Defending the Non-Wonderful, or Seeking the Wonderful?

Miguel E. Stefan Acta, J.D.

I have been a proponent of certain unaccredited law schools for years. Would you mind telling me, by pm if you prefer, which school you finished you degree at?

I admit that it seems odd to suggest that a degreeholder might not want to identify his school, but this thread IS a little high temperature right now and I could understand some reticence.

 

OK. Now we have established what makes a Ph.D. program wonderful. Can we agree to agree on the above statement?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: mixed metaphor???

1. I don't think so. It claims to prepare "self-evaluation report", just as every accredited school in US. Further, it does speak something about "accreditation" (it's hard for me to read Serbian, although the language is close to mine), and also posts some evaluation report by some European external body, whatever it might mean. Google search "University of Nis site:.edu" turns up many links (mostly in Maths and technology). It seems like pretty decent state school.

 

But that's the point, isn't it? How do I know your dissertation is wonderful? Okay, okay, I'm in Computer Science so I can probably tell. But what if I'm the president of East Podunk State Community College and my background is History. Or a corporate VP with a MBA?

 

geographical maya

The state of Hawai'i is not far enough south to be antipodean.

 

This has been, thus far, a remarkably useful and enlightening discussion. I thank the thread-starter for initiating it and the many thoughtful posts by all contributors herein.

In matters as contentious as these, someone has to defend the oft too-easily overlooked positive role of the often onerous "State". I hereby proceed to do so with no overbearing pleasure in so doing.

Yes, a law, an enabling legislation, had to have been enacted a priori. However, I believe that a better, more defensible re-statement of your position above may be, thus: "better talk to the State Agency or Office or Department, etc. charged with licensing, overseeing, regulating such stores, schools, etc."

Let us not forget that such State Agency (say, of stores regulation, or education regulation, etc) then has to be held totally accountable to the populace via the State Executive and ultimately, the Legislature, which by extrapolation, is the final (and often and generally, the supreme) collective of such State residents and their wishes or at least, that of their democratically-chosen representatives.

In higher education, nay, in all facets of consumer-affecting enterprises, imposition of rules (via critical eyes) by a possibly overbearing State may be onerous but the duty to protect consumers and society in general from any possible harm and malady that can result from the non-imposition of such rules, justify the imposition in the first place.

Examples would include the State's role in regulating and thus minimizing or eliminating the proliferation of persons claiming "degrees" in, say, "Homeland Security Technologies" from entities which are/were not validated by any external or objectively-constituted body. Imagine the fall out with such persons managing/overseeing/being responsible for the security of the State based on their claiming false or unverified or substandard educational or professional knowledge or expertise.

A simplistic example, maybe, but it does make the point.

External validation and accountability to some other than oneself, of sorts, creeps in no matter how you look at it? Yes, it does.

It all boils down to measurement, regulation, enforceable wills and wishes, etc - to wit - some form of external validation. Yes, it appears to matter, even in education - and especially in early childhood education and later on, higher education.

The external validation is necessary, probably even sufficient, to some degree, in areas of the measurement and guaranteeing of legitimacy and/or quality of some self-professed higher education unit, outfit, or operation. It requires a partnership between the measured, the measurer, and the masses - the consumers of the measurement - else it is all to no avail.

The purpose of this partnership, for external validation purposes, would include the development of a set of objectively set and objectively measurable performance criteria for any institution claiming legitimacy in the higher education arena. Such goals would also include audited statements and accompanying performance audit involving internal measurement and external validation to determine the institutions' achievement of these objectively set (and externally validated, performance) criteria.

Taken together, the higher education measurement of these objectively-set and externally measured criteria constitute an aspirational model, a blueprint for excellence. Validation is thus a journey, a process, not the end goal in itself. We may never get to the goal (of uniform quality everywhere) but the process ensures that we may continue to travel that road, without necessarily discounting the wishes of the dissenting minority.

Thanks.

 

Excellent observation.

Graduates of doubtful unrecognized universities want to be addressed as "Doctor", want to be deferred to as experts, and essentially want their egos stroked.

It's all about getting the desired response from other people. When that response isn't forthcoming, tremendous resentment results.

If people didn't value external validation, they would just choose classes and programs because the material was interesting or useful. There wouldn't be all the hunger for the applause that they believe people owe them.

If we are talking about degrees, then I strongly agree.

If we are just talking about education undertaken for purely private reasons, then I don't think that external validation is necessary, so long as the student finds the experience valuable. But if external validation isn't necessary, then it shouldn't be expected either. People can't have it both ways.

Education from unrecognized providers is analogous to reading books at the library. No cheering crowds.

 

Please qualify and quantify that, if you can.

 

No, if anyone reaches that conclusion, I would hope that they would do it by fair and open and qualfied, quantified discussion of the issues under discussion.

