John Bear seeks advice on military credentials, for ABC

Of course. So would everyone else on this board, I'm sure. BUT....if my wife, friend, etc. got ambushed by GMA before I could do anything about it, I couldn't muster much sympathy for them. You take a risk, sometimes it blows up in your face. About 10 years ago, a friend of mine was arrested for drunk driving. I went down and bailed him out, but that was the extent of my assistance. You screw up and get caught, you have to pay.


Bruce

 

I have mixed emotions about that.

If people are in a position where they can do real harm, and if they hold that position through fraudulent credentials, then I have no problem with exposing them.

But if somebody is performing his or her job well, and possesses all the necessary qualifications for that job, then I'm less sure that they should be publicly pilloried simply because they also have a non-accredited degree.

In the case of a military officer, doesn't a commission normally require an accredited degree? Isn't that accreditation verified before the commission is granted? So these people presumably do have the academic qualifications to be officers.

I suppose that they may then go on into some specialty that requires further education, but as Rich has said, the credibility of that further education should have been verified.

And there may be those that pursued a non-accredited degree for their own interest or something; officers who are not using the degree as a qualification for any position for which they are not already qualified without it.

In those cases, I don't see that any real harm has been done by a person that might have sought some continuing education from a non-accredited source. And a lot of harm may be done in trying to destroy that individual's career to amuse a TV audience.

I'm a guy with continuing academic interests who conceivably might enroll in a CA-approved program at some point. I'd really hate to see a mob holding TV cameras like flaming torches come to burn me as a witch.

If this this attack on military officers with questionable degrees is to be undertaken, I'd hope that it is only done to unqualified officers who are a danger to their men, officers who hold completely fraudulent degrees rather than merely "less than wonderful" ones, and whose degrees are actually material to their responsibilities.

Some very careful research is called for here. I don't think that destroying another man's life and career should be undertaken lightly.

 

As someone who has spent several years in the active military (Army and Marine Corps) and several more in reserve components, I would like to point out a couple of things:

An officer in the armed forces of the United States holds a commission. This means, put simply, that special trust and confidence has been reposed in the abilities of this person, and that this individual can act in the name of President of the United States. On a day-to-day basis this may not seem to mean very much, but under other conditions it can and has meant a great deal.

Two leadership traits that are essential in the performance of duties for an officer (or any other military leader) are integrity and judgement. As most know, a college degree implies the graduate has gained the necessary congnitive skills for sound and timely judgement. The need for integrity should be obvious to anyone. A person who has lied about their education credentials is unqualified and unfit to be a commissioned officer, or even a noncommission or petty officer. Such a person should be exposed and punished.

Since the armed forces belong to the people (and not the other way around), it is the right of anyone to bring light to such a situation, whatever their other motivations may be.

Bob

------------------
[email protected]

 

In the case of a doctoral degree, I wish people would take doctoral conferral extremely seriously, accredited or not. Although for a great many people it is an entry requirement into some specific job, or an excuse to run around with the label "Dr." -- in my opinion, doctoral conferral is an indication of marriage to a discipline before all else. It follows you through life, even if the institution goes away. Don't go being "ordained" by University XYZ unless you are serious about your devotion to your discipline.

Whatever your calling, if you reach the point where you wish to marry your discipline, consider the high nature of your attachment to the discipline after the calling. If you are indeed a professor of the discipline, then your devotion to your calling is your best defense. In a pinch, the only person who will defend your devotion to you calling is yourself. If you conduct yourself as if no one else is responsible for your actions but you, then you will conduct yourself in a correct manner -- if you are serious about your calling.

Part of this understanding -- part of this devotion to one's discipline -- comes with the understanding that the public will place trust in those who declare themselves experts by going through the process of conferral. This special relationship requires one to never take on a task that one knows one is not able. (This applies to accredited doctorate holders too.) If one is married to theoretical physics, one should be very careful about using the Ph.D. designation when commenting in depth on hydroponics, for instance, even if one's Ph.D. in theoretical physics is from the world's best university. Toothpaste endorsements from someone with a Ph.D. in literature ... a no-no. Even within the discipline, one must remember one's limitations at all times, and defer to others when one is in over one's head. No matter WHERE the degree comes from. Professionals admit their gaps.

