disagreement= academic fraud ?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by revans, Dec 5, 2004.

  1. revans

    revans member

    Who or what is an academic fraud, (a label I often see applied here to those who doubt the perfection of the regional accreditation system or dare to hint that some unaccredited entity may have even a bit academic merit) ? Comments, definitions, ideas ?
  2. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I guess that people often use the phrase 'academic fraud' to refer to the attempt to pass academic credentials that don't really mean what other people think they mean.

    It isn't really technically fraud in the legal sense unless somebody relies on the misleading claims and then suffers damages as a result.

    I don't think that the question whether or not the regional accreditation system is perfect (nothing is perfect) or generally reliable (I think that it is) is really relevant.

    And I think that the majority of Degreeinfo participants do believe that some non-accredited programs are extremely valuable. I've made hundreds of posts arguing precisely that, with no ill effect.

    One thing that we often see is new people appearing on this board, arguing for some rather lame species of the non-accredited genus (often schools that have already been the topic of dozens of threads), and then when their favorite isn't immediately accepted by everyone with open arms, deciding that Degreeinfo is an intolerant 'RA or the highway' place.

    I think that if you are going to champion non-accredited programs, you need to think about how you would answer three questions:

    First of all, if we don't have accreditation to guide us, then how would you propose that we separate the credible non-accredited programs from substandard schools and outright scams?

    Second, even if we personally think that a particular program is sound, what reasons do prospective employers and clients have to agree with us?

    Third, are non-accredited programs suitable for all students, or only for certain students in specialized situations? If the latter, how do we determine when a non-accredited program is appropriate?
  3. revans

    revans member

    Rational position

    BillDayson, you seem to have clear and rational approach to these issues of accredited vs. unaccredited, bogus vs. authentic educational entites. It is refreshing to read a well-thought-out view that seems to have no particular ax to grind. Thanks.
  4. Sam Stewart

    Sam Stewart Member

    Re: Re: disagreement= academic fraud ?

    First of all, if we don't have accreditation to guide us, then how would you propose that we separate the credible non-accredited programs from substandard schools and outright scams?

    What if we changed the focus from the school to the student and assessed all student completing a degree to see if they met a set of predeteriminded standards for the awarding of the degree. Then the idea of accreditation might loose significance.

    Second, even if we personally think that a particular program is sound, what reasons do prospective employers and clients have to agree with us?

    This would then be irrelevant as the student is the issue and not the school.

    Third, are non-accredited programs suitable for all students, or only for certain students in specialized situations? If the latter, how do we determine when a non-accredited program is appropriate? [/B][/QUOTE]

    Whatever program helped the student meet the criteria would be appropriate and acceptable.
  5. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Actually, "academic fraud" is a label that gets applied here to folks who do not make a distinction between
    the few legitimate and academically sound unaccredited schools, together with ethical but somewhat substandard unaccredited schools,
    on the one hand,
    and outright mills, together with the subtler frauds passing off 5 or 6 courses as a B.A. or a 20-page book report as a doctoral dissertation,
    on the other.

    In the salon des réfusés there is a common untruth, which you are almost echoing, that anyone who ever defends any NA or unaccredited school gets trashed on this board.

    This is patently false.

    Defense of NA schools is routine--along with a recognition that RA schools will not always accept NA credits on transfer, and that NA degrees do not always meet this or that requirement as a credential for some licensing or other.

    I have defended a fair number of unaccredited schools and have not been attacked for doing so, although some have disagreed with me (and I can cope with that, somehow or other). I also recognize that unaccredited schools suffer from a profound lack of acceptance in regionally-accredited schools and recognize that the person who pursues a degree from a reputable unaccredited school--category 1 above--will very often find the utility and acceptance of his or her degree to be far less than that of an RA degree, or a NA degree, for that matter.

    Dislike of this home truth does not alter it.

    Dislike of being called on it when one defends a substandard or an unethical school, let alone a mill, does not somehow mean that a deficient school is no longer deficient because a poser (oops, I mean poster) doesn't like being challenged to defend his or her position by logic and evidence instead of by resentment or by the avowal of a phony egalitarianism which is complacent with others getting ripped off by a shabby outfit.
  6. Dave Wagner

    Dave Wagner Active Member

    Informal degreeinfo.com definition:

    Academic fraud -- saying you have the same or higher degree that I have while not attending my school or one like it.

    Formal degreeinfo.com definition:

    Academic fraud -- inappropriately representing that one has attained an academic degree, title or rank that was conferred under circumstances that are materially dissimilar from what was then generally accepted among peers in terms of rigor, content or competency, regardless of the governmental jurisdiction applicable to the conferring institution.

    Best wishes,

  7. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Multiple posting names

    The poster revans used to post as lysias and then ostensibly as his wife.
  8. revans

    revans member

    Re: Multiple posting names

    Opinion or fact ?
  9. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Um, fact.
    A cursory review of your presently-named posts makes it obvious.
    Why do you ask?
  10. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Re: Multiple posting names

    So revans = Dr. Richard Evans which is lysias? I guess I do not pay enough attention because I did not catch that.

