Degree from UMUC: is it appropriate not to mention that it's from UC?

IIRC, they were once CSU Carson, changing their name to DH in the early '80's.

Given the location, "CSU Compton" would also be apropos.

 

Eric: OT, but how can a doctorate be "26% complete," given the open-ended nature of the dissertation?

 

My UMass diploma just states "University of Massachusetts" on top, and in the text states "given at Lowell".

Does anyone else remember the member here whose sole purpose in life seemed to be pointing out the distinction between University of Maryland and UMUC? I swear he had a revolving light and siren attached to his computer that would go off whenever someone typed the words "University of Maryland". I can't think of his name for the life of me.

 

I feel that in such cases, it is "legally" allowable to call yourself just a "University of Massachusetts" graduate. If the State of Massachusetts felt that calling you a UMass graduate were deceitful, then they would not have printed "University of Massachusetts" on your diploma. Rather, they would have put "University of Massacusetts-Lowell".

This is similar to the University of Michigan, which has 3 campuses (Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Flint). Graduates of all 3 campuses receive a diploma which states "University of Michigan" and graduates of all 3 campuses are considered part of the University of Michigan alumni association. Moreover, diplomas for all 3 campuses are dated at "Ann Arbor". That's even part of the slogan of the University of Michigan regional campuses: "The degree that makes the difference". The Times Higher Education Supplement rankings considers all 3 "University of Michigan" system campuses as one university.

Similar examples are Indiana University and Purdue University systems which award identical degrees to both their main campuses and their regional campuses.

Moreover, I believe that the distinction between campuses within a university system doesn't matter as much, the farther you live from the state. For example, I can guarantee you that here in Asia, nobody would even care about the difference between UMass Amherst and Lowell. Everyone will consider or call you a "UMass" graduate. Another point to back up my assertion: if for example, someone from the University of Hawaii at Honolulu says he is a University of Hawaii graduate, will you call him a liar, since he did not graduate from the main campus in Manoa?

Ador

 

That was a dumb move in my opinion. I live across the Bay from Hayward and still pointedly call the school "Cal State Hayward". I've heard other people do the same thing. I guess it's true that Hayward isn't the most stylish location, but what the hell is "East Bay"? It suggests a generic college campus that was simply set up to serve a geographical area, which isn't a very inspiring idea. (Poor Hayward held a city parade when the state awarded them a state college campus back in the 60's, they were so proud.)

It's perhaps the most obscure CSU, at least up here in the SF Bay Area. (Despite the international fame it deserves because I graduated from it.) I suppose it's better known down in the LA area. It started out with a much tonier name and location: Cal State Palos Verdes. But it was the 60's and LA was experiencing riots and racial tensions. So while the school was still occupying temporary quarters, the state decided to build the school's permanent campus closer to LA's low income communities. So it was moved to a location in the warehouse and oil refinery town of Carson and it was given its new name. My impression is that it was something of a hippy campus in its earlier years, but has since moved away from counterculture into vocational degree programs for a low income mixed race student body.

San Francisco State probably gets more international name recognition from its location in San Francisco than from its association with the CSU system. San Diego State is in the same position. The city of San Jose has more recently acquired a futuristic Silicon Valley image. Sonoma State has the bucolic wine vinyards thing going. And Humboldt State way up there in the rural redwoods is a place apart, unsure whether it's located in California or in Oregon. What all five share in common though is that they aren't just generic campuses. Their CSU connection isn't really the basis of their identities.

And the California Maritime Academy. That one only belatedly joined the CSU system a few years ago. It's probably the most unique of the campuses, with its military-academy-style uniforms, its training ship and the cruises to places like Hong Kong, Tahiti and Chile in which students serve as the ship's officers and crew.

 

According to the Texas constitution, the legal term "The University of Texas" refers to the university system, not UT Austin. UT Austin used to be called "The University of Texas", but its legal name was changed to "The University of Texas at Austin" in 1967. You will note this difference by looking at the seals of the UT system and UT Austin. The UT system seal says "The University of Texas" while the UT Austin seal says "The University of Texas at Austin".

All members of the UT system have equal right to the University of Texas brand name, legally speaking. UT Austin does not have the sole ownership of the UT brand name. When marketing themselves overseas, UT Arlington and other UT system schools always promote the fact that they are part of "The University of Texas", and that you will be getting a degree from the University of Texas.

