Good Morning America asks for help for the next degree mill segment

Yes indeed!

The salad comes plain, or with smoked South African monkey, along with French or Italian dressing. SA coffee is only 15 cents.

Russell

 

Excellent job, John! Hopefully we will see more of this kind of action regarding bogus degrees. After reading the transcript of the GMA segment, I wonder how many HR departments actually verify prospective employee's credentials. Those three sure didn't.

Russell

 

Dear Lawrie,

Thank you for your response.

Yes, I agree with you. However, if you have American dollars, at least in Latin America, the cost of inflation doesn't affect you. What you say is completely accurate, though, because for native people, the story is totally different.

Best wishes,


Karlos Alberto Lacayo
[email protected]

 

Dear Lawrie,

Thank you very much for your response.

Hey, Lawrie, take it easy, man! I think that you are jumping the gun big time.

I hope that you don't find this funny, but my own father was literally killed by the revolutionary war. Also, two cousins of mine died. I was also on the verge of dying or being incarcerated. Please, Lawrie, if it doesn't cause any inconvenience to you, don't call me revolutionary or Che Guevara out of respect for me and my dead family.

Respectfully yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

Dear Lawrie,

Thank you very much for your response.

Hey, Lawrie, take it easy, man! I think that you are jumping the gun big time.

I hope that you don't find this funny, but my own father was literally killed by the revolutionary war. Also, two cousins of mine died. I was also on the verge of dying or being incarcerated. Please, Lawrie, if it doesn't cause any inconvenience to you, don't call me revolutionary or Che Guevara out of respect for me and my dead family.

Respectfully yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

 

C

Dear moderators,

Please excuse me for this multiple posting of mine.

I was trying to come back to my original posting to add something about my grandmother, and the posting multiplied itself automatically. Please, if you feel like it, you can delete the extra postings.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely yours,


Karlos Alberto Lacaye
[email protected]

P.S.: As one poster was mentioning one time, and edit feature would be very useful to this board.

 

As much as I hate to blow the whistle on another police officer, I give you Sergeant Keith L. Williams of the Missouri Police Corps. Considering that he "earned" his BS in Criminal Justice AND his MBA from TC&U in the same year, I'm assuming it's the South Dakota one; http://www.mocorps.org/staff.htm

Not sure if this is the S.D. school, but more than likely; http://www.tripointglobal.com/releases/092799.htm

Again, not sure which TC&U this is, but worth looking into, considering he's a faculty member at an accredited community college; http://www.muskegon.cc.mi.us/~barreto/

That's all for now....

Bruce

 

I would like to preface this dissertation by saying that I am a graduate with a BS in Business (the traditional classroom setting format), from Syracuse U. I have been led (misled) to this site for information on distance learning institutions with respect to obtaining my MA.

I have to scoff at some of the posts I've read here. The ABC News report, though entertaining for all of us, certainly shows the lack of compassion society has for people who do work hard. All like to sit back and view the misfortunes of others, without understanding the motivations behind actions presented by pressures put on by our society. Do I excuse the actions of so called "Doctors" and "Educators" that obtain "degrees" from these institutions, no. However, I hesitate to condemn them. I pose this question to ABC and to all who sit back and enjoy the investigating microscope probed into the lives of people. What about the people who have worked hard in their jobs, have experienced trauma in their lives, and who have had more "life" experience in a years time, than most of us have in our entire lives. Meaning, are individuals who have experienced deaths of loved ones while attending school, and had to remove themselves from said institution, in order to support their families, less knowledgeable than individuals who find it necessary to write a book on "accredited vs. "non-accredited institutions." Don't get me wrong Mr. Bear, I do believe that your publication has some use, however, as has been stated before, "accreditation" as we know it, is voluntary. Wasn't most of society a bit skeptical when distance (then called correspondence learning) was first presented? Now, we want to analyze the choices of individuals who are trying to get ahead in the world, and in turn, not taking a look into the educational institution and it's stronghold it has on society in needing that ever so important "piece of paper." I have looked at the TCU website, and I don't see that they make claims or presnet themselves to be anyhting other than an institution who rewards those thru life/work experiences. Is this wrong? Maybe in ABC News eyes, but, what about the eyes of someone who went to school and had to dropout or didn't quite make the grade, but have excelled in their respective jobs? Should we condemn those who have tried to improve their lives, by be rewarded for their life and/or work experience? Isn't that's what makes a person, is their experiences thru life, and not from sitting in an economics class. My experiences at school were great, but, have I personally not been able to apply concepts learned in Strategic Management in my career, absolutely not. For those of you who are Doctors and Lawyers, this would not or at least should not apply. My point is, most jobs require skill sets that are not obtained thru classroom learning. They are without question learned while performing day to day tasks pertinent to the job. So, if societ puts undue pressure on us to have this "piece of paper" I would ask, what would you do in a situation where you had to earn an income and know without a doubt, that you have the skills necessary to do the job? If a company or institution presented a way to apply life/work experience into credits to earn this "piece of paper" would you not pursue it?

