History of RPL Awards

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by fnhayes, May 14, 2004.

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fnhayes

    fnhayes New Member

    This is a most interesting and enlightening piece of history. All who are interested in education should read it.

    http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Dispensation.

    It clearly shows that regognition of prior learning has been around for a while.
    In NZ today 'RPL' is resulting in an increasing number of people being awarded NZQA National Certificates through - work experience, work skills, on the job training programmes, previous education, life experience, knowledge gained, etc., etc., etc.
    Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)
     
  2. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 14, 2004
  3. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    The correct link is http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Dispensation .

    Although it is indeed an interesting document, it has (along with the model of Lambeth degrees) been inappropriately used by some as a means of providing some kind of legitimacy to all “life experience” degrees. However, a quick read (and understanding) of the section entitled “X. Conclusion” reveals how misguided any such association is. Legitimate recognition of prior learning is dependent on the precise entity doing the recognition and how and why it is being done. Moreover, just because something has been done for centuries does not make all versions of the practice legitimate. For example, fraudulent degrees predate legitimate recognition of prior learning.

    For an understanding of fnhayes’ reasons for posting this on DegreeInfo, see http://www.online-college.info/showthread.php?postid=9070#post9070 .

    Moreover, speaking of understanding, Dr. Dr. Quack Quack, I am still waiting for the simple explanation that you promised would be forthcoming by the end of April in this thread.
     
  4. George Brown

    George Brown Active Member

    The current, correct nomenclature and approach is actually 'Recognition of Current Competence'(RCC). Whilst RPL has been an accepted terminology for some time, recent research has suggested that the term 'learning' limits its applicability to learning in the classroom. RCC equates learning and recognition of skill aquisition directly in the workplace which is commesurate with both the Australian/NZ/UK approach to workbased learning and assessment.

    Cheers,

    George

    (PS - So Dr Duck, when was the last time your country had a princess married off? ;)
     
  5. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    There was very similar problem in fnhayes understanding of the long quote he posted in the thread that you linked to. A very desperate man seemingly trying to prove to himself as much as the rest of us that he's not an academic fraud. Here he points to a document saying that degrees of this type are extremely rare (except for degree mills). In the thread you linked to, the quote provided by fnhayes was supposed to say that supervision was not required which it didn't. Even worse he left off the part that explicitly stated that supervision was required.

    I would still like to hear, fnhayes, your explanation as to how you can claim that you received even more academic supervision for your "dissertation" than Dr. Douglas received for his? As far as I know, you've only ever claimed that one academic expert in a different field from your "dissertation" ever even read the paper and this was well after it was written.

    P.S. Neil Hayes, in the hope that I can possibly help you, I sincerely state my belief that your issue is one of denial. It is a personal issue that need not be made a public spectacle. You need not concern yourself with trying to prove to the "DegreeInfo crowd" that you have a valid Ph.D.. This is an impossible task simply because it is not valid. You should seriously consider saving yourself the aggravation and recognize that this feeling you have that you must prove to us that your degree is valid is actually a need that you have to prove to yourself that it is valid.
     
  6. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Huffman: "I would still like to hear, fnhayes, your explanation as to how you can claim that you received even more academic supervision for your "dissertation" than Dr. Douglas received for his?"

    Bear: Good Lord, did Hayes really say this? I figure I put in well over 100 hours on Dr. Douglas' committee -- and there were two other senior committee members: the Provost of a regionally accredited university, and the core faculty from Union, as well as two peer group members. Hayes' claim would be absurd, even if he didn't have one claimed faculty supervisor who didn't see the work until after it was done, and is in a different field.
     
  7. fnhayes

    fnhayes New Member

    PS
    Forgot to mention that I would be expecting the usual personal abuse from 'the gang'. And low and behold this predication has come true - yet again! It is the exact response predicted by members at the other more informed DL forums. I had also predicted that 'the gang' would not be able to understand the paper by Noel Cox - and I was right again.
    Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)
     
  8. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Mr Hayes

    Could you please answer the responses to your post, or is the only reason you post to incite discord? The questions you have been asked are:

    1. "I am still waiting for the simple explanation that you promised would be forthcoming by the end of April in this ( http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12603&perpage=30&pagenumber=5 ) thread." Gus

    2. "I would still like to hear, fnhayes, your explanation as to how you can claim that you received even more academic supervision for your "dissertation" than Dr. Douglas received for his? As far as I know, you've only ever claimed that one academic expert in a different field from your "dissertation" ever even read the paper and this was well after it was written." Bill

    You have a pattern of making false statements and never backing them up or even fully describing what you are saying. As stated above this does little, but make you look silly and illogical. You might want to use reason and logic this time instead.
     