    I do not like calling people names, or labeling someone an academic fraud, shill, apologist etc. However, the same kind of stuff, but sometimes worse is done by your friend at his site. He does the exact same thing that he is so critical of this place for. He has to silence anyone that disagrees (or maybe even agrees with him), or does not trash degreeinfo and the gang often. The hypocrisy is incredible. I may not always agree with the tactics of some here, but I certainly appreciate the information I have received from this site. That information has been much more consistant and real than the bipolar information given out by the other board owner that calls this place degree misinformation.
  11. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Multiple posting names

    Since lysias and revans has encountered a very persistent technical glich on this forum ( " your account may have been disabled by the administrator"), he had to send me, his wife, along to have a say. Is the limiting of the free flow of information and opinions not a form of misinformation ? You decide; I have reached my conclusion.
  12. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Originally posted by revans/Dr. Evans/lysias/rocco5:
    I am not sure why you were banned, nor why you were banned before. However, I have reached my decision, and that decision is to walk my own path. I am certainly not an "RA or no way" thinker, but I also see the necessity of accreditation. I also the value of this site, and will overlook those that have a differnet perspective than me. I would much rather have to overlook someone I disagree with than become so filled with hate that every chance I get I have to put down this site and its members along with the schools that they have attended.
  13. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Multiple posting names

    Where's Cornelia Wilbur when you need her? :rolleyes:
  14. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Multiple gliches, banning, silencing, etc.

    I think my husband criticized SACS in his first post ever to this forum. Knowing his opinionated manner, I am sure he did so in a way that would pique anyone committed to the RA system: technical glich out #1. Other glich outs probably are the result of his relentless refusal to be silenced,.i.e., attemps to return to the forum under other poser, (oops; sorry, a Jankonian slip), poster names.

    It is interesting to observe the rank sexism expressed by some members of this group--they don't think a woman can speak on her own without being a servile mouthpiece of her spouse. Come on, boys, it is the 21st century, you know.
  15. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Multiple gliches, banning, silencing, etc.

    Your “husband," "Mrs. Evans," is a self-avowed agent provocateur. In his first post on this forum his criticism of SACS was not a technical glich [sic]; instead his ad hominem attack of another member of this forum was a direct violation of the TOS.

    Multiple aliases or login names are a direct violation of the TOS of this forum.

    Cut the crap, Dr. Dick. In addition to sharing a (supposedly) unique writing idiosyncrasy with your “wife” (sex with whom, in your case, most sexologists could only describe as a masturbatory experience), you also share something else: a clamorously condescending attitude and a delusional belief that you are capable of pulling the wool over the eyes of most everyone.

    Wow! Do you really believe, Dr. Dick, that the buncombe of making allegations of sexism (although, in your case, having assumed the role of both genders, one can never to which sex you are referring to in your completely fabricated allegations) will convince anyone of whatever point you are trying to make (I’m not sure you know yourself)? Is it your hope that that these cockamamie allegations will detract readers from the real gist of the matter?

    You continually and habitually violate the TOS of this forum and take perverse pleasure in mocking the members and administrators of this forum that you are able to do so with impunity. It would have been much more simple (not to mention honest and honorable), Dr. Evans, to simply petition the administration to reinstate your account. That you have not done so and have chosen instead to post surreptitiously and under various aliases (blatantly violating the TOS of this forum) speaks to your motivation for engaging the members of this community.

    It is truly a shame; I believe your days of posting on this forum are numbered.
  16. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Multiple glitches, banning, silencing, etc.

    I am sure that you are quite right about numbered days. Get a life Gus; so much concern about cross-dressing or masturbation or sexual perversions, etc. reveals much more about you than any poser or other poster. You always seem to move from educational issues to the gutter and talk trash: your typical M.O. Certain others here seem to do the same; and you criticize posturing.

    And who is trying fool anyone? revans is hardly an alias. You just don't like folks from discourse communities that do not agree with your version of the nature of language and of "truth".
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2004
  17. Reminds me....

    The characters in this post sometimes remind me of a description given to me by an old man in a bar when I first moved to Florida..... "sonny, thar's nuthin' down this way but fruits, nuts, and sluts!"......
  18. jugador

    jugador New Member

    Re: Reminds me....

    That's the most accurate description of Florida I have ever read.
  19. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Multiple glitches, banning, silencing, etc.

    Perhaps what you write would eminently much more meaningful if your ad hominem comments weren't such a transparent effort to detract from the real issue at hand: you create multiple aliases (login names), pose as your own wife, and falsely accuse members of this forum of egregious behaviors solely to disrupt civil discourse.

    There is no gutter or trash talk, nor is it my "typical M.O.." The TOS of this forum exists to ensure an honest and civil discussion of educational issues. By blatantly (and continually) violating the TOS of this forum, you prove that it is you who has no desire to engage the members of this forum in serious discussion.

    On more than one occasion, Dr. Evans, I suggested that you contact the administrators of this forum and request that your posting privileges be reinstated (for what it is worth, I even stated publicly that I supported your reinstatement). As I previously mentioned, it would have been the honest and honorable thing to do. The fact that you chose instead to continue to post under various pseudonyms and pose as various different individuals proves that your intent is solely to mock the members and administration of this forum and disrupt our community.

    I too would suggest that you “get a life’” Dr. Evans, but it seems that you have more than one already. Repent! The end is nigh.
  20. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    train up a child, or, the sorrows of Albion, or, Gorgiasms, anyone?

    This individual/Symposiastic duality teaches at an Episcopalian prep school in Houston. Jabbering about communities of discourse is no substitute for ethics. Fifth-rate sophistry ain't classicism, either. Ick.

Share This Page