Kennedy-Western Faculty to Present at DL Conference

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hotel, Foods – Vine – Lobsters.

I was in the Army for the years 1966, 1967 and 1968. I wasn't a commissioned officer. Everyone in the military takes that oath.

If I don't know what I'm talking about then please state what that oath means to you.

 

Oath

I took it when I was nineteen. It didn't mean much to me then. It means much more now.

 

I assume that your ability to communicate is far greater than it appears in this thread. I guess when you're making false accusations you aren't even man enough to just state your lies clearly? Or, perhaps you are just amusing yourself rather than trying to communicate clearly?

The situation is that, you have apparently made insinuations against the people that testified against the diploma mill, Kennedy-Western University. I suggest that your first step in disproving my assertion that you were acting dishonorably is to first clearly state your accusations. Secondly, provide any evidence or state any arguments that you may have that supports your statements. If you can't do this then you will remain branded as a dishonorable supporter of academic fraud, at least in my book.

 

Re: Oath

For the second half of my three-year hitch I was in a Combat Engineering Battalion with responsibility for riot control in Washington DC. For my last year I was acting company armorer and had 14,000 rounds of 7.62 for the above task.

Re the Constitution, which side was I on?

 

Gray

Okey dokey, let's get to that straw man first...

I'd have to say that the world isn't as black and white as it may seem to a nineteen year old. In answer to the question: you were on the side of the constitution that allows for one's own preferences to be subordinated to the interest of the people, represented by the elected agency of the US government. If the government is not serving the people, they elect another, and if you have made a pledge to obey the government's orders even to your own death or that of others, then that's what one does. Or one follows one's conscience into prison.

But the issue at hand is that as members of the armed forces, we decided to allow the suspension of self-interest, including political self-interest. And, instead, we put our trust, for better or worse, in the government. It is no great trick to be a robot, in service and in full, personal agreement with the government that orders him or her into action. But it is truly courage, to be a servant, true to his or her word, by oath, against many of the ethical concepts one believes. That was my experience and I went into it with my eyes open.

And before you believe me to be some kind of right-wing hawk, I'm just the opposite, a progressive left winger who opposes the war and the administration. But, were I a serving officer. I would do exactly what my commanders told me to do because I made a vow to do so. If I didn't want to... I shouldn't be there, and I should not have made the vow.
I also believe we must stay true to our vows or we are NOTHING. And so...

As to the officer who testified against the OBVIOUS Diploma Mill, I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she takes the vow seriously. And takes the other vows in her life seriously. Such as the one she made prior to her testimony. But, maybe I'm just weird like that.
Dan B

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hotel, Foods – Vine – Lobsters.

No, it is NOT the same oath. Accepting a commission is being appointed by the President of the United States. See below:

Enlisted:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Officers:
"

I, (state name), having been appointed a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, so help me God."

The first is a pledge to obey. The second is a pledge to carry out one's appointment to office. But both have honor, just as the oath-takers themselves do. And to suggest--without a bit of proof--that such a person has compromised her principles is itself a dishonorable act.

Are there people that take these oaths and don't mean them? I guess so, because we've heard from one.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Hotel, Foods – Vine – Lobsters.

Yep.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hotel, Foods – Vine – Lobsters.

Nice emotion but ill logic. I didn't speak to any individual.

Corollary ill logic. You now do what you erroneously accused me of doing.

 

Back to the topic at hand......

With respect to the precise topic of this thread.... alluding to KW"U" "faculty" or representatives presenting (who knows what) or pretending to present (who knows what) at an upcoming DL conference:

All together now ....... please raise your right hand and repeat after me........ all in one, uninterrupted breath:

"I, ordinary John Q. Bloke (or Jane W. Blow), of sound mind, body, intellect and will, hereby pledge to affirm and uphold this oath: that I will to the best of my ability obtain, present and provide all possible ascertainable facts and evidence to members of this august DI discussion and information body, to assist in incotrovertibly demonstrating that short of dressing up as a clown for the party and acting as a pretender to the real and academic instruction DL throne, the entity known as KW"U" has no legitimate business presenting DL material to any legitimate DL body anywhere on our planet earth (save, maybe, in Astronaut, Honorable Chief Justice, Rev. Minister Dr. Swift Eagle's planet) because said entity, KW"U" is, in my humble opinion, a perpetually unaccredited pseudo-university which adamantly refuses-to-even-consider-legitimate-accreditation-because-it-has-found-a-gold-mine-in-the-provision-of-easy-degrees-to-some-seeking-the-presumably-easy-unaccredited-degree-route-to-a-higher-education-degree-that-may-be-used-cunningly-to-impart-a-semblance-of-legitimacy-to-the-mostly-unknowing-or-ill-informed. Said KW"U" entity is, according to a preponderance of all available evidence inclusing the May 2004 US Senate and GAO hearings, that it is not engaging in legitimate and academic DL enterprise but is a money-making business that has apparently found a way to make a few "student" innocents and many more "student" co-conspirators believe that they can have a university (higer education) "degree" for a lot, lot, lot less academic work and sweat. I, therefore, urge all distinguished DI members and posters to make all attempts possible to secure and post herein, the transcripts of such KW"U" presentation here on the DI premises so that the unclothed emperor and emperess may be shown, to the discerning DL seeker and provider, to be none other than what they really are, naked and unabashedly gross DL pretenders, profiteers, very much un-university-like but arguably among the best of supremely cunning marketeers for DL pseudo-degrees.

So affirmed by yours truly on this wonderful day that providence hath made.



Thanks.