  9. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member


     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2004
  10. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: History of RPL Awards

    And I forgot to mention that no matter what the response, you would claim abuse in order to curry favor with your friends on other fora. I did imply, however, that you had ulterior motives for posting your message on DegreeInfo and provided a link to a thread on another forum in which you espoused your reasons for posting here.

    Predication, not prediction? Your choice of words betrays your agenda.

    If they are, as you claim, more informed, why are the vast majority of discussions on the other fora about DegreeInfo, its members, and the discussions taking place here?

    So, is that how you initiate civil discussion? Before you even post a message here, you, on another forum, predict (or is that predicate?) that the members of DegreeInfo would not be able to understand it. On what do you base your conclusion that the members of DegreeInfo are so stupid or addled?

    If you knew in advance that we were not capable of comprehending what you were going to post, why didn’t you, who claims two doctorates, membership in royal societies, and 34 years experience as an educator in distance learning, have the compassion to explain it to us (simply, mind you, as we have difficulty with complex concepts)? Why don’t you educate us as to what you believe are the implications of the information in the document you posted (aside from the obvious that recognition of prior learning is an ancient practice that still takes place today)?

    If, as is your wont, you once again fail to explain the relevance or what your understanding of a paper, text, or document is (see my post above for a link in which you promised to provide such an explanation but failed to do so), then, not only is there nothing to discuss, but you leave no choice but to conclude that your accusation pertaining to our lack of understanding is simply a cover up for your lack of comprehension, and that you post on this forum solely as an agent provocateur in order to provide you and your bobblehead buddies on other fora something to discuss (if you can call it that).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2004
  11. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Re: Re: Re: History of RPL Awards

    It may be a fair conclusion.

    As I am a member of degreeinfo and not too swift, I can't remember the author but an expression goes approximately as follows.

    Smart people talk about ideas, regular people talk about things, stupid people talk about people.

    Why when Dr. Hayes posts an idea does the subject on degreeinfo revolve back to Dr. Hayes himself? Could it have something to do with the above expression?
     
  12. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: History of RPL Awards

    Oh, please! I am sure you speak for yourself, and not the entire membership of this forum.

    Although often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, it was actually Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (1900-1986) who first said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

    Could this be because, as he has readily admitted, this is his precise motive in posting on this forum? Dr. Dr. Quack Quack’s posts usually evoke a discussion of his behavior, precisely because he espouses no discussable ideas; instead, his sole purpose is to elicit any kind of comment that he and his cohorts can claim as some kind of personal attack (just as you are doing now). You’ll notice that I did not fall prey to his trap, and I did indeed comment on the ideas expressed in the article. Where is his response? Where is his response to previous requests for civil discussion?

    Dr. Dr. Quack Quack did not post a discussable idea, as he did not opine or elaborate on what he felt was the significance of the ideas expressed in the article he posted. As you well know, he posted a (non-working) link to an article at the behest of an individual who has been banned (multiple times) from this forum for reasons clearly elucidated by Dr. Dr. Quack Quack (and other individuals who also have been banned from this forum) on another forum. Reread my original post. I commented on the article and its relevance to current RPL practices. I also (without commenting on the individual himself) provided a link to a thread which made clear Dr. Dr. Quack Quack’s purpose in posting his message on this forum. Lastly, I simply reminded Neil that he has still not, as he had promised, explained the ideas he espoused in another thread.

    Therefore, Dennis, all you have to do is read Dr. Quack Quack’s explanations for posting his message on this forum and his subsequent posts, and you will see that it is he, not us, who clearly had no intention of discussing ideas (in fact, he was of the opinion that we would be incapable of doing so).

    Not really, Dennis, in fact, you’ve taught him well; Dr. Dr. Quack Quack seems to have adopted your guerilla tactics of posting. He, like you, posts no discussable ideas, and instead chooses to post short quips consisting of inane and unsupportable accusations and inflammatory remarks solely to evoke some kind of chastisement of such behavior that can later be touted as examples of the vitriolic and abusive nature of DegreeInfo. And that, Dennis, is the whole IDEA.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 15, 2004
  13. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: History of RPL Awards

    Perhaps it is because Mr. Hayes posts unfounded allegations and half truths and never even fully describes them. How can we have legitimate discussion with hit and run tactics that are designed to cause discourse? BTW, the title Dr. is reserved for people that have completed a legitimate doctoral program. So far Mr. Hayes has completed not one, but two degree mill programs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page