Columbia State Rolls On

Barry, I read your post and agree that the damage has indeed been done with regard to the thread you provided. I spoke out against engaging in this type of behavior and the responses were none to friendly. I still respect others right to do this, however my feelings have not changed.

The recent events here smack a bit of McCarthyism - - I realize this is a strong statement but that is how I feel. Who has appointed themselves the defenders of DL justice, and more important, why? We are talking about real human beings here, with families, homes and responsibilities. In a fleeting moment, someone’s life can be changed. Suddenly, they are under the microscope with their employer or military commander.

It is worth repeating that I do not condone fake degrees. Yes, if someone has a fake credential and is charged with the public health, they should be scrutinized. That being said, I do not agree with searching for people on the Internet, posting their alleged fake credentials up for all to see, and then secretly working behind the scenes to contact employers and make accusations of fraud. You are one of the few people here I have seen speak out against this type of behavior and I am very sure you and I will not be received well by our friends on the board.

 

Perhaps Mr. Moore was inspired by "Professor" Harold Hill of Music Man fame, who was outed by Marion the librarian.

 

I've watched these sorts of threads with interest but have not participated due to mixed feelings about it. But there is an unstated protocol with respect to this that everyone, IMHO, should contemplate. The rules of the protocol are stated below as assumptions; how many do you agree with?

1) if a prospective employee has a bogus credential on his resume and HR discovers it during the pre-employment process, no one on either side of this issue would object to passing on the candidate.

2) in the pre-employment scenario of situation 1), had the HR department consulted one of its current employees known to be knowlegeable about university credentials (e.g., anyone in this thread), that employee would have an obligation and would not object to pointing out the bogus credential.

3) If a candidate slips by HR with a bogus credential and is hired, no one would object if that employee were fired if HR discovers the credential during a subsequent employee review.

4) If a candidate slips by HR with a bogus credential and is hired, some would object if that employee were fired because another employee discovers and reports the credential (for whatever motivation).

5) If a candidate slips by HR with a bogus credential and is hired, obviously by the existence of this thread some would object if someone outside of the company discovers and reports the credential (for whatever motivation).

6) Rules 4) and 5) don't apply to truly dangerous people with bogus degrees: engineers in nuclear power plants, medical doctors, criminal lawyers, etc. (Rhetorical: Does this include police, fire, and similar public safety jobs? Definately EMTs and the like, but what about....)

7) Some would object to rules 4)and 5) for public figures and people in public service, not already covered in a previous rule.

And this is the main point: for the objectors of scenarios 4), 5) and 7), there is an implicit pass given to those who slip by the system: the Once-in-Don't-Tell rule.

I'm not claiming any special insight into which rules should be followed; I'm just pointing out that they exist.

 

In my opinion, we have the right to point out and discuss anything posted on a public web site.

Also, there are many of us here whose livelihoods are (at least indirectly or partially) threatened by the widespread existence of degree mills and of fraud in general within the DL world. This is why I was so upset by yesterday's Chronicle article about Masters Institute.

 

What damage was done? I posted a link that anyone with Internet access and a room temperature IQ could have found in a matter of minutes. The website listed turned out to be in error. End of story. If it were me listed as having a bogus degree, I'd be glad someone caught the error, so it could be corrected.

I also think the term "witch hunting" is inaccurate. A witch hunt is defined by Webster as "the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political opponents) with unpopular views". Exposing a fraud with bogus academic credentials hardly fits the bill.


Bruce

 

I don't really know about firefighters, but in most cases a degree isn't necessary for a police officer. However, in many agencies, someone with a degree will be hired before someone without, and in many agencies (mine included) a police officer receives substantial salary increases for earning degrees. Someone with a bogus degree in those cases I wouldn't classify as dangerous, but I think it's still fraud, as the taxpayers are paying for the increased salary for the cop with the fake degree, and may even have paid the tuition to the phony school.

I have also heard of some agencies that will waive some parts of the Police Academy to those with certain degrees, and someone with a fake degree who does that I would classify as dangerous.

Anyone who thinks fake degrees aren't a problem....go to Google and type in the name of your favorite degree mill in quotations. You'll be amazed at what you find. As John Bear has said, it really is an epidemic.


