Dr Neil Hayes' Birthday!

Re: Re: Why bother....

Somebody et way too much candy.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why bother....

No, just too much duck soup!

 

So, how does a brown teal taste? Somehwhere between a spotted owl and a bald eagle.

On a serious note, happy birthday to Neil.

 

FOUL!

 

No interest or stake in the subject matter however I too thought ersatz was a fantastic word and tried in vain to use it yesterday. Coffee was my favourite candidate but the opportunity proved elusive!

 

How about:
ersatz schools
ersatz distance learning fora
ersatz doctors
ersatz posts.

Have fun, will travel.

 

hmmm. All good but not the sort of stuff my colleagues talk about.
And I try to keep clear of the controversial topics, as I am not au fait with the obviously long and complicated history...I safely watch from this side of the Atlantic...

I should of used 'my wife bought ersatz potato waffles at the weekend, not Birds Eye variety'...

Do you have potato waffles in America?
I've only eaten sweet waffles over your way!

or maybe 'I'm playing football (soccer) this Thursday, hope I make the team and am not an ersatz'...

Either way almost as good a German invention as the VW.

Bring on more words of the day...maybe merits a post in here...

 

I get the impression that he wants recognition. He seems to have received some of that in New Zealand (I can't say how much), but he apparently wants to be considered a scholar and to be able to use the title "doctor".

I don't think that he's alone in that. This board is crawling with the same stuff, witness all the interest in "testing out" and the fact that virtually everyone here already has, is enrolled in, or is contemplating a doctoral program.

It's just that Neil seems to have actually done more real work (on his ducks) than most and has a much stronger sense of entitlement. So he sought out programs that would just award him a doctorate without any muss or fuss. And that led him to places like KU.

Whenever KU was criticized here, he passionately defended it. And every defense consisted of him citing his own brown teal writings. He obviously thought that his work was good (and maybe it was), so he argued that meant that his degree was also good, and therefore the university that granted it must be good as well. But that's pretty obviously a non-sequitur.

 

I think that this closely approaches the core of the matter. I don't remember anyone trying to assert that Hayes' work on the Brown Teal was anything less than legitimate. Without reading his "manual" I was willing to concede this point. However, even a well written book is not the equivalent to a doctoral dissertation. I could sit down tomorrow and write a book on the assessment of adolescent psychiatric/behavioral disorders but, even if it were published, positively reviewed and used in classroom applications, it wouldn't be the equivalent to a PhD dissertation.
A Teal is not a Swan.
Jack
(BTW, I hope you had a good birthday and have many more. I have no ill will toward you . I'm just unwilling to accept a lie for the truth.)

 

But it could be, right?

 

Possibly. But what does anyone have to go on? A degree awarded by a university with absolutely no recognition as a degree-granting institution, no measures of quality, and no legal basis for awarding degrees?

An analogy: You can pour the finest gasoline into a Pinto, that doesn't make it a Corvette--and it will still perform like a Pinto.

It doesn't matter how good the work he did is--no one is disputing it because it doesn't matter. What matters is that he claims two degrees from diploma mills. The fact that he didn't carry out a doctoral degree program, that he doesn't have other, recognized university degrees, and that he shopped his stuff around to two diploma mills DOES matter. No matter how well his stuff stacks up--and I'm making absolutely no judgment on the matter--it isn't a doctoral degree program, and the degree he claims was issued by an entitity that neither has the legal basis for awarding it, nor any form of recognition for said degrees, nor even a single assessment of the quality and/or legitimacy of the school itself.

Oh, and let's not forget the illegitimate manner in which his degrees were issued. Based upon not a course of study and a dissertation (or, even, a dissertation alone). No, based upon a book or books and non-scholarly articles, none of which were produced under the supervision of a university, inside or outside of a doctoral degree program. There isn't a recognized university on the planet that would have granted Neil a Ph.D. If there was, why didn't he seek one out and go that route?