 

Agreed!

I also am of the opinion that the Lt. Cmdr is also an honorable officer, bringing honor to the oath to serve, and she did serve us truthfully and honorably, at the May 2004 GAO and US Senate hearings on diploma mills. Her documented testimony re: the academic failings of KW"U" have, to this day, not been credibly challenged (in fact, not challenged at all) by anyone.

Thanks.

 

I expect the representatives of KWU at the DL Conference to put on a credible presentation. I assume that they are intelligent people and will therefore be able to pull together and present a reasonable presentation. On the other hand, I will be surprised if they admit that the KWU tests (at least what appears to be the general case) as currently formulated really only test the superficial familiarity that the student has gained with the textbook rather than testing the level of knowledge gained in the subject.

 

Isn’t the marketing tactics of kW-U is to appear academic.

Look how they advertise - their school listed among legitimate DL providers.

So what is surprising to have their names in such activity that will make them look academic.

for me this is very i repeat very simple.

Recognized accreditation is a must then I will start looking at the rest of what the school has to offer.

Lerner

 

Sure. Of course it's possible.

Most of the CA-approved degree-granting schools and even some RA schools have fewer resources and less funding than K-W has. K-W's flight (sorta) from California was a business decision, pure and simple.

 

I've heard several K-W students who I respect say that their classes were good, and I have no reason to doubt them. The testimony at the hearings, along with comments from other K-W students contradict that. I have no reason to doubt that stuff either. More cognitive dissonance.

My guess (it's only that) is that K-W recruits its faculty by hiring people teaching elsewhere, offering them extra money to teach one or two K-W classes on the side. But I suspect that K-W has few, if any, internal controls and doesn't really care a whole lot about what their teachers are doing.

So some K-W teachers teach their K-W classes the same way that they teach classes at their day job. These teachers show some integrity and their classes are probably pretty good. But other teachers probably blow it off and do as little as they can get away with, which quite likely is very little indeed. So some K-W classes are jokes.

Now K-W is making noise about course design and about all the stuff that these two people are going to be presenting on at Tony's conference.

Does this indicate that the school is trying to shape up a little and put out a better product? Or is this course-design stuff just marketing and PR, some post-hearing damage control and a way to make K-W look a little more credible to the DL profession?

My guess is the latter, but the former does remain a possibility.

On the off-chance that K-W does standardize its course design a little and does start placing some expectations on its professors, I hope that the resulting euphoria doesn't obscure all the life-experience credit that they grant and how easily their catalog requirements are waived.

That's the next frontier for K-W, but addressing that one will mean completely changing the school's business model.

If those two things happen, internal controls and instructional consistency on one hand, and reining in life-experience credit on the other, K-W might actually start to look accreditable. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.

 

BillDayson:

Your posts above re: KW"U" offerings and the possibilities for its redemption (maybe) are fairly objective and you are to be commended for always trying to be as objective and impartial as possible. I do appreciate that.

BUT .... do faculty (the obviously part-time professors and instructors) at KW"U" ever TEACH anyone anything? How do they do that?

It is documented that any KW"U" student may request a faculty tutorial (question/answer) anytime but that most students do not - because it is NOT required, not mandatory.

It has also been stated here and elsewhere that many students who request said tutorial assistance wait forever for a response from an instructor and most simply consider it unworkable and inefficient.

Many students at the KW"U" Pub have also documented problems with the tests and the grading as done by some of these instructors (or office staff/administrative clerks?).

It is documented and known that "students" or enrollees only have to purchase one textbook per class and take one open-book test.

Where is the (DL) TEACHING by the instructor and how is it done? To the best of my knowledge, there is little to none! - but I would appreciate another answer or further elaboration if anyone may.

Thanks.

 

I believe you are correct Jake_A. The students of K-W have reported classes consist of reading a book and taking a couple of tests. All other ciontact is voluntary.

 

I have never heard of anyone teaching a KWU class? My understanding is that developing a KWU course consists of picking a text book, producing some class notes, and creating a test. The classes are not taught. The class notes are sent to the student and they get the text book on their own then take the test when they are ready. There is not any classes to teach because it is all independent study. It appears that the academic integrity and quality of the tests varies widely between classes. I say this because it is the only way that I see that both the testimony at the senate hearings could be true and what KWU students have said here could both be true.

 

Re: Re: Kennedy-Western Faculty to Present at DL Conference

What a kind thing to say! Actually, there are others on this forum that are better acquainted with Kennedy-Western than I am, but I could assess their presentation with regards to its quality and utility as a model.

Tony Piña, Ed.D.
Administrator, Northeastern Illinois University

 

Re: Re: Re: Kennedy-Western Faculty to Present at DL Conference

I could study K-W for the next year and remain without your insider's view of the workings of universities.

 

Decimon: What you said here is so very true!

I agree wholeheartedly with decimon that you, Dr. Anthony Pina, are, unquestionably, an expert - a legitimately certifiable one, at least by several other experts and contributores here at DI and in other legitimate DI advocacy lands - that you are one of the best, if not the best, and certainly one of the most qualified, if not the most qualified, to listen impartially and impassively to KW"U"'s upcoming conference presentation to make and provide a critique/assessment thereof.

Thanks, Dr. Pina (and Dr. Bear and many others) for your continued service to DL advocacy (of the accredited and legitimate kinds).

Ummmm, you know the deal, right? ........ I totally and completely had to add that "accredited/legitimate" piece above in order to close the door on the possibility of some fakes, quacks, mills and trolls - even legal but substandard entities - from sneaking through.



Thanks.