Feedback from state boards and Academic evaluation services re: IUGS & NAB

True. Just for the context: years ago, when John Bear researched the same question regarding HWU MBA, he got the same result: no consensus, widely divergent reports. And that's about a British Royal Chartered degree. So I wouldn't overstate the bearing of this recognition to IUGS or especially NAB legitimacy.
You raised program contents concerns, and that's fair enough. But that presupposes that there's a global standard on what a "doctorate" is and how it should be delivered, which is simply not true. Would you consider a Russian PhD from state school "not legitimate" because of the country's rather stunning plagiarism crisis? Or take Ryokan College your friend ultimately picked:

Many people would contend that's not doctoral level. IUGS maintained a recognisable outer outline of a doctorate; that's all you can expect from an obscure foreign school. It's not any worse than many ACICS, California-approved, and some DEAC DBAs. Is it enough for all cases? No it's not; for one, it'll not earn Steve Levicoff's respect, and for valid reasons (but neither would Ryokan or even RA California Southern). Is it "legitimate"? Hard to tell, but a definite "maybe".

This is absolutely and undeniably correct.

 

Right on.
Actually, if all works out, NAB would accredit four schools: UWI branch, Dominica State College, New World U. (sorry, but I'm not a fan of this name), and IUSG. The latter brings down the average a bit, but there's nothing to justify dismissing the accreditor. Still a bit obscure, schools would benefit from more external signs of legitimacy (DSC has them, and UWI doesn't even need NAB).

 

Stanislav: "True. Just for the context: years ago, when John Bear researched the same question regarding HWU MBA, he got the same result: no consensus, widely divergent reports. And that's about a British Royal Chartered degree. So I wouldn't overstate the bearing of this recognition to IUGS or especially NAB legitimacy."

In addition to the questionable nature of NAB accreditation is the fact that a degree accredited from NAB will always be perceived as questionable, if not worse, by colleagues who possess regionally accredited degrees, as well as possibly by informed, savvy clients.


Slanislav: "You raised program contents concerns, and that's fair enough. But that presupposes that there's a global standard on what a "doctorate" is and how it should be delivered, which is simply not true. Would you consider a Russian PhD from state school "not legitimate" because of the country's rather stunning plagiarism crisis? Or take Ryokan College your friend ultimately picked".

Primarily, in the case of IUGS, they accept continuing education courses and licensing courses towards meeting the course requirements for a doctorate. This fact alone decreases the perception of credibility and validity of a degree from this school as well as casting doubt regarding the accrediting oversight of NAB. I cannot comment on the Russian PHD example you provided without possessing a global understanding of the extent of the plagiarism crisis you mention. However, in regard to Ryokan, although my friend felt this program may best meet his objectives, there are issues with its lack of accreditation, thereby limiting it utility and level of recognition. On the other hand, graduates from their Clinical Psychology program perform exceptionally well on the Psychology qualifying exam required for licensure, higher in fact than many highly regarded regionally accredited universities. Regardless, Ryokan would not be MY choice at this time UNLESS it attained candidacy status from WASC.

Stanislav: "Many people would contend that's not doctoral level. IUGS maintained a recognisable outer outline of a doctorate; that's all you can expect from an obscure foreign school. It's not any worse than many ACICS, California-approved, and some DEAC DBAs. Is it enough for all cases? No it's not; for one, it'll not earn Steve Levicoff's respect, and for valid reasons (but neither would Ryokan or even RA California Southern). Is it "legitimate"? Hard to tell, but a definite "maybe".

I agree with your perceptions regarding the academic standards of ACIC'S doctoral degrees. However, I disagree that California Southern's expectations for doctoral level coursework and final project is on par whatsoever with IUGS's, but is much more substantive. In fact, California Southern's expectations for the Psy.D doctoral project is very similar to those at brick and mortar Psy.D programs. The same holds true for a large number of DEAC doctoral programs that have recently tightened their requirements and expectations for doctoral level course work and dissertations. I personally checked out a number of these DEAC programs and there is no doubt that they have implemented much more stringent requirements than in the past and are not comparable to IUGS.

 

Stanislav: "True. Just for the context: years ago, when John Bear researched the same question regarding HWU MBA, he got the same result: no consensus, widely divergent reports. And that's about a British Royal Chartered degree. So I wouldn't overstate the bearing of this recognition to IUGS or especially NAB legitimacy."

In addition to the questionable nature of NAB accreditation is the fact that a degree accredited from NAB will always be perceived as questionable, if not worse, by colleagues who possess regionally accredited degrees, as well as possibly by informed, savvy clients.