My point: It is a lie to say that you went to UT Austin if you went to another UT System school. But it is legally correct to say that you studied at "The University of Texas". Whether it is ethically correct is probably a different issue, but the UT System does not seem to mind. Check out this website at UT-Tyler:
http://www.uttyler.edu/mainsite/futurestudents.html
They heavily promote the UT connection and the degree "from the University of Texas". I can give you other UT System websites showing similar promotion of the UT brand.

Here in the Philippines (where I currently live), when you say "The University of Texas", the first things that will come to mind is UT Houston, UT Medical Branch and UT Southwestern, not UT Austin. Probably it's because so many Filipinos graduated in nursing or medical programs from these schools. Graduates of these schools call themselves UT graduates, and I do not have any problem with this.

In addition, UT Dallas' Executive MBA is ranked even higher than UT Austin's (see Financial Times rankings). So UT Austin does not have the sole right to be the only legitimate UT MBA program.

Disclaimer: Written by a just-hired UT System employee.

Ador

 

If it is legally permissible for a graduate of a school within the University of Texas (UT) system to say they graduated from the University of Texas without differentiating between the actual campus, then how is such a claim by a graduate unethical?

Sometimes the level of self-righteousness and self-importance exhibited on this forum is truly amazing. According to your system of reasoning any graduate of Charter Oak State College, Excelsior College, or Thomas Edison State College are acting unethically in claiming to be graduates of said institutions considering that most graduates of these schools complete all their credit hours elsewhere and transfer in those earned credit hours.

In the specific case of University of Maryland and University of Maryland University College, the correct designation should be as indicated on the diploma. As another example, in New Brunswick, Canada, there is University of New Brunswick (Fredericton, the main campus) and University of New Brunswick (Saint John, secondary campus). UNB (Fredericton) and UNB (Saint John) graduates can rightfully claim to be graduates of University of New Brunswick. Further, the Universite de Moncton system of post-secondary schools has campuses located throughout the French-speaking regions of the province of New Brunswick, with graduates able to rightfully claim Universite de Moncton as their alma mater.

 

I did not mention anything in my post about it being "unethical". What I said is that this situation is up for debate. Some graduates of UT Austin will probably argue, for historical reasons, that they are the one, true "University of Texas". I don't agree. There are other UT system campuses (UT Dallas, Southwestern, UTMB, etc.) that are part of the reason the "University of Texas" brand name is quite strong. UT Dallas has I think 3 Nobel prize winners. UT Southwestern has 4, I think.

I did not mention anything about graduates of Charter Oak State College acting unethically. I do not understand why you think I am implying this. What I was talking about concerns the UT system. I personally have no knowledge of the schools you mentioned. Sorry if I offended you in any way.

I agree with you. Good examples.

 

To further strengthen my position on the "feasibility" of using the "University of Texas" name regardless of campus, please refer to the following link to the webpage of Deepak Jain, one of the most famous alumni of UT Dallas and the current Dean of the prestigious Kellogg School at Northwestern University:

http://www20.kellogg.northwestern.edu/facdir/facpage.asp?sid=511

It says that he has a PhD in Marketing from the University of Texas (last paragraph). I do not think the current Dean of Kellogg would risk his reputation by stating something unethical. Nor would Northwestern publish this in its website if it were inaccurate.

My personal, biased opinion: you can say University of Texas, but if an employer asks which campus, you definitely should say which one. I would personally put the campus name on the resume, but that's because I would be proud whatever UT campus I attend.

 

But his vita clearly states that he went to University of Texas - Dallas. Anyway i agree, it is better to put the whole thing including the specific campus. Any shade of grey could be interpreted as black in such situations by people.

Sathya

 

It may or may not be unethical. I guess that depends on how likely it is that people will associate the words "University of Texas" with a particular UT campus (Austin presumably).

If the public associates the UT name with the Austin campus (I'm not sure whether or not that's the case) and especially if Austin is more selective and has a stronger research reputation than an open-admissions campus like UT Brownsville, then a UTB graduate trying to make other people think that he or she is an Austin graduate, hoping to ride on Austin's superior prestige, probably is unethical. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with UTB or its graduates. I'm just suggesting that they should be clear about which UT campus awarded their degree.

Here in California, there wouldn't be any controversy at all in a graduate of UC Irvine or the new UC Merced saying that they earned a "University of California degree". That's because first, the "University of California" name doesn't imply a particular campus, and second, all of the system schools are reasonably similar in role and function.

Back before World War II though, there was a time when the "University of California" really was Berkeley. One by one its major satellite branches were expanded and became full-service UC campuses offering their own degree programs. The words "University of California" without a campus identifier became identified in the public mind as the name of the burgeoning multi-campus system.