No arguments about the volume and/or the quality of Neil's work changes any of that. It is a specious argument that does not go towards the issue.

I wonder how the New Zealand media would approach a story about someone awarded a QSM and claiming two fake doctorates?

 

Rich,

Have you read his dissertation?

 

Just so, Rich. I read it. The work was (I think) of doc-level quality.

But anybody who has worked on a real doctorate, successfully (you) or not (me), knows that revision, supervision, and double vision are an intrinsic part of the deal. If Hayes has prior legitimate degrees, could he have schlepped the thing to Oz or SA and found a willing academic partner in revising the thing? Almost certainly.

But he would have had to admit that his earlier choices weren't real universities (in order to meet the no prior submission requirement) and he would have had to admit that his work might need improvement (in order to meet the intellectual humility requirement and comply with a proper supervisory process). I am not sure that scholarly filiality is Dr Hayes' strong suit, and as a result his work, however meritorious, is an academic digambara.

 

I'm inclined to say 'yes'.

People outside a formal doctoral program can and sometimes do perform research and make contributions equal to those found in doctoral dissertations. They can display general knowledge of their subject equal to what doctoral students display in their comprehensive exams.

 

No. Geez, how many times do I have to say it? I'm not trying to judge the quality of his work. It is irrelevant to my point--that he bought two degrees issued in an illegitimate fashion from two entities not legally entitled to issue them. The ducks and his treatment of them are not relevant.

 

Why pick on the Pinto...

Ok Rich, using the Pinto analogy; if you pour premium gasoline into the Pinto does it burn any hotter when it is rear ended?

 

I would agree that this would be a measure of quality of the program, but certainly not of the degree or issuing school. But....

He had no committee at TC&U.

According to Neil--all our information about his doctorate comes from him--he didn't have a committee at Knightsbridge either. (That's because he didn't actually do any work under that school's auspices.) Knightsbridge appointed an external reader who approved Neil's work.

There were also some shennanigans related to the field of study. I think it got changed from his original area to some other--and one that the reader wasn't degreed in. I think Bill Huffman would know more, and it was certainly discussed on this board.

Fake degree, fake process, fake school, non-existent committee, no real doctoral program followed, shopped around to other degree mills, etc.

What is the difference between what Neil did and just self-awarding himself a doctorate? No committee, no processes, no doctoral program he followed, and he claims a title from a "university" that has no legal basis for awarding it! What is the difference between Knightsbridge awarding a Ph.D. and Neil just claiming it? What does Knightsbridge add beyond Neil just self-awarding the degree?

 

This is the bottom line, isn't it? The nub. The core. La pointe centre.

The quality of the dissertation has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the degree.

How many times does this point have to be made?

I have, in my time, read many God-awful dissertations--all from RA schools. I have often asked myself--and any who would listen--how in the *#@%* "this thing" got through the committee and was awarded a doctorate. In the end, however, it's not my call. If the school has a basis for awarding legitimate degrees, then the degree is legitimate, whether or not I agree that it should have been awarded.

Likewise, if the school is illegitimately awarding degrees, then its degrees are illegitimate, regardless of the quality of whatever work was done in furtherance of that degree.


When judging the legitimacy of a degree, the focus is always on the basis of the institution's degree-granting authority, never on the quality of the work.

There are thousands of people who write books but do not have a degree. Some of these books are of dissertation quality. You would not say that the latter category had earned a degree ipso facto because of the quality of their work. You might say that they ought to have one or that if there is a God in heaven some school will reward them with one, but until one does they are sans degree. Sine. Bupkiss. Nada. Außenseite.

Perhaps there are those who wish to defend Knightsbridge as legitimate. My sense is that there are few on this board willing to walk this plank. If so, the logic is undeniable. If the institution granting Neil his degree is illegitimate, then his degree is illegitimate.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Jeez.

marilynd

 

English, French, Yiddish, Spanish, German, Latin (+ sine, got stuck on that!)

With a score of 7 Marilyn wins the coveted 'Most languages used in one post award!'