Slanislav: "You raised program contents concerns, and that's fair enough. But that presupposes that there's a global standard on what a "doctorate" is and how it should be delivered, which is simply not true. Would you consider a Russian PhD from state school "not legitimate" because of the country's rather stunning plagiarism crisis? Or take Ryokan College your friend ultimately picked".

Primarily, in the case of IUGS, they accept continuing education courses and licensing courses towards meeting the course requirements for a doctorate. This fact alone decreases the perception of credibility and validity of a degree from this school as well as casting doubt regarding the accrediting oversight of NAB. I cannot comment on the Russian PHD example you provided without possessing a global understanding of the extent of the plagiarism crisis you mention. However, in regard to Ryokan, although my friend felt this program may best meet his objectives, there are issues with its lack of accreditation, thereby limiting it utility and level of recognition. On the other hand, graduates from their Clinical Psychology program perform exceptionally well on the Psychology qualifying exam required for licensure, higher in fact than many highly regarded regionally accredited universities. Regardless, Ryokan would not be MY choice at this time UNLESS it attained candidacy status from WASC.

Stanislav: "Many people would contend that's not doctoral level. IUGS maintained a recognisable outer outline of a doctorate; that's all you can expect from an obscure foreign school. It's not any worse than many ACICS, California-approved, and some DEAC DBAs. Is it enough for all cases? No it's not; for one, it'll not earn Steve Levicoff's respect, and for valid reasons (but neither would Ryokan or even RA California Southern). Is it "legitimate"? Hard to tell, but a definite "maybe".

I disagree that California Southern's expectations for doctoral level coursework and final project is on par whatsoever with IUGS's, but is much more substantive. In fact, California Southern's expectations for the Psy.D doctoral project is very similar to those at brick and mortar Psy.D programs. The same holds true for a large number of DEAC doctoral programs that have recently tightened their requirements and expectations for doctoral level work and dissertations. I personally checked out a number of these DEAC programs and there is no doubt that they have implemented much more stringent requirements than in the past.

 

This is so speculative that it borders on outright falsehood. For one, I'd be willing to consider IUGS doctorate holders on a case by case basis, while UWI graduates are acceptable unconditionally (that school arguably exceeds RA standards and is a flagship for the whole region). (FWIW, I stumbled upon a PhD dissertation in math from IUGS, and it is my impression as lapsed math major that the guy is a crank. However, these things happen at RA schools too). That exhausts the universe of NAB-accredited schools. Similarly, I'd have no qualms about DSC graduates when and if it's NAB-accredited, and do not see NWU (terrible name BTW) as any worse than NationsU or University of the People. NAB's "nature" is one of a government agency quite a few notches above Liberia or The Gambia; while track record is inconclusive that's not exactly "questionable", let alone guaranteed to "always" be perceived as such. Why would you make such unsubstantiated statements? This undermines your legit concerns.

Not nearly enough. They publish an assessment standard for such courses. You may consider it weak; they and NAB disagree. Remember a guy bashing South African doctorate standards because they were not exactly like in Germany? Ironically, I believe that was Dr. Schmidt, who operated a couple of his own degree mills, in addition to being a pretend Bishop.

Yeeeesh, a correct and measured approach. Yet calling Ryokan "suspect or worse forever" would be a tad of a reach, would you agree?

Yet I can point you to many discussion forums where licensed psychologists trash not only Southern's standards, but also those brick-and-mortar PsyD programs as well. After all, CSU accepts a comprehensive literature review as final product in a doctorate; even IUGS doesn't admit to that.
Forced to guess, I would say that CSU's standards, on aggregate, are stronger than IUGS's. I would be reluctant to recommend IUGS because it's not established enough and value for money appears to be quite poor. I would, and did, recommend CSU; I briefly considered it myself, and Google still shows me banners. Yet I would not treat IUGS graduates as degree mill holders either. On NAB, while the jury is still out, I believe chances are that it'll grow up to be a reasonably respectable agency.

 

Rather than engage in a piecemeal response to each of your speculative contentions and fallacious allegations, in short you are making many erroneous statements that are not based on facts! You constantly SPECULATE regarding the possibilities of NAB and the possible schools they may accredit, but do not deal with the here and now! In short, IUGS is currently NOT comparable to any RA school based on OBVIOUS reasons that have been spelled out ad infinitum. IUGS's dissertation requirement and entire doctoral program can be completed full time in less than a year, and in less than eighteen months p/T, while CSU takes three to four years without transferred RA doctoral level credits!