Even today though, Berkeley is still "Cal" in sports and to its alumni, while UCLA is "UCLA". But UCLA has plenty of clout of its own in these latter days (it's dominated Cal in sports prowess for decades) and no longer feels any need to ride on Berkeley's reputation.

Not necessarily unethical, nobody's said that. But just conceptually, if students transfer in or clep out all the credits that TESC recognizes, then there might be some ambiguity about where they actually received their education.

 

The name of the institution should suffice for normal conversation, "I graduated from University of Texas", while on a c.v. putting the full name and campus might be more accurate since a c.v. is typically used to gain an advantage over another person for purposes of employment.

I was not implying that you specifically were making any implication with regards to Charter Oak State College. I was using it was an extension of the examples that were mentioned in your earlier posting. I apologize if you took it as a personal attack; not my intention. I never take offense to rational thoughtful discussion, especially when I disagree with someone because I learn far more about a subject that way.

 

No UC graduate won't include their specific campus anyway. I think Berkeley is the flagship campus for the lone reason that it's the oldest, but it would be extremely difficult to find any non-Berkeley graduate who would want to leave anyone with the impression that s/he's from Berkeley, as UC graduates are fiercely proud of their own campuses. Which is also why it annoys many UC students when some Berkeley teams are simply named "Cal" - they usually react with" "Hello... you don't have a sole claim to the title "University of California"! You're not even the most popular UC campus - UCLA is! You're also not the most beautiful campus and you don't have the best UC sports teams, etc., etc."

 

Huh? Now, even I am confused. I know that UMUC is a part of the University System of Maryland, but from reading the postings I got the impression that it wasn't even a part of the University of Maryland. So what is it really?

Is this a matter of a "system within a system" - that is, WITHIN the University System of Maryland, there's a small University of Maryland System which UMUC is a part of (composed of UM College Park, UMES, UMUC, etc.)? If this is the case, UMUC then is as REAL a University of Maryland as the other "University of Marylands." It's just a matter of identifying which campus one graduated from so that there's no ethical issues and misrepresentation involved.

 

The concern is that the unknowledgeable might think that the University of Maryland University College is the distance learning arm of the University of Maryland College Park, which it is not; the University of Maryland University College is a separate and distinct campus of the University System of Maryland.

 

Eric Brown's original statement should have read:

"University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is part of the University System of Maryland. "

 

A few thigns:

The CSU system has both AACSB and non-AACSB schools - so I think the comparision does hold. There are some *better* if you will, than others.

I taught at the very prestigeous Chapman University main campus - and the student and administration HATE that they are linked with Chapman the online school. Many employers they say are confused, and throw the resume in the trash, thinking of the *online* counterpart (I do not necessarily agree, but am passing on my experience). After paying over $100k to get their kids through "the USC of OC", they struggle getting past the first hurdle, so I have heard there will be a name change, whoever said it above, the confusion is from the school. But this is why I think the school did it, due to the confusion factor.

I think every school has a purpose and a mission, but I do not think having the intent of having others think you graduated from another school is the right thing to do. I have a colleague from Uni. of Maryland - VERY good school.

 

Perhaps, but I would be extremely uncomfortable saying I'm a graduate of the University of Massachusetts without qualifying it with the campus identifier.

Even graduates of the flagship campus almost always say they're a graduate of "UMass-Amherst". I think the commonwealth is just too cheap to buy different diplomas.

 

Really? As far as I can tell "Chapman the online school" is very small and adjunctive and entirely in the shadow of the resident school.

There's a moderately extensive selection of online courses through Chapman University College, their division for working adults, which seems to have a heavy on-the-ground presence with extension campuses in California and Washington State. I don't see where they even specify if any entire degrees are available by distance through this unit. They have non-degree programs through University College, some online, many apparently not. I see one clearly online degree, the M.A.E. with emphasis on Instructional Technology, one of the most common degrees for schools of all reputations to offer online, since it's about technology and learning itself, and its audience is almost entirely working educators or technology support staff in education.

There is really that much of a pushback against what looks like a fairly modest amount of online learning at Chapman, with fewer distance learning programs than you could find at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Johns Hopkins, Pepperdine, or LSE?

 

It was shocking to me, but I gave an assignment in my class I taught on the B&M cmapus. It was related to organizational culture. "Discuss one area of this univeristy that you would want changed, and what change mechanisms you would put in place to make those changes happen". Shockingly, almost every group picked changing the online branch campus' name.