In my opinion, the biggest protection anyone with an unaccredited degree has is something known as full disclosure. One says, "My degree(s) is/are not accredited." Period. I'm not referring here to the bogus papers, but to non-accredited degrees. People appreciate full disclosure, and full disclosure demonstrates that one is serious about being professional in one's dealings. In some situations, specific codes of ethics and conduct call for the professional to divulge anything that may be of interest to the person at the receiving end of the information. When someone does not fully disclose the limitations of one's credentials, one opens oneself up to future misunderstanding, and who knows what else. (Or, as my father used to say, "Up shit crick without a paddle.")

Now, if someone goes and pays for a terminal degree and one has not done the work -- one obviously is not taking the discipline seriously. In fact, one may do the discipline damage. Any doctorate holder (accredited or otherwise) who does not believe that the calling comes before all else ought to have the thing stripped from his or her name. Fudging one's paperwork falls into that category. (This does not, in my opinion, mean that the national media should get involved, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

Any doctorate holder who conducts him or herself in a manner fitting someone who understands this special relationship is "accredited" by virtue of their integrity to the calling, in my opinion.

Of course, my opinion and a bit of pocket change will get you a bus ride.

------------------
Quinn

 

Having said that, here is a piece that expresses my views on the seriousness of the matter of graduate research -- accredited or not.

Idealistic, perhaps... but my views nonetheless.

>>

The ideals of academic inquiry have as their foundation the expectations of a society that entrusts the graduate student with the responsibility of becoming an expert in a field for the benefit of that society. The notions esteemed by the scholarly originated from efforts to protect and serve the integrity of this calling. Though there are those who pursue advanced degrees solely to better their economic condition, or to feed their hungry minds, it is not my intention to question the motives of the individual student, but rather to explain the underpinnings of the expectations held of serious graduate students, whatever the ultimate agenda.

However lofty the ideals, there are concrete benefits to investigating the reasoning behind them, since understanding the principles will not only give the learner an appreciation for the sobriety of the calling, but will also provide the mortar for surviving the rigor of advanced studies. Confronted with the task of providing meaningful citation in a dissertation, for instance, the shallow will count citations per page, and perhaps become overwhelmed, viewing it merely as a game of numbers. Those who understand why citation is important, however, will certainly recognize what must be supported or refuted, and will therefore be better prepared to utilize the resources available to them to thoroughly support their contentions. When striving to ascertain the appropriate means of gathering data, those who have a cognizance of ethics in research will certainly not consider shoddy, lazy, or questionable means of supporting their hypotheses. These principles, then, not only benefit the researcher in an abstract sense, but lead to work that tends towards excellence.

Mastery
"Society rightly expects scientists to know the principles of their science, not just their research specialties." – John C. Reynolds

Graduate students engaged in research towards advanced degrees, whether in the hard sciences, social sciences, or the arts, are learning the rudiments not only of their specialization, but also of clear, rational, critical, and precise modes of thinking, communication, and acquisition of knowledge. The master of a discipline need not be a genius, but must be determined to conquer the processes of knowing how to learn. It is no accident that we speak of fields requiring great expertise as disciplines.

Every earnest scholar will consider his discipline a science, though many aspects, even most, may still be called art, and will strive towards mastering the principles, as well as the specifics. Clear comprehension of the basics of a field is the foundation upon which the fluid abstractions are based. Nothing remains static, all knowledge is in constant flux, and this has become acutely the case in recent decades. The master maintains mastery when the specifics fluctuate because the principles underneath the specifics rarely change, and when they do, change slowly enough to be manageable.

Credibility
"A man may write himself out of reputation when no one else can do it." – Tom Paine

Non-specialists and specialists alike are willing to put their trust in credible people, and it is the duty of the graduate student to espouse high standards early on, that she not betray the confidence that others will one day confer.

As it concerns academia, one of the primary reasons credibility is of such importance is the concept of pedigree. Research is established on a well-balanced hierarchy of ideas, paradigms, methods, and findings. Each branch of the tree lends its credibility to each offshoot; if a branch is rotten, the farther it is from the center of the tree, the more likely it is the tree will continue to stand. The conscientious researcher seeks to provide a strong foundation upon which future researchers in the field will be able to continue to grow. He guarantees this solidity by being credible in his methods, by adhering to ethical standards, and by properly documenting the pedigree of his own findings, so that those who follow can assure themselves of the foundations upon which they are going to be basing their credibility.

