"DegreeInfo.com" now a dirty word at CollegeHints.com

Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good,

They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would.

They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home.

Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone.

But I would not feel so all alone,

Everybody must get stoned.

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

> In the absence of any evidence

My eyewitness testimony is evidence. I saw the now-deleted posts.

> Perhaps in the future it would be preferable to couch such
> statements in wording such as “It is my impression that the
> posts in question numbered more than what has been
> alleged,”

Since I know posts were deleted, and since there are 27 posts now (and since Gus could hardly have added posts after being banned), it is my certainty, not my impression.

Rich Douglas wrote:

> Are you saying no one else ever did?

We have all posted in violation of CollegeHints' silly TOS, but only Gus has made the silly claim that he (and you) abided by the TOS.

Bill Huffman wrote:

> I truly am curious as to what your point was in pointing out
> that the official tally at 27 was lower than the actual.

The question was raised why Gus was banned, and I ventured to suggest that Gus's now-deleted posts might be a reason, although it's also true that people at CollegeHints are banned for no reason.

> It appears to me that you've recently taken it upon yourself
> to not try and understand the intent of certain posters' posts

I fully support Gus's high-level intent, which is to expose mills. At a lower level, he has the intent to avoid retracting anything he's said, which gets him into interesting corners sometimes.

 

Your opinions do not concern me.

- Rod Kirkland, DBA

 

It could be that these individuals weren’t banned, Rich, because they didn’t post a message with the specific name of a company or school. This appears to be a legitimate loophole.

This from CollegeHints’ Terms and Conditions for Use of This Website:

• Specific Prohibited Uses
  Any posting that includes the specific names of other companies or schools. [emphasis added]

It seems that referring to a school as CCU, or even Knightsbridge, would not actually be sufficiently specific (there are other CCUs and Knightbridges). Moreover, it is questionable whether Knightsbridge is actually a school, creating an even greater loophole.

So, Rich, unless an individual names a school specifically and unequivocally, employing their full name, such as California Coast University, or Knightsbridge University (Denmark), they would not be in violation of CollegeHints’ Terms and Conditions for Use of This Website.

 

Personally....

I sort of like having guys like Dennis around.... I do not see where differences of opinion on legitimate (although possibly unaccredited) education should result in these terrible religious wars between us.

Remember, the SRU guys read this forum and are laughing up their sleeves everytime they see us go at each others' throats rather than sticking to the message of promotion of quality education, in whatever form that takes.

 

Then I used a poor choice of words in my statement.

I could not agree more.

 

Dave,

I did not imply that it was proper to "attack" unaccredited schools without proof.

The fact is that unless an unaccredited school can provide a tremendous amount of information proving the legitimacy of their degrees and credits, those degrees and credits are worthless in terms of continuing study at any accredited school.

And as far as employment is concerned, I have seen nothing to indicate that there is a significant difference between the accpetance of "legitimate unaccredited schools" and degree mills.

Yet there are many people who will tell you that a degree from legitimate (as they define it) unaccredited school has just as just as much utility as a degree from an RA school. This is simply not true. I don't see how pointing this out could be considered an "attack."

Jeff

 

There isn't, at least initially. In my dissertation study, I polled employers, asking them about the acceptability of various forms of institutional recognition. Because of their lack of knowledge, "state-licensed" and "state-approved" did as well as some forms of GAAP recognition. But when simple descriptions of each were provided state approval dropped in a statistically significant manner. State licensure dropped even more, almost to the level of "degree mill." My conclusion: if your employer (or prospective employer) doesn't understand accreditation, you might be fine. But if he/she does--or finds out--look out. You might be in for some disappointment.

 

Rich,

Did you attempt to measure whether there was a significant difference between the acceptance of purportedly legitimate "unaccredited schools" and blatant degree mills?

If not, perhaps one of those scholars at Collegehints will put together a legitimate study to investigate this.

Jeff

 

How would a simple description of R/A and California approval differ when they describe their activities so similarly??

 

First, it was "state-approved," not "California-Approved." Second, it comes down to what academia does and does not recognize. And it does not recognize "state approval," California or otherwise.

 

Yeah, right. There is only one regular poster over there with a doctorate from an accredited school (or even pursuing one), and he's bound to be banned any day now. Not that an accredited doctorate is necessary to conduct such a study, but why do one that would contradict your most cherished beliefs? One that, if you discussed the results, would get you banned and cut off from your peer group of diploma mill shills? I don't think so.

 

I believe that Rich already answered this and the answer was that there was not that much difference. If more people read DegreeInfo that might be different. The sad truth is that the extremely few good unaccredited school degrees don't have a lot more utility than degree mills.

 

Why not - he got banned here.

There are several pursuing doctorates at R/A or GAAP schools.

 

Please forgive me, but I can't figure out whom is allegedly attacking who in your message. However, my original point was that unaccredited schools are frequently attacked on this board without facts by some of the "experts" seemingly just because the schools are unaccredited. That doesn't necessarily make the opinions any less "expert" but it does make one stop to think about what research and scholarship really is with respect to distance learning. Comments about the "bottom feeders" of distance learning should be substantive in nature. Still, other experts are careful what they say and make fun of, and when they do criticize a school, they offer some factual justification. Many of us owe a great debt to the latter experts and their thought leadership in distance learning, but have been endlessly amused by the former... My view is that the utility of an unaccredited degree depends on the school in question, especially with respect to skill attainment, but that's just my opinion, not an attack.

Best wishes,

Dave

 

Can you give an example of someone "attacking" a school "without facts" just because it is unaccredited?

And who are the "experts" to whom you "refer" while using "quote marks"? The ones that you are implying are not really experts. Would you cite an example where such a person "attacked" a school "without facts" just because it is unaccredited?

Your opinion is not supported by the available data, nor observation. That, too, is not an attack. But I would like you to provide an example of what you say (not opine) occurs. Or should that be labeled "opinion," too?

 

Who?

 

Sure DD(hc) - the Ivy League former St Regis prof. Masters from Columbia University in the City of New York and a doctorate from a state university in the south. His name and where he teaches is somewhere.

 

He who has ears let him hear... Sorry, but it's just my general opinion. Isn't it frustrating when people say stuff but don't back it up with facts? It drives me crazy, too!

Dave

 

So just to clarify, you aren't able to come up with one example of what you were trying to suggest? That would seem to indicate your point was groundless. Like others I can't think of one instance when an unaccredited school has been attacked without reason. If you mean its lack of utility or value has been pointed out, that is pretty clear for any unaccredited school with only a handfull of exceptions.