Bruce

 

In the federal government, the Outstanding Scholar Program allows an agency to non-competitively appoint job applicants who hold a bachelor's degree with a GPA of 3.5 or better. It's not unusual for multiple selection lists to be referred to the hiring official: one "competitive" list of qualified applicants (ranked by score, selection generally has to be made from the top 3 scores with some intricacies for applicants with veteran's preference,) and an Outstanding Scholar list (where there's NO ranking.. a selection can be made from anywhere on the list.) The hiring official can choose to fill the vacancy from either list.

I was on a selection board two years ago where the selection of an Outstanding Scholar applicant with a Century business degree and a claimed 3.9 GPA was averted. It was an investigative position, and the unaccredited degree would have been "picked up" in the background investigation, but it still would've cost Uncle thousands of dollars to 1) finance the background investigation, drug test, and physical, 2) re-announce and select for the position, and 3) continue paying exorbitant overtime pay to those of us who were "backfilling" the vacant position. And the qualified applicants on the original competitive list would've been screwed.

Every year, the OPM finds phony, mill, or misrepresented academic credentials through it's pre-employment (or post-employment) checks and investigations. When a degree is required for a particular position, and the applicant turns out to have bogus credentials (or, for that matter, unaccredited ones) they're generally "down the road," but at a cost of untold $$$ wasted by the government. Care to guess who picks up the tab? Hint: The bill comes in April.

 

Side note: I arrived in my current position by testing well, working my butt off in lower-graded "grunt" jobs, and transferring often. The first Employee Suggestion Program form I submitted suggested that the government rename what was then the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) exam to a more accurate tile: The Mediocre Scholar Program. I was naturally disappointed when my suggestion wasn't implemented-- I was a GS-4 Park Ranger and could've used the award money-- but I still proudly refer to myself as a "MSP hire" when the topic comes up.

 

Why don't you research your suspects at least as much (which was very little) as you did that phrase. You bothered to at least look it up, which is obviously more than you did to the innocent.

(a) Damage: Ever hear of context Bruce? You errantly labeled someone as a bogus degree holder. Sloppy as hell. Perhaps no damage was done. Perhaps there was (or will be). How do you know? It's like shooting a gun down the street, not hearing screaming, and assuming no damage was done. No harm, no foul -- is that the name of this game?? It's reckless. I still can't figure what gollies you get from this. I don't think *you* get paid by ABC.

(b) Witch-hunting: You know exactly what you are doing. Now you're attempting to justify your actions with redefinition and denial. Call it what you want, but you're hunting down people and 'exposing' them to the public. I call it witch hunting and I think the general reader gets the metaphor.

(c) Public access and the Internet: The public did not search out this innocent. You did. The public didn't post his name on this forum. You did.

You can try to white wash it with another lame attempt to justify this gutter-work with excuses like Bear's that only 1000 or so people see this. So when does it become wrong? At 1001? 100,000? 6,000,000?

 

Okay, I'm convinced. I'm shifting my position. I used to be pretty much against "outing" these people, but those who've come to their defense have really convinced me how wrong-headed such a position is. EVERYONE who claims publicly to have a degree, and that degree comes from a diploma mill, is fair game. They're the ones lying and defrauding others. If you put it out there, you deserve to have your lie exposed as far and wide as possible.

Rich Douglas, sick of the rationalizing.

 

John, what a sensationalistic way to try to put kidDL in his place. It is pathetic to bring up the *very* rare exception to justify this grandstanding. If there are problems with bogus MDs, go get the damn doctors. But do it right.

Of all the bogus degrees in the world, what percent would you think your NC case and other life threatening cases would it represent? If there are so many such cases - as continually mentioned on this forum, why aren't you exposing these? Why hunt down soccer coaches? Or turn Bear-wannabees loose on the internet - loose cannons thinking Google searches constitutes "research" - and of a quality that justifies labeling people in public forums?

I notice that Bear's Guide was plugged in the UCLA story though. Bad press for the coach. Good press for you. John, do you see any ethical issues here? Ethics was a most serious learning objective in my RA Ph.D. program. The purpose was to make the highest ethics a mark of professionalism.

Since you feel the need, you can still "out" people without blasting them with national coverage. Why not conduct your "outings" in an ethical fashion? How about contacting them in advance, before the cameras appear (hidden cameras no less)?

Oh yeah. "We want to educate the public." There's a higher road can taken to educate the public, a road that doesn't leave scrambled, destroyed lives in the wake.

Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime (if there is one)? Is the punishment for having a bogus degree national shame and a ruined career? Who knows what else ... but I can sure imagine some horrible things.

I have nothing against action - taking proper, ethical steps. The coach episode has left at least one life in shambles. (I wonder if he is married and has kids. Do you wonder about that too, John?) You could have done this a completely different way - without the sensationalism. Like quietly approaching the coach first.

But then there wouldn't have been national exposure for John Bear.

Instead of the question you posed to kid, let me pose one to you:

What responsibility for seriously damanged lives should active participants in sensationalistic "outings" be prepared to assume?

The TV station got it's ratings. John Bear got his press. The public got a laugh. The coach .... who knows?

I remain shocked at the lack of clear, loud and vehement protest over this kind of behavior. Only a few have expressed outrage. Again, the way this is being conducted is wrong as hell.

 

I am not coming to any bogus degree holder's defense. I'm arguing for an ethical way to deal with this problem.

And I'm not taking a poll or looking to make friends on this one. The *way* these witch hunts are being conducted is wrong as hell.

 

I have felt the same way. I thought we lived in a country where people were presumed innocent until proven guilty? I thought people had a right to fair trial?

 

I keep asking myself why we are not concentrating on people who have successfully completed a DL program and have received positive press. Why aren’t we searching for respected graduates of Excelsior and UNISA and others and publicly celebrating their good works and contributions to society as DL graduates?

Rich, you wrote posted that anyone who “puts it out there” (fake degree) deserves to have his or her life exposed as “far and wide” as possible. The danger here is digging up information on people and discovering what at first appears to be a fake degree, only to later find out it is legitimate. Where does this blood sport game end? I am reminded of a phrase from the Clinton era - - “The politics of personal destruction.”

Bruce asked, “what harm has been done?” Plenty! Ask Quinn who has been stressed out of certain DL enthusiast’s zeal to expose what appeared to be a “fraud”. There is no excuse for this type of behavior.

I ask you, where is the line drawn? If we cannot be sure of someone’s credentials, then why bother causing problems for this person? How would anyone here like it if someone were to call their employer and make allegations of fraud, even though they are false? A good employment record is now under the microscope. Harm would indeed come, in the form of employer sponsored investigations and co-workers now being “suspicious” of you. Now anything and everything about you is “suspect”.

All of this pain is being caused under the cloak of anonymity of the Internet. My dear friends, something is very, very wrong with this picture. Again, I respect each person’s right to do as they chose, I just ask you to consider the very serious consequences of what may appear to be good intentions.

 

Okay, I just had to dig up this old AED post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=john-2012992253180001%40fence27.ppp.lmi.net[/ url]


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

Agh. Let's try that again:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=john-2012992253180001%40fence27.ppp.lmi.net[/ url]


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

One more time:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=john-2012992253180001%40fence27.ppp.lmi.net[/ URL]


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

Oh. It seems the new version of InfoPop handles URLs a little differently:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=john-2012992253180001%40fence27.ppp.lmi.net


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)

 

I read the contents of the link you posted. Are you suggesting that posting alleged “fake” degree holders is more interesting to the reader then that of success stories with DL? Correct me if I am wrong Tom, but that is how I interpreted John’ s post from the link you provided.

You know, centuries ago it was fashionable in Rome to watch gladiators duel to the death with animals (and even with each other). As people became more civilized, this so called “sport” ended. It was also popular down south to lynch blacks and attracted huge crowds - - did that make it right? Today, it is still considered popular in certain circles to “out” gay people, many times because based on rumor or “suspicion.”

Have we no ethics here? Do you have secrets that you do not wish revealed? What if someone were to search you out, behind your back based on rumor and unclear information? Again, I say these are human beings, with children, spouses and homes. One person on this bored even offered to “discretely” notify NASW “discretely”, based on very sketchy information on an alleged “fake” There is something wrong here folks.

 

*blink*

I have no idea how you came up with that interpretation, but no, I don't think that's what the post meant.


Cheers,

------------------
Tom Head
www.tomhead.net

co-author, Bears' Guide to the Best Education Degrees by Distance Learning (Ten Speed Press)
co-author, Get Your IT Degree and Get Ahead (Osborne/McGraw-Hill)