In the process of establishing her own credibility, the student also acquires fluency in the subject matter. To properly and thoroughly question the findings of others, one must first understand the predominant issues of the topic area. To take firm grasp of the subject, the fledgling researcher must undertake serious research of her own, even if this preliminary exploration is at first simply a process of deferring to the wisdom of her predecessors. Since many topics must be audited more hastily than one would like – the explicit trust the student gives the credibility of those predecessors makes it a matter of utmost importance that all is well and solid on the beaten path. What applies to the apprentice researcher can be said of the trust afforded the scholarly by society in general.

Credibility can take years to build, but can be destroyed overnight. Caught in a lie, an authority loses the respect of peers and society in general before the words reach the opposite side of the room. Having been lazy in his methods, a researcher may find expenses run far over budget due to needless detours down blind-alleys. Society has a right to expect the authorities they subsidize and rely upon for guidance and expertise to conduct their work to the highest standards, with the least possible waste of human and material resources.

Methodology
"A man must be orthodox upon most things or he will never have time to preach his own heresy." – G. K. Chesterton

Although it is tempting to think of those who are methodical as pedantic bores, devoid of life, one must remember the importance of method in the proper functioning of a sane society. What benefit to taking a ride in a taxi to wherever the whim of the driver is inclined? Who would trust a clerk who asks for a sum to balance an account, without the clerk’s offering up the figures so that it can be determined that all is well with the addition?

Method is the thread with which the garment of research is sewn. Every stitch should be well placed and tightly secured, so that the thing does not fall apart at the seams. One must not, however, put form before substance, since a beautiful gown stitched with spider webs will not weather the rain of rebuttal. The most acceptable methods, applied imprecisely or inappropriately, can lead to erroneous but superficially convincing conclusions, and the researcher must consider the consequences of method upon the work specifically, and the discipline in general.

Besides being important to the soundness of the work itself, method is also the preliminary route by which anyone outside of the research is able to approach the findings. If the means to an end are well considered, accepting that the findings are accurate becomes more manageable. Even the most controversial contentions, if well presented and well supported by data interpreted using some acceptable method, become more acceptable to those who do not have the resources to determine for themselves what is truly the case, but who accept the means by which the conclusions were drawn. In this sense, method lends credibility to work that presents truly novel results, which becomes especially important for those pursuing doctoral work, due to the usual requirement that doctoral candidates contribute to their field some tangibly novel way.

For these reasons, methodology is highly regarded by both theoreticians and practitioners alike. Indeed, it is the lingua franca that speaks across all disciplines, though the body of methods of psychologists and literature professors will not be those of accountants, nor will the importance of certain branches of statistics be the same for computer scientists as for meteorologists. Despite the specific differences, all of these fields place great trust in proper and appropriate method.

* * *

I have only begun to suggest to you the importance of your calling. Now, if you are to be successful, you must push forth with all determination and begin the journey that is graduate study and research – alone, for the most part, but not entirely alone, since you are about to embark on a well-worn path, relying on values and strengths that you may or may not yet know are within you to harness.



------------------
Quinn

 

I apologize for the double posting. I hit back in my browser and it resubmitted the form.

------------------
Quinn

 

Sounds like a church I visited years ago.

Russell

 

What a fascinating thread you have started...

From a former enlisted man's prespective. what does having a "fake degree" have to do with the officer's ability to lead his men into battle ?? We EMs had it driven into our heads not to question but to follow orders!! This changed a bit during the Viet Nam era. When he is ordered to take that hill by his superiors, and he relays that order to the troops, are we to question the morality of the order by inspecting the officer's educational credentials ??? Must the military preclude the use of a battle field commission because officers must possess a university education ???

If the officer is required to lead by example, by having some wonderful degree like an MBA, why does the military send their best officers to War College instead of business schools ??


When I was in the military, I wanted my officer out in the field leading me, not giving me orders from his tent behind the lines.

The only concerns I have with the military and fake degrees is the Medical Service Corps and Engineering Corps positions. I would like to have a qualified doctor working on me when my guts are hanging out and as a Civilian, I would like to know the Army Corps of Engineers did a fine design job on that dam which might flood over my house.

I think somebody at GMA needs to pull their head out of their ... well you get the picture. Does GMA expect to expose any high ranking officers over in Afganistan ???

Regards,

Dick

 

As a retired Air Force officer, let me say that ethical behavior is central to the effectiveness and credibility of an officer. This is especially true in combat or other hostile environments, where the officer in charge has people's safety, even their very lives, in his/her hands. He/she has been given a public trust with a commission from the President of the U.S. and authority that comes from the U.S. Constitution. We are a nation of laws, and demand of our leaders. To claim a fake degree is a violation of the public trust. There is simply no room for debate on this.

