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

You have removed any effective sanction, though. The unscrupulous will do the following maximin: downside risk, a private word in my ear from my nemesis that I'd better clean-up my act; upside gain, a plum consultancy position with the City by virtue of a bogus Ph.D.

Should the miscreant be caught, he can bail out with his reputation intact. It's a hassle, an inconvenience, but it is not fatal to his reputation or career, and hell, chances are he'll never be caught anyway.

Let's run through the other part of the equation: three to eight years, and $30,000 doing a legitimate Ph.D., with no guarantee of a diploma; three to eight weeks and $2000 doing a Ph.D. at the University of Santa Barbara, with absolute certainty of success, and a slap on the wrist if ever rumbled. Gee Barry, I'd be tempted to go for that myself. You really are a sweetie.

 

Please don't set up a straw man to tear down without thinking through intent. I'm not suggesting a slap on the wrist or letting people off the hook for their actions. I'm saying - and I think rather clearly - that there exist a significant number of people who don't deserve to be 'exposed'. They've been swindled. They need to be educated. They can recover.

There are others who deserve it. Go ahead and make yourself feel good at such abuser's expense. There are enough abusers and there are enough people who build their self-esteem by crusading against them. That's how and why the tabloids make make their money. I like the ealier quote of the "real lessons via the world of hard knocks". But when it comes to adding public humiliation and embarrassment on top of being fooled and swindled, that is another story altogether.

However, taking a single-handed approach of 'exposing' everyone - regardless of the situation - is not right. Again, the real focus should be on the swindlers - the degree mill operators.

You can call it 'sweetie', but I call it integrity.

Barry Foster
(end of my thread posting on this line ... so the last shot is yours)

 

Well, in fact, Barry, that is precisely what you are saying. Let me quote you so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind:

Barry Foster:
"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."

AND

Barry Foster:
"If they know what they are doing and put up a fight - give 'em hell. Otherwise, give some space to learn and change."


Now this clearly includes those who know very well what they are doing and know they are committing degree fraud, as well as the truly stupid-but-innocent. We can bet good money that all will claim ignorance of any wrongdoing. "I don't know nothin' about no degree mill! I was just trying to better myself so I could look after my family and keep supporting my aging, gray-haired mother." There would not be a dry eye in the studio. We are not even addressing the issue of ignorance as a valid excuse.

Firstly, I do not participate in the feeding frenzies associated these exposures. As stated in previous posts, I have grave concerns with this sort of vigilantism. However, that does not mean we should simply ignore the holes in your suggested alternative approach.

How do we differentiate the victims from the fraudsters? You do not tells us how that may be done. In the preceding quote you argued all should be given a break so that the "innocent" might be protected, implicitly acknowledging that it is difficult or impossible to separate the two groups. Now you say, expose the guilty, but conveniently, do not detail how they may be identified.

John Bear made the point in the GMA piece that it was unlikely anyone with a three-digit IQ would be taken in by these mills. I think he underestimates the common sense of those of us residing to the left of the median on the bell curve. More directly, few with more than half a wit are going to be fooled into believing these degrees are legitimate. I don't buy the argument that there is a seething mass of naive degree mill victims who are simultaneously savvy enough to net and hold down very responsible, high paying, high profile, high power jobs, in government and industry. Doesn't pass the smell test. Will there be odd exceptions? Possibly, but should all fraudsters be given a first-time pass because of that?

Indeed, but clearly there would be no pushers without users. That ole supply and demand thingy. If an individual receives reward by way of fraud and deception, should that behavior go unsanctioned because it is the first time they have been caught?

 

Where I come from (Puerto Rico) If you have a degree it better be accredited from one of the six regional agencies and better have prove of it in the form of a diploma and transcript at the time you apply to a job and trust me they will check it out and if come from other sources they are not use to be ready to do some explaining and prove that the degree is legit before they consider you for a job. Here I have applied to several jobs, I offer to bring all my credentials and all have said it was not necessary. By the way my degree is from American University of Puerto Rico and it is accredited by the Middle States.

 

Some HR departments here leave much to be desired. The organization I work for checks carefully also. However, there would be no GMA if all did. In the case of some mills the similarity to legit colleges means that HR departments who only do a cursory look (ie you have transcripts and they think they have heard of the school before) pass the person on. Becomes an issue when the time bomb goes off. Then it is an "oops".

North