Defending the Non-Wonderful, or Seeking the Wonderful?

Quinn:

Seems to me that is the ultimate goal of any degree.

If a school is only licensed can it be considered scholarly?

Quinn FWIW I don't think it's worth it to forever having to defend an admitted mistake. You're time would better spent toward earning an accredited degree.

Like it or not unaccredited degrees are not useable in several states which tells you something and all are subject to " Time Bomb Explodes in..." stories as Kit and others have mentioned .

Dan

 

A degree is a proxy, attesting to a set of skills, knowledges, values, etc.

A degree is a degree only if we (collectively, as in a society) say it is.

The only widespread acceptance of unaccredited degrees is by mistake (i.e., the acceptor doesn't realize the degree is from an unrecognized school).

There are a very few exceptions to this, and those schools should be lauded.

The rest of them, except for those clearly on an accreditation track, should be treated with great caution, and the default value there is non-acceptance.

Q: Can a quality education take place in an unaccredited school?

A: Yes, but the degree issued is not proof of it.

 

Is every degree issued from an accredited school proof of a quality education?

 

This, in addition to Kit's post above, pretty much sums it up for me.

Thanks, all - including you, QTJ, for a generally good discussion of the issues.

Newbies:

Hopefully a lesson learned re: the widespread utility (and peace of mind) that comes from working towards and finally possessing an RA/NA/PA/mGAAP degree.

Is personal (non-professional, non-economic) satisfaction derivable from an UA degree? Most definitely.

Will the existence of the increasingly volatile angst over the proliferation of UA degrees in the US and abroad ever cease? Most definitely not.

Thanks.

 

Yes, to the extent that it denotes the completion of an externally-validated, independently-verifiable, MINIMUM SET OF ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESSES, from an institution of higher education that can be "trusted."

Do these "quality" minima vary widely across the spectrum? Most definitely, "Yes."

Thanks.

 

Nice try, Dr. Douglas.

But I've spent many years defending white collar criminals engaged in fraudulant activities.

I know what a con artist sounds like. I know how a con artist works.

You will never argue a con artist out of his con because the con can make him loits of money with little or no effort.

To the con, that's more important than personal integrity. It's more important than whether other people are damaged by his con. It's more important, certainly, than any duty to the academy or human knowledge.

A con artist has only one advantage over a pimp and that is that most con artists are not violent.

But like a pimp, a con artist has no conscience.

 

It's not the money and it's not indifference to harming others. It's about 'besting' others. Much of all crime is that. Think of it as conscientious cuckolding.

 

If you can listen to many athletes who have graduated from accredited schools and say they received a quality education, well, I don't know what to say.

If you can read incidence after incidence of random interviews with students on accredited college campus who don't know basic grammar, American history, etc., well, again, I don't know what to say.

 

don't forget the...........

-------- Plagiarism of thesis and dissertations comes to mind.

 

until

Until the day:

(a) The United States Federal Government

and / or

(b) Each individual state Government agree

and therefore

(c) Collectivly all fifty states agree to adopt a NATIONAL POLICY on regulation of higher education that is enforceable across the (50) states with no exceptions or variance

= ......these debates are hot air.

 

decimon,

You're right about that; the con artist derives much pleasure from feeling smarter than other people.

Gosh, it makes me angry.

The con artist works essentially by preying upon the greed and gullability of his mark. Diploma mills certainly work this way..."For a (substantial) fee, we'll look at your resume and award you a LEGAL COLLEGE DEGREE based upon your life experience (plus maybe a ten or twenty page paper and you MIGHT have to tell us that you read a book) printed on beautiful parchment with a gold seal!"

"Your diploma will look just like the diplomas issued by MAJOR UNIVERSITIES!"

"Just THINK of what having a COLLEGE DEGREE will do for your career and your financial and social life!"

Implied, of course, is that you will be able to represent yourself as having a Ph.D. degree just like all those college professors and experts you see on TV but without all the "hassles" (read: work) and "expense" of a "traditional" (read: legitimate) program.

"Oh, but beware of so-called diploma mills! Our standards are COMPARABLE to those of famous Universities throughout the world!" (Same breath) "Get the CREDIT YOU DESERVE for your life experience!"

"We're fully ACCREDITED by Ministry of Education of the Sovereign Principality of La Mordida and AUTHORIZED to confer academic degrees and honors!" (Of course, we've never BEEN to La Mordida, nor could we find it on a map, but the rest of the world HAS to accept our degrees because the Prince of La Mordida SAYS so! Just like we paid him to do.)

But in the end, it's the con artist who gets "something" (money) for "nothing" (a worthless diploma).

They are all the same, decimon. When you try to point out that what they are doing is nothing but fraud, you get excuse after excuse after excuse, more and more convoluted justifications and explanations for what, at bottom, is a very simple thing. A straightforward, deliberate LIE.

The ONLY way to fight a con artist is to do it the way state attorneys general do: DESCRIBE the fraud in clear, unequivocal language and reject all "excuses", "explanations" and "jusitifications" because those devices are part of the con artist's trade.

 

Re: don't forget the...........

And let me make it crystal clear I do not support degree/diploma mills.

I simply believe there are good unaccredited schools out there and I don't believe all accredited schools produce quality, educated graduates.