As a former enlisted member (and staff sergeant), I questioned orders all the time, and let myself be heard. As an officer, I expected the same from my subordinates. This is termed "active followership." A leader who doesn't seek out and respect the advice of his/her followers, a leader who does not foster an environment of participation, a leader who is not humble enough to realize he/she does not always have all the answers is no leader at all. That person is an arrogant ass who will someday get someone hurt or killed.

A better argument could be made for the officer with no degree at all. The college degree as a nearly universal requirement is a new thing indeed. I served under many officers who did not have a college degree, especially in my enlisted days in the late '70s and early '80s. They were indistinguishable from degreed officers, IMHO. But I certainly feel that requiring all Air Force officers to possess a bachelor's degree has increased the talents, knowledge, and experience levels of the officer corps. And with the vast majority of them also holding advance degrees, this is even more true.

Been there, done that. Got the flag.

Rich Douglas, who worked both sides of that street and retired at the ripe old age of 36.

 

Just surfing through, and discovered this forum.

As a 21 year career Army Officer (Army National Guard), I have to say I owe my Career to Dr. John Bear. I discovered his book when I was a Lieutenant. I was one of the last OCS-commissioned officers that did not need a degree to become an officer. Soon after commissioning I went to a briefing and learned that officers would be required to have an accredited college degree. As luck would have it, I found a copy of Bear's Guide at a book store, and have lived by it since. ...Bachelors from Thomas Edison, and Masters from Cal State Dominguez Hills. I donated my copy of the book to our local education officer, and take great pride in mentoring young officers on their education.

Back, to the original topic- It would certainly be an anomoly to find an officer with a "phoney" degree, even in the reserves. (But, somehow there is always an exception.) Here is why- (1) To become a lieutenant now through OCS you must prove that you have 90 accredited credit hours, and are on track to complete your four year degree (or, go through ROTC, or a service academy). Since you cannot make Captain without an accredited degree. (2) For any promotion board the personnel office must certified that they received an official, unopened transcript from your accredited college. (3) To make the rank of Major, and be competitive, there is an unwritten code that you need to earn a Masters degree. (4) Officers that make it to higher ranks attend the Command and General Staff College and/or a Senior Service College. Virtually every Senior Service College now has Masters degree granting authority.

And, that's why most all senior officers, Colonel and above, posess an accredited 4 year degree, and two accredited Masters.

I know, I am one (almost- I will finish War College in July, and receive my second Masters).

Anyway, Didn't mean to be so longwinded. I was actually trying to get an opinion on NorthCentral University of Prescott, AZ. I have alway had a personal goal of earning a Ph.D., and of course, as an active duty officer I don't want to touch a degree unless it is accredited. I might take a calculated risk, if it was a "pretty sure thing" that the University would be accredited prior to my graduation...

 

It is hard to believe that an officer would resort to a "phony" degree when there are so many legitimate degrees conveniently offered on most large basis which meet the master's degree requirement.

Now since GMA is trying to check into everybody else's honor, would they do the honorable thing and admit it if they didn't find anything?

I must add that I do find it troubling that Lacrosse University, Columbus University, and Madison University advertise in the Navy Times and probably in the Army and Air Force times since it is the same publisher.

T. Nichols

 

Don't know if I can add too much here, as I was enlisted Army, and not an officer, but the vast majority of the officers in the military are either Academy grads (West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs), or were in an ROTC program at an accredited school.

Cheers.

 

I could not agree with you more regarding this issue Mr. French. I find this to be nothing more then a modern day witch hunt and it is repulsive. I would think GMA would be airing shows in support of our military, not trying to start scandals.

 

We are in the year 2002, and using humiliation as a motivator draconian at best. I do not condone illegal behavior or "fake" degrees, however who am I to wield some self-rightous orb of authority a self appointed snitch?

The question was askedy another poster - "Would you do this to a family member?" To amplify this, let me point out that these are human beings, with children and lives. Could you sleep at night, knowing you destroyed someones life by being a silent, internet snitch? What personal gain would you hope to obtain? True, they be asking for trouble for their actions, but who am I (or you) to rat them out? And people wonder why some folks want annonimity on these boards?

 

It was noted in previous posts, the requirement of an RA degree for advancement in the officer corps as well as the holding up officers to a higher leadership standard.

