to "turn off" my channel and allow you to crticize me unchallenged? (You're probably too busy to notice but I do ignore your "contributions" on all other threads.)

Unlike you, I do not criticize others personally, but challenge their statements. The only time I may say something about someone personally (like you) is after they have attacked me! Love how you attempt to spin the result so that your mudslinging is characterized as "preserving the forum" but someone defending their own reputation is "playing the martyr."

Yes, the content of this thread probably ran its course several days ago, but then you felt it necessary to tack on your off-topic rant about me. I've asked you before -- and you ignored the direct question -- what is your agenda here?

I've explained mine -- your turn.

 

Thank you so much for your assessment

Hello, kettle? It's the pot calling. You're black!

Nice try at subscribing your behavior to me. As a professional educator, I am 100% ready to accept (and potentially assimilate) what other people have to say if their "opinions" are based on evidence, not intuition, and their presentation focuses on the message and not the messenger.

As I have said to simon, the only reason I have taken the time to respond to the two of you is that you insist on criticizing me personally. I think there is plenty in this thread to indicate that there were some unexpected views and that is what I sought to understand better. I simply am stunned by those who continuously assassinate the character of the messenger and attempt to disguise it as "concern."

I welcome your continued contributions if you have something to say about the topic of this thread.

 

Re: Well, you have surprised me

Claiming to be a PhD candidate is not the same thing as claiming to be a degreed PhD any more than claiming to be a presidential candidate is the same as claiming to be president.

 

There is one big difference between a PhD candidate and an ABD: the PhD candidate is still in the process of researching, writing, or defending the dissertation, whereas the ABD has officially washed from the program. In other words, the ABD is a former PhD candidate is one who, once upon a time "ran for" the title of PhD, but was not "elected" for that honor by his/her committee, whereas the PhD candidate is one who has completed all but the dissertation, but who still has the opportunity to be "voted" a PhD by his/her committee members. So, the two are not interchangeable. So, it is simply a matter of knowing when it is kosher to change "PhD cand." to "ABD" (or "MA cand." to "ABT").

 

Hmm ... that's a new one

This is interesting. I had not heard of this distinction made before and have seen people who do use "ABD" and "PhD candidate" interchangably.

But, my core question still remains if it is really ever kosher to use ABD/PhD(c) as a title. To reiterate, I am not suggesting that people cannot indicate a program in process (or even one that was left before graduation) on a resume/CV. But it is like the distinction the media makes between saying someone "attended Big Fat U" versus "graduated from Big Fat U". "Attended" insinuates they did not complete a course of study. While PhD(c) (even ABD) does represent a legitmate stage of doctoral study, isn't it a milestone analogous to noting which year of undergraduate study one is undertaking. Saying you are a college junior is fine, but would anyone really put on a business card "BA (junior)"?

I find it curious that there is an intercollegiate code dealing with the colors and style of academic regalia, but the question of academic status is left largely unanswered except by convention.

These related Wikipedia articles are interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

 

Re: Re: Well, you have surprised me

I would agree with the spirit of your statement, but -- as the back-and-forth of this thread has demonstrated -- I don't think the general public understands the distinction in the academic realm.

It would be rather difficult for President(candidate) to assume the powers and privleges of the office held by one, but PhD(c) isn't as plainly obvious.

Though the idea of John Kerry showing up in the Oval Office and trying to sign legistlation into law is an interesting image!