 

1. The idea that accreditation is voluntary is a myth. In order for a school in the United States to be considered part of the country's system of higher education it must have recognized accreditation. Accreditation isn't a legal requirement, but it is required in higher education.

2. Yes, these people should be dealt with. Without demand there would be no supply (and the supply would be meaningless anyway). Dr. Bear wrote about "victims" and villians" last year. Customers of degree mills can be considered either--or both simulteneously. Exposing these frauds might lead decision-makers to take a closer look at claimed credentials. That alone would greatly hurt the diploma mills.

3. That this--or any other school--does what it claims to do means nothing. It is a circular definition of quality. To say you hand out degrees by using a superficial evaluative method of customers' education and experiential backgrounds may be literally truthful (and keep you out of jail--maybe). But that doesn't make it right.

4. If there is no shame in what these people--diploma mills and their customers--are doing, then why all the fuss? Because it IS shameful.

5. Hapgood described the phenomenom of "Diplomiaism" 30 years ago in a book by the same name. But the creeping upward of required credentials in this society does not justify academic fraud. No more than poverty justifies bank robbery or anger justifies assault.

6. Diploma mill apologists will be around as long as their subjects are. And while diploma mill operators and operations come and go, the same stale arguments continue.

Rich Douglas

 

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't the point here that these people didn't work hard? They just bought fake degrees from degree-mills, didn't they?

No offense CUSEMAN, but the rest of your post sounded like a sucession of red herrings. Whether or not accreditation is voluntary is irrelevant. Whether or not a person suffered in his or her life is irrelevant.

The point of accreditation is that it helps ensure that universities maintain a minimum academic standard. Awarding a degree consists of the application of that standard to a particular student's work. If there is no standard, then the degree is worthless.

If a person uses a fake degree to win a position of trust through misrepresentation, and then causes harm to his or her employers or clients, that person is arguably guilty of fraud. If a company employs that individual and causes harm to its customers, it could be guilty of negligence. This stuff is not simply innocuous.

I agree with you in being uneasy with the pleasure that some take in "outing" others. Employers probably should be alerted about employees with bogus credentials, but that should be done discreetly and quietly. I would make exceptions though, for those who are a danger to the community or for public figures who have chosen to use the bogus credential to win public trust.

It's a fuzzy line, but it is real. So far, GMA seems to have been pretty good about choosing their targets. And if this kind of publicity has a deterrent effect on those who are thinking of buying a fake degree and trying to pass it off on employers and customers, GMA and Dr. Bear have done a valuable service.

 

Cuseman:

Welcome to the forum!

Condemning one for trying to improve one's life is not the motive of this forum, actually, one should receive commendation for doing so.

However, obtaining a fraudulent credential (i.e., a degree mill degree) is not trying to improve one's life. It is practicing deception, fraud and a poor ethic.

What if someone received validation for their life's work (which was hanging around an operating room for 10 years, as a janitor), had been awarded a degree based on this "experience," and obtained a position in a surgical department. Would you want this person who had "worked hard to improve their life" performing surgery on you? I sure wouldn't!

There is a correct way to earn a legitimate degree, and the degree mill route is not the way!

Russell

 

Cuseman,

This newsgroups isn't interested in the misfortunes of others. People who are perpretating a fraud, knowingly or not, need to be exposed. Degree Mill holders who are using these degrees are cheating themselves, their employer, and others. If we stand by and say it is OK then you might as well agree that cheating on exams is OK and if caught the person should face the consequences.

One can work very hard in a course and fail it. One can do "hard labor" and that doesn't mean they have earned a degree. A mechanic can work hard on your car but if it isn't fixed are you satisfied and did the mechanic know what he was doing?

On the other hand, people may have obtained college level learning on the job or through their life experiece. At the undergraduate level there are many fine options such as Excelsior, Thomas Edison, and Charter Oak State College that provide a means to assess and validate this type of learning and award accredited degrees.