 

Im' not Bill, but what's not clear about that. People who use the term "Doctor" expect a certain responce from other people. That's why people use symbols. At least according to my popular book on semiotics.

 

My perception of my own work with a UA institution is not the issue here. The conferral of my unaccredited degrees was a historical legal quirk of timing. I am likely the last ACU doctorate grantee under the old LA law, and I am also likely the only ACU doctorate grantee that has not publicly recanted his/her degrees or used them for toilet paper.

I don't hold on to the degrees in order to be called Dr Jackson. I hold on to them on idelogical grounds, and I weighed and payed the price for my ideology, a weight and price that was my own to carry and pay.

Please be assured that I do not expect anyone here or anywhere to accept that those degrees have any meaning and value whatsoever. As the institution in question as it existed at the time of my conferral no longer exists, there is no viability in their defense.

 

More double talk.

Discussion of WHAT issues? Am I supposed to read your dissertation? The reason we HAVE accreditation and recognition is to make it possible for me to know whether you really ARE an expert in your field without MY having to be an expert as well!

Nonsense.

If you want to establish yourself as an expert in MY eyes, and in the eyes of the rest of the world, get a REAL degree from a REAL school. Don't try to tell me that the deficiency is somehow in ME because YOU want something for nothing.

 

If the issues are not known and clearly and impersonally stated, there can be no rational discussion.

 

Degree is a document. A document without meaning is not a document. Or is it?

 

In the case of my UA degrees, they are likely as much a document to my own stupidity as they are a document of a time past when the Board of Regents of LA liberally permitted the non-regulated issuance of secular degrees from certain 501(c) corporations within their state boundaries.

In the second respect they document a time when consumers like me were allowed to be stupid in the first respect. But we were allowed to be stupid within the bounds of the law, which is one of the signs of a free and open, that is non-totalitarian, system.

So, at least in some people's eyes, they document a less-regulated, more libertarian time when idiots like myself were not hand-held to the Font of State Paternal Wisdom to drink exclusively therefrom.

 

That says it all to me. Get an accredited degree or lament. Got it!

 

Empty rhetoric.

Using a meaningless degree title to mislead others into thinking that the holder IS what he is NOT is an act of personal dishonesty at the very least and quite possibly criminal fraud.

 

You seem to be straying from your original position. The above statement implies that the UA degree was for personal enrichment with no expectations of validity from anyone else and no expectations to use that degree for anything concrete such as career advancement or further education. No one would argue with that scenario. In fact, Bill Dayson has gone some lengths in this thread to support that opinion. If your UA degree makes you happy and you feel it has enriched your life then more power to you.


But then you followed with:

Now you're straying from both your original position and the previous one. Referring to past "stupidity" and labeling yourself an "idiot" definitely implies that you are less than pleased with the results of possible attempts to use your UA degree for purposes other than pure self-enrichment. If you truly feel you made a less-than-informed decision in pursuing and paying for your unaccredited degree then why would you be against others being afforded some protection from making the same mistake? That reaction is tough to understand, in fact the opposite reaction makes far more sense. I don't think it's fair to label all UA degree holders as "frauds" who were looking for something for nothing. Considering many people's lack of understanding of accreditation, I do believe that many holders of UA degrees were simply ripped off.

If you truly believe your first statement that UA degree holders should expect no validation or practical use for their degrees, and believe your second statement that some amount of "stupidity" was involved in your decision to pursue and pay for an unaccredited degree, then it follows that you must also agree with the statement made by Rich Douglas in this thread:

If instead you want to say that everyone should be "free" to make the same decisions you now consider to be stupid and idiotic then that's not a question of freedom. That's more a matter of saying "Hey, I was once stupid enough to make an idiotic decision so everyone else should be subject to fall victim to the same stupidity." That line of thinking is similar to someone saying the Child Labor laws should be repealed since children were previously subjected to being pulled out of primary school to work long hours for little compensation.


Kit

 

1. No money changed hands. I didn't pay for the degree that way. I paid for it by making myself a target.

2. The stupidity was not in seeking the degree, but in making myself a target to those who don't like such degrees and went to certain extremes against me.

 

Nosborne:

Debate requires more than jingo, guffaw, and innuendo.

Some of the issues that have been brought up are:

* Free enterprise,
* Education as an intangible but valuable product on a free market,
* External and internal recognition and controls,
* Individual rights and freedom to pursue non-mainstream product sources,
* The posited insufficiency of internal measures of quality control,
* The posited antithesis of the above (that is, the sufficiency of internal measures in a consumer-driven market),
* The socio-cultural and historic meaning of doctoral conferral.

Statements such as "empty rhetoric", "double talk", "personal dishonesty", "something for nothing" and "quite possibly criminal fraud" are insufficient, and prejudicial to rational discourse.

It appears you do not wish such a discourse on the above * topics. If so, there are many other threads here to participate in that may be more to your liking.