In terms of the perception of a doctorate from IUGS in the behavioral sciences versus one from a RA institution, there is virtually no comparison in terms of acceptability, recognition and validity. In terms of your devaluing CSU's doctoral project, claiming that it only requires a "comprehensive review of the literature, if you would have done your homework with due dilligence and spoke with faculty of this school you would have found that it is a "Comprehensive CRITICAL Review and ANALYSIS of the literature" and is a very rigorous process! In fact, CSU's final project is commensurate with many brick and mortar schools final project requirements.

Furthermore, you discuss NAB's high standards BUT until these standards are demonstrated in academic scholarship at IUGS or any other school that MAY be accredited by NAB, you are merely engaging in speculation. You also speak of PhD psychologists who attack PsyD programs. So what is new about that? This is old news when one group of academics, such as PhDs versus EdDs, devalue the other for academic supremacy and dominance.

I can go on and on critiquing your speculations and fallacious conclusions. However, the bottom line is that UNTIL NAB does what you contend it does, and accredits the schools that you say MAY be accredited, and the schools that MAY be under NAB's aegis demonstrate the scholarship commensurate with RA schools, you are merely going in circles and not providing a cogent basis for supporting the validity of your assertions.

 

Rather than engage in a piecemeal response to each of your speculative contentions and fallacious allegations, in short you are making many erroneous statements that are not based on facts! You constantly SPECULATE regarding the possibilities of NAB and the possible schools they may accredit, but do not deal with the here and now! In short, IUGS is currently NOT comparable to any RA school based on OBVIOUS reasons that have been spelled out ad infinitum. IUGS's dissertation requirement and entire doctoral program can be completed full time in less than a year, and in less than eighteen months p/T, while CSU takes three to four years without transferred RA doctoral level credits!

In terms of the perception of a doctorate from IUGS in the behavioral sciences versus one from a RA institution, there is virtually no comparison in terms of acceptability, recognition and validity compared with a doctorate from an RA school. In terms of your devaluing CSU's doctoral project, claiming that it only requires a "comprehensive review of the literature, if you would have done your homework and spoke with faculty of this school you would have found that it is a "Comprehensive CRITICAL Review and ANALYSIS of the literature" and is a very rigorous process.

Furthermore, you discuss NAB's high standards BUT until these standards are demonstrated in academic scholarship at IUGS or any other school that MAY be accredited by NAB, you are merely engaging in speculation. You also speak of psychologists who attack PsyD programs. So what is new about that? This is old news when one group of academics, such as PhDs versus EdDs, devalue the other for academic supremacy and dominance.

I can go on and on critiquing your speculations and fallacious conclusions. However, the bottomline is that UNTIL NAB does what you contend it does, and accredits the schools that you say MAY be accredited, and the schools that MAY be under their aegis demonstrate the scholarship commensurate with RA school, you are merely going in circles and not providing a cogent basis for supporting the validity of your contentions.

 

Kind of makes me mad you talking crap about a mans job. What kind of low life thinks he is better than someone who does anything for a living? I know many a good man who drives a truck, it's hard honorable work and pays good. I respect anyone for working from picking up trash to teaching class. You are a snob.

You need to apologize to him for this slight.....

 

9b4cz28: "Kind of makes me mad you talking crap about a mans job."

Oh my Lord, here we go again. It is very interesting that you attack a poster for jesting with another poster who is known throughout this and other distance education forums for engaging in the most devaluing, denigrating, vile and undermining comments with other posters BUT you don't get "mad" whatsoever about his comments! Oh yes, you definitely have a sense of fairness, impartiality and empathy towards those posters who were the targets of these vicious attacks (obviously not).

B4cz: "What kind of low life thinks he is better than someone who does anything for a living?"

Simple. What kind of person calls another person a " lowlife" when he implies that he abides by "the bible"? An understanding, turn the other cheek kind of person? I think not!

B4cz: "I know many a good man who drives a truck, it's hard honorable work and pays good. I respect anyone for working from picking up trash to teaching class."

Are you feeling better now that you ventilated your misplaced and inappropriate comments? I do hope so. If not, You may wish to not only list "the bible" on your posts BUT read it and apply its teachings when relating to others.

B4cz: "You are a snob."

Well at least I'm not a hypocrite!

B4cz: "You need to apologize to him for this slight....."

Great idea when he and YOU get off your holier than though pedestal and apologize for your transgressions.

 

b4cz28: "Kind of makes me mad you talking crap about a mans job."