DL learning, through accredited routes is primarily geared towards the worker who must work to support themselves and a family. Hence, these people are working extra hard at their jobs and at school to earn legitimate degrees. In the evening classes I teach the entire class is filled with hard working adults who want to complete a legitimate degree.

The exposed degree mill holders are taking the easy way out and do not have valid credentials. They should be exposed.

John

 

Agree with much of what you say, but not the punch line. I've been in the situation you detail above, and chose to tread the straight and narrow to a legitimate degree. Not because of any moral rectitude on my part, but because if I chose the less rigorous and less righteous path, busybodies like John Bear and others of his ilk might some day expose me as the fraud and a crook.

The bottom-feeders that inhabit this board serve a higher purpose, by keeping reprobates and ne'er-do-wells like me, honest.


God bless 'em, every one.

 

Busybodies? I don't think so!

If one is using credentials in one's professional life, portraying those credentials as legitimate when they are not, one should be exposed.

If one is practicing medicine based on a degree mill degree, one needs to be exposed!

If one has reached a position in one's company which required a particular degree, and the degree in question is from a degree mill, then the individual should be exposed!

John Bear and others of his ilk are to be commended for their efforts.

Russell

 

I'm sorry, Russell, maybe we are from different planets. I used satire to make the very point you now ape. I did so rather crudely so that there would be no doubt that what was being said was tongue-in-cheek within the context of the exchange. I thought all with an IQ above -4 would have tumbled to that. Clearly, I was mistaken. . . or perhaps not. I give up.

 

PROMISE??????

 

While I can't agreee with all that was said, I feel that Cuseman is pointing out an important point. (I've posted my thoughts on this before, but I'll do it again.)

It is a significant mistake to broadbrush the consumers of bogus degrees. There is a sense of "feeding frenzy", triggered by requests for help to "expose" phoney degrees. For some data that supports this, just look back at the previous responses to such requests. You can almost read the glee in some of them.

To be clear, I don't advocate looking the other way at the use of bogus degrees. If someone is interested in aiding the cause of consumerism, it seems that it would be far more productive to first privately contact those who list or otherwise advertise bogus degrees on the internet, CVs or resumes. I remain convinced that a good number simply fail to understand.

This way, at least people first have a chance to learn. The current approach *is* heartless and risks "exposing" people who were basically duped by false advertising and their own lack of knowledge on the subject. Let's give these folks a chance. (If you are so inclined to pour out your life-energy into this kind of effort.)

Can you imagine what it must be like to find yourself the topic of a board like this? I think we can do better.

If they know what they are doing and put up a fight - give 'em hell. Otherwise, give some space to learn and change. We tend to learn best through mistakes.

The "old days" approach was to focus energy against mill operators. Isn't this the real objective of protecting consumers?

Barry Foster
(someone who learned)

 

I don't know. I think that most all users of degree mill products know the goods are bogus. If they are caught, and the consequences are merely a confidential word in their ear, there is little disincentive not to take a chance on conning the world. If the consequences are public exposure, a tarnished reputation, and possible loss of career, the risk/reward ratio is a good deal less enticing.

Yet clearly, this allows those exposing the fraud to act as self appointed judge, jury and executioner. Indeed, we have seen cases where the accuser seemed to take delight in destroying another's reputation.

As I tried to make clear in a previous post, one great benefit of these public exposures is that it may dissuade many others from committing degree fraud. Yet, in the absence of any unambiguous and uniform legal sanction, it is left to self appointed vigilantes to clean up Dodge. That is not a good situation, and one that is ripe for abuse.

 

But if these same people who have suffered and learned in life pay good money for an illegitimate degree-- especially when there are valuable dl degrees with legitimacy-- arent they being victimized again? or are they paying for another expensive lesson from the most rigorous program around, the school of hard knocks? and is this itself morally justifiable relative to them? seems like taking advantage of people who deserve better.

 

I don't disagree with the advantage of exposure - again if that's something that one chooses to engage in. My main point is that bogus degree holders should at least be given an opportunity to 'clean up' their advertising. If they do, the cause is aided. If they don't, toss 'em to the lions (kidding).

As we've seen over and over in the past, there will be enough individuals who fit the model of someone who (a) knows the degree is bogus and (b) is trying to leverage it to his/her advantage. Using a broadbrush approach - as can be observed over and over on this board - is not the most appropriate method.

My suggestion is that people should be privately contacted *before* being 'exposed'. Give them a chance.

That is .... if this is the type of activity that one chooses to engage in.

Barry Foster