Somehow the logic of an RA degree equating to the gentleman requirement of the "Officer and Gentleman" supposition escapes me. Noble crap is my viewpoint on the issue. Officers do not receive good conduct medals. If an enlisted man serves 4 years with good performance reviews and no disciplinary actions, he is awarded the Good Conduct Medal. Some of cynical enlisted men referred to this award as the 4 years undetected crime award. In the Navy, they carried this a step further. You may have noticed some enlisted Navy members with gold stripes on their chevrons. A petty officer was granted the right to wear gold chevrons after attaining 12 continuous years of good conduct. The implicit argument is now EMs are inferior to the officer corps and must be continuously be disciplined. For those rare exceptions, the military will hold them up to their peers by recognizing their good conduct. Officers by virtue of the their gentlemen characteristic need no such recognition. If this noble assumption that an RA degree molded them into gentlemen were true, why does the officer corp suffer from alcoholism, family divorce, abuse and all the other general ills of the enlisted corps?

I will admit that my tour as a Military Policeman may color my viewpoint. I dealt with the evils of both sides of the fence. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is blind to rank. Maybe some of the ethical theologians at Degree Info can explain how having multiple degrees can qualify an officer for higher levels of command.

With respect to my statements that I am concerned about the Medical and Engineering Corps having educated officers, I stand by my statement. Even this viewpoint is taken with a grain of salt. Medical doctors in the military as well as Corp of Engineers members are virtually impossible to sue for malpractice.

I learned my ethics at home and in church, not as a component of my RA degrees. Many church supported colleges tout the ethics issue as making them a better choice over the public schools.

Regards,

Dick

Holder of three Honorable Discharges.

 

I too served as a military policeman and as a military police officer and it has also colored my view. While I do not wish to rankle anyone, I am going to be candid.

It was my personal experience that the general caliber of people in the officer corps is higher than the general caliber of the enlisted corps. I do not associate this exclusively to the fact that all officers have regionally accredited degrees (while most enlisted members do not have college degrees): But it is certainly a component to consider in the big picture.

 

I am sorry but I do not understand Peter French's argument at all. These are people who are committing fraud. Fraud is a crime why in the world would we want these people in government or the military? Since when is turning in or even exposing people who are committing a crime wrong? If you don't care for the way the media exposes people, fine. Do not becoming involved, but to characterize exposing criminals as wrong is ridiculus. Heck I think it could even be consider noble.

------------------
Best Regards,
Dave Hayden

 

Without blanketing the situation with rare exceptions, (a medical doctor, a lawyer, etc.), where is the fraud?? It is *not* illegal to earn an unaccredited degree. Once an unaccredited degree is earned, it is *not* illegal to list the degree or use the title. (in most cases)

Again, I'm not talking about the rare exception. We've covered that many, many times on this board.

There are a few of major categories to consider.

The first category are those who *worked* to earn an unaccredited degree. This is about the average Joe who struggles his/her way to a position of prominence - and just happens to have earned an unaccredited degree somewhere along the way. Where is the fraud in that?? Exactly what law are they breaking? (Disclaimer: If you follow my posts, I never encourage unaccredited degrees.)

In the "buying a sheepskin" category, it's up to society to manage this. If GMA wants to do a story, expose the sham operators. If it's fraud, then make it illegal to issue or even list such degrees - punishable by fines, etc. Once laws are in place, then it's fraud. (Again, I'm not talking about the obvious exceptions.)

There is a third category that we often fail to address on this board. What about the accredited degree holder - like a Ph.D. - who emphasizes a credential even though s/he is working outside of trained expertise? And the unassociated credential is leveraged for fees, TV appearences, etc. "This is DR. so-and-so." Is that fraud? If we are going to be consistent, let's apply the thinking across the board - even if it touches some higly revered icons.

Barry Foster

 

I mention this case in a (wordy) post above. While I believe that a doctorate will "in general" tend to produce critical thinkers, I believe that it ultimately should produce people who are capable of uttering the four most important words in science:

"I do not know."

They are difficult words to utter sometimes, especially when the person asking the question is expecting an answer (for whatever reason).

Most professional ethical codes require the full disclosure of limitations from members. Even when one's credentials are within the field, when the professional encounters something they are unqualified to comment upon -- they must defer with a disclaimer. Do they, in reality, do this? (When a professional encounters something they should know, but do not for whatever reason, the ethical thing to do is to defer and then engage in some level of professional development in order to correct the lapse. Do they?)



------------------
Quinn

 

My apologies for failing to reference Quinn's statement. It was his previous post that had triggered my deeper reflection re: Ph.D.s working outside their expertise.

Sorry Quinn ....

Barry Foster