Oh my Lord, here we go again. It is very interesting that you attack a poster for jesting with another poster who is known throughout this and other distance education forums for engaging in the most devaluing, denigrating, vile and undermining comments with other posters BUT you don't get "mad" whatsoever about his comments! Oh yes, you definitely have a sense of fairness, impartiality and empathy towards those posters who were the targets of these vicious attacks (obviously not).



B4cz: "What kind of low life thinks he is better than someone who does anything for a living?"

Simple. What kind of person calls another person a " lowlife" when he implies that he abides by "the bible"? An understanding, turn the other cheek kind of person?

B4cz: I know many a good man who drives a truck, it's hard honorable work and pays good. I respect anyone for working from picking up trash to teaching class."

Are you feeling better now that you ventilated your misplaced and inappropriate comments? I do hope so. If not, You may wish to not only list "the bible" on your posts BUT read it and apply its teachings when relating to others.

B4cz: "You are a snob."

Well at least I'm not a hypocrite!


You need to apologize to him for this slight.....[/QUOTE]

 

You seem to like to attack people for personal things. So now I need to be more Christian like? I am just fine. You need to learn to stop double posting and use the quote feature correctly. Lastly, you need to stop attacking people based off ones job, its a lowlife thing to do. I don't care how many people hate Levicoff, he's right most of the time and people don't like to hear the truth.

Paul worked as a tent maker and had a better education than you do. Should Paul be ashamed of his honest living?

 

I'm one of the biggest skeptics on this board concerning IUGS and NAB accreditation. But isn't this thread beating a dead horse?

That sounds confused to me. People who want to practice a regulated profession will need a license issued by the appropriate board. That's not the same thing as a general ruling on the use of the word 'doctor' or the initials 'PhD' by IUGS graduates in fields unrelated to the authority of the board.

I think that Degreeinfo has always placed too much emphasis on credential evaluators. They aren't substitute international accreditors, what they typically do is compare syllabi to determine what American degree an unfamiliar foreign degree most resembles. (For example, is an 'International Baccalaureate' really the equivalent of an American bachelors degree?) What about Scottish masters degrees which are often first degrees?

With things like IUGS, I place very little weight on their unfamiliar offshore accreditation. I think that the best way to evaluate these things is by the same methods that prospective students should be using to evaluate graduate programs here at home.

Does the program offer a lineup of courses that appear credible and congruent with the student's interests? What does the faculty roster look like? What kind of support and mentoring do students receive? (This one is extra important with DL programs.) Does the program show any sign of intellectual life, does it host research units, does it produce publications, win awards and generate research grants? Do professionals in the fields it teaches ever talk about it? Do established universities, government agencies, industries and professional bodies collaborate with it? Where do the school's graduates end up employed?

I do agree with you that if a student is anticipating working in a regulated profession, then he or she most definitely will need to consult with their local licensing board before enrolling in something like IUGS. But since most academic subjects are unregulated, that only applies in special situations like clinical psychology.

 

b4cz28" You seem to like to attack people for personal things."

My friend, You are projecting your behavior on to me! I'm" attacking people for personal things"? Get your act together. You called me a lowlife. What is that called, a friendly, amiable way to express your disagreement with another poster?"

B4cz":So now I need to be more Christian like? I am just fine."

Once again, cease projecting! I did not refer to your religious belief, Christian or any other, BUT the bible, which YOU use as your logo in your posts. Regardless, referring to another poster as a lowlife says alot about you, not me, just so that you understand that such hostile comments contradict whatever religion you abide by!

B4cz: "Lastly, you need to stop attacking people based off ones job, its a lowlife thing to do. I don't care how many people hate Levicoff, he's right most of the time and people don't like to hear the truth. "

And you need to understand that YOU are doing the exact thing that you are claiming that I'm doing bro! Btw, Don't project on to me your hatred for Levicoff because quite frankly I don't have any hateful feelings for him or any other posters on this forum. As far as Levicoff being right most of the time, frequently he is wrong. So if you wish to be his sycophant that's fine. You can be one of his disciples.(lol)

B4Cz: Paul worked as a tent maker and had a better education than you do. Should Paul be ashamed of his honest living?"

Do yourself a favor and cease making any analogies between Paul and Levicoff. Paul didn't drive a truck! ((LMAO)

 

heirophant;"I'm one of the biggest skeptics on this board concerning IUGS and NAB accreditation. But isn't this thread beating a dead horse?

I merely was presenting my findings from a "survey" that provided a glimpse as to the pros and cons relating to the entities noted above. IF Stanislav did not continue this subject, as far as I was concerned, it was concluded.

Hierphant: "That sounds confused to me. People who want to practice a regulated profession will need a license issued by the appropriate board. That's not the same thing as a general ruling on the use of the word 'doctor' or the initials 'PhD' by IUGS graduates in fields unrelated to the authority of the board."

