Defending the Non-Wonderful, or Seeking the Wonderful?

But where do you draw the line? My education falls within the wide realm of liberal arts but also includes a later aquirement of a mish-mash of seemingly unrelated extra credits in the fields of business, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and even a smattering in the area of law. Does that mean I ended up as a CEO, surgeon, dentist, pharmacist or lawyer? Of course not, I'm not qualified for any of those professions. But I did end up as part of a team responsible for editing text and reference books that help to instruct students who will end up in those professions. Does that mean my responsibilities are "lesser" enough to justify that any extra credits clearly needed to perform the job could be effectively obtained from unevaluated sources? Again, of course not. It's true such work may not receive the same financial compensation or status as a CEO, surgeon, dentist, pharmacist or lawyer, but for obvious reasons the responsibilities it does entail had better be taken seriously by those who undertake them. Now you might argue that this example is in fact one of those "specific, quantifiable cases" but the bottom line is it's still not neurosurgery. However, resulting works will be instrumental in instructing budding neurosurgeons. So again, where do you draw the line?

Kit

 

That is very sloppy. You stated it, don't leave it to me to clean it up. It isn't about what I know and don't know, it's about what you said. Either you can back it up or you can't.

 

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

Exactly. Nothing more clear can arise in this thread.

 

Shall the pot say to the potter...

Paul Wittgenstein to Maurice Ravel: "The performer is not a slave."
Maurice Ravel's reply: "The performer is indeed a slave."

The cobbler has the last word, not the last.

 

Feeding the troll!

We're feeding the troll, Uncle.

Such people want to represent themselves as attaining an academic distinction that they have not in fact attained.

No amount of smoke blowing can obscure this fact.

If they were REALLY interested in the value of non accredited, non externally validated education for its own sake, WHY WOULD THEY INSIST ON ISSUING ACADEMIC DEGREES? A mere certificate would surely meet their needs.

But, no. What the troll wants is to be confused with legitimate academics.

 

Re: Feeding the troll!

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/compos.htm

 

Re: Re: Feeding the troll!

Simply posting a link means nothing. Be specific.
Jack

 

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

Egads Dayson, I think you've got it! Not in regard to the side issues Jimmy mentioned, but in the simple statement "Those are two separate issues." From the start of this now convoluted thread the trouble is two separate issues being argued AS IF they were one issue.

UA schools already have a "right" to exist; prospective students already have a "right" to pursue UA education. However there is no corresponding right for UA schools to expect the degrees they offer to have widespead acceptance, similarly no corresponding right for UA degrees holders to expect their degrees to command widespread acceptance either. It's the corresponding rights issue that is causing confusion. "Rights" and "corresponding rights" are two separate issues.

An "is" does not logically lead to an "ought", except in those cases where the "is" already includes an existing equality. For example, RA and NA are officially recognized as equal forms of accreditation by the US DOE and CHEA while UA by its very nature is not recognized at all by either. Without already existing recognition of all three as equals there can be no expectation that all three could be afforded equal acceptance. After all, another right afforded to UA schools is the right to seek their own DOE/CHEA recognized accreditation. If they choose not to then they and their students must accept everything that goes along with that choice, including the fact that any education provided is not subject to the same widespread acceptance as that provided by accredited schools because there is no existing equality from the start.

Kit



Postscript: To defenders of UA schools in their most commonly found forms: Please spare the retort that accreditation is voluntary rather than mandatory. That's not an opposing argument. It's simply a statement of fact, just like stating the fact that recognized accreditation exists. Curious that so many UA defenders cite that voluntary vs. mandatory fact as an argument while simultaneously claiming to be defenders of UA rights. The only thing that would eliminate the right of UA schools to operate and the right of students to choose UA schools is if DOE/CHEA recognized accreditation were made mandatory for all post-secondary institutions. So to put forth the voluntary vs. mandatory statement as an argument you are in effect actually arguing in favor of the demise of UA education. But the answer is not to simply eliminate all recognized accreditation in deference to UA schools either. First, it's not going to happen because outside verification is already a demonstrated need, you need no more proof than the proliferation of diploma mills. Second, if those diploma mills continue to flourish then mandatory DOE/CHEA accreditation is more likely to occur, with the result being the end of all UA education anyway.

 

Re: Re: Re: Feeding the troll!

Sorry about the brevity of the post. I had intended to explain that I felt the comment about motives was an attempt to generalize to the whole the perceived motives of the few.

Unfortunately, before being able to explain, I had to run to tend to matters that had me away from home until 7:30 or so in the morning, at which time I wasn't much up to explaining.

I've nothing much more to say on this particular topic for the time being, since it will be some months before my dissertation is complete. I have to focus on other things for a while. I'd like to thank everyone for the interesting input and for the opportunity to consider some interesting food for thought.

Cheers.

 

Regarding some posters' proclivity for burying everyone in rhetoric, I offer Mark Twain's comment to a correspondent:

Sorry for such a long letter. I didn't have time to write a short one.

Words to live by, especially when posting in discussion threads.

 

Amen, Doctor Douglas.