I also believe fraud and deception occur in both unaccredited and accredited schools.

Accreditation isn't a guarantee the graduate earned his or her degree by totally honest means. However, we also know unaccredited schools have produced graduates who took an easy way out and engaged in deceptive practices--family members as proctors, etc.--to get the degree.

Bottom line, it's the person, not the degree, accreditation or lack of accreditation, that really means that much.

 

The point that you appear to be making is a cogent one, but the examples you cite are exceptions to the rule, and not at all the the norm.

We are not saying here that all athletes who graduate from accredited institutions did not benefit from a quality education now, are we? We are saying "some," and that is to be expected. There can be many false positives and true negatives in a sea of provable and widespread adherence to accredited and published, minimal expectations and standards.

Exceptions to the rule, any rule, do not make or break, or prove or disprove the rule. They are merely that - exceptions.

Thanks.



Afterword:

My, oh, my. The temperature is going way up in here!

Even the the usually factually resplendent, sanguine and calm DI contributors and diverse souls are managing to cough up an exclamation or two, an impertulent remark or three, an intemperate vibe or four.

It is ok to exhale, all.

Our DI commune is in no danger of evaporating into vacuous ether due to the presumed "audacity" of one uninitiated - or five - in posting a trial balloon - or six - on these boards.

This, too, shall pass (and may have already passed on by).

Peace.

 

It has been an interesting discussion. Much to think about, from all sides. In particular one point brought forth that has made me have to think is this from Kit:

My first reaction is that this is a variation of the tu quoque logical fallacy, but upon reflection, it is not clearly the case that it is. Having never paid monetarily (or in service, or kind) for UA education or degrees, am I disqualified from arguing their right to exist in a free market? I have never visited Newfoundland, either, but would argue that the Canadian system of freedoms nonetheless says I am free to exercise my freedom of movement to have the "right" to visit there. So, this has given me pause as I am forced to decide what my views on this particular argument are. And being given pause to think on something is an education in itself.

Also, there is Stanislav's note that the University of Nis appears to be a state institution, and thus it cannot be used as an example/test-case of a self-validating institution. My lack of understanding of the ultimate fons of the place leaves me unable to decide if UoN is so disqualified. Perhaps I will have to do some more research as to what their legal foundation was at founding, to determine the case.

Kit also uses the example of "Joe's Medikal Skool" -- which in debating is the use of the per se example to illustrate the need in the general case where things may not be so clear-cut. Of this, I suppose I could respond that I haven't argued that regulation/evaluation of specific competencies is out of the scope of what I believe, and in fact, I have, in a response to George, stated that specific external evaluation would be required by some employers. (Regional accreditation does not qualify one to become a medical doctor alone, as it stands. States already have regulations above-and-beyond pure generalized accreditation of the university at which one studies.)

Which is to say that I am not against state regulation in specific, quantifiable cases (such as competency to do surgery or engage in psychotherapy for example), but am against the wholesale control of scholarly pursuit leading to degrees.

During my research, I came across this:

http://www.quns.cam.ac.uk/Queens/Misc/jargon/CUjargon-D.html

I noticed that in Cambridge Jargon, a "degree" is "Not necessarily a mark of education" and I also noted this: "Bachelor of Divinity - this is a higher degree, so senior that it outranks a Doctor of Philosophy." So much for global standards as to what a "Bachelor" degree means to everyone.

In any case, I'd like to thank everyone here for their input. This week has been certainly enlightening. I have used a temporary lull in my time requirements in order to try to not just argue "for" but to try to get a better understanding of the "against". Moments taken from between waiting for telephone calls during my week off from work to tend to other matters. Unfortunately, I shan't likely have much more excess lull in the next little while, but I certainly shall endeavor to consider all the points made in this thread.

 

Jimmy, I’ve pondered this for years and if government policy is any guide I suspect the answer is no. A university offering professional degrees may possess a state charter, regional accreditation, and endorsement by the respective association (AMA, ABA, APA, whatever) but in most instances graduates are required to jump through yet another hoop and pass a licensure exam to practice in the state. I remember thinking it redundancy gone mad while studying to pass the EPPP to practice psychology in INDIANA after graduating from an ISU program with all the pedigrees. My angst turned to near rage when the trivia maven in my study group said that had we become lawyers and attended Ole Miss Law School we’d be exempt from the Mississippi bar exam. I could never bring myself to find out if he was right or just busting cojones.

 

Ole Miss.

I don't think Mississippi has the diploma privilege any more, if indeed it ever did, but Wisconsin did and does.

If that makes you feel any better?

 

Good enough. Publish, then. No need to call the result a "degree".

BTW, this scenario wouldn't even be feasible if we had over 3000 "publishing houses" in just one country.

So you just gave your own definition of a degree? I don't think you're right; I think that Rich's definition is, generally, much closer to reality. After all, he IS a degreed expert in this very area, isn't he?

 

I'm quite sure this is an exception even among athletes. Of course I'm biased, since my sister is a pretty good athlete at an accredited university . But I do know NCAA has rules on academics and actually enforces them.

 

Re: Ole Miss.

I will certainly be thrilled when the State of Mississippi is no longer the butt of jokes about poor academic quality.

 

Nosborne made a funny

"Principality of La Mordida"

Woo hoo! ROFLMAO!