The bottomline is that individuals in the mental health field, other than Psychologists, are licensed at the masters level. The critical issue is whether such individuals could use the doctorate from IUGS, and related non RA schools, for title ONLY, "Doctor". In fact two of the boards were not concerned whatsoever with the the doctorate but whether the applicant for licensure met the criteria for licensing at the masters level.

Hierophant: "I think that Degreeinfo has always placed too much emphasis on credential evaluators. They aren't substitute international accreditors, what they typically do is compare syllabi to determine what American degree an unfamiliar foreign degree most resembles. (For example, is an 'International Baccalaureate' really the equivalent of an American bachelors degree?) What about Scottish masters degrees which are often first degrees?"

That is the rationale for my conducting the "survey" which revealed that one cannot place reliance on the feedback from these academic credential services but need to obtain the approval of their respective state boards if they are licensed mental health professionals.

Hierophant:" With things like IUGS, I place very little weight on their unfamiliar offshore accreditation. I think that the best way to evaluate these things is by the same methods that prospective students should be using to evaluate graduate programs here at home."

Its different due to the fact that regardless of the stature of a US RA school, the prospective student at a minimum knows that there is a quality assurance process in place that holds these schools accountable. However, if lets say an older student with many graduate level credits cannot find a US RA school that will accept his credits he/she may wish to explore options such as IUGS and related obscure schools which require a much more rigorous investigation of their equivalence, acceptability and recognition in the US.

Hierophant: "Does the program offer a lineup of courses that appear credible and congruent with the student's interests? What does the faculty roster look like? What kind of support and mentoring do students receive? (This one is extra important with DL programs.) Does the program show any sign of intellectual life, does it host research units, does it produce publications, win awards and generate research grants? Do professionals in the fields it teaches ever talk about it? Do established universities, government agencies, industries and professional bodies collaborate with it? Where do the school's graduates end up employed?"

Your above listed criteria is right on mark. However, there is a demographic of prospective students, for personal satisfaction or just to be referred to as "Doctor", who may not need to explore the relevant criteria you address above.

Hierophant: "I do agree with you that if a student is anticipating working in a regulated profession, then he or she most definitely will need to consult with their local licensing board before enrolling in something like IUGS. But since most academic subjects are unregulated, that only applies in special situations like clinical psychology."

And Social Work, Clinical Mental Health Counseling and related allied mental health professions.

 

There is a person posting on this forum who is profoundly disturbed and incapable of maintaining their dignity. They are apparently a small, emotional child. Deal with them at your own risk.

 

FTFaculty: There is a person posting on this forum who is profoundly disturbed and incapable of maintaining their dignity. They are apparently a small, emotional child. Deal with them at your own risk.[/QUOTE]


Discourse on judgmentalism
Author: Jesus;
Source: Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 1 to 5.

"1 judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote (spec of dust) that is in they brother's eye, but not the beam (large piece of wood)that is in thine eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote (spec of dust) out of thine eye; and behold, a beam (large piece of wood) is in thine own?

5 Thou, hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

Previous Quote: FTFaculty
Thread: Is it necessary to lock a discussion.
Date: 10/27/16, 9:27PM

"Crap. Am I acting like a 12 year old? I never know until my wife tells me".

 

Jan, how do you manage to alienate the whole board when no one substantially disagreed with you? Must be rare talent.

 

Stanislav, I am taking firm positions because you and several other posters are presenting your opinions as fact without any substantive evidence! In addition, keep in mind your offensive comments above accusing me of making statements "...that borders on outright falsehood" and "This undermines your legit concerns, when in fact you did not provide any substantive confirmatory evidence to negate my statements. So this is what you mean when you state "..no one substantially disagreed with you" (lol)? Perhaps other examples will be helpful to further an understanding of my firm responses such as B4cz88 Asserting "What kind of lowlife thinks he is better than someone else who does anything for a living", and then rants on as to how I condemned Levicoff when in fact I was merely jesting with Levicoff, as he sarcastically does with me and quite a few others, as well as being vile and denigrating! Yet not one word from you or B4cz, who is so concerned about my jesting comments, regarding Levicoff's grossly inappropriate style of relating on this forum.

So I suggest that you attempt to gain some insight into how you and several other posters present to other posters resulting in escalating these situations into such strong adversarial contentious events rather than attempting to place the onus of blame onto me.

 

I think by using the quote button you have turned a new leaf. I also think the way you were quoting was triggering everyone into a blind rage.