Law Suit of Concerns

Rich I didn't think that you'd told MIGS.

The point I was trying to make was that even if you had told MIGS, I believe it would have been done in an attempt support the need for one of the suggestions you've admitted that you've made to MIGS in order to try to make MIGS a better place.

Further, I doubt that Steve would have held it against you if you had told MIGS because exactly like you say in your post, Steve made the statement in a public forum. I'd be surprised if he was really concerned about MIGS learning about what his opinion was.

 

I'm very aware of that great law here in California. I suspect I owe some thanks myself for this law. (Some chucklehead has even stated in a news group that he was going to sue me just to cause me hassle and paper work. I figure it's a good thing he has a lawyer that has since explained how dumb that statement was.) I have been wondering if there is such a wonderful law in Penn.?

 

Bill, thanks for providing the web site that lists some of the most infamous non-accredited schools. I mean illegal!

You don't owe me an apology. However, thanks for being wise, reasonable, and understandable.

 

BTW, Dr. Levicoff hasn't asking you for an apology is because in my opinion he hope being nice to you would ease tension and stop the burning flame (it's metaphor). A quote fro Dr. Levicoff's web site addresses to you,
"...occasionally he acts like a jerk," said Dr. Levicoff.

Like I said before, I strongly believe you owe Dr. Levicoff an apology not because you don't think so but because it is the right thing to do.

I guess I owe you an apology for falsely accusing you of being a suspect of mastermind. I am sorry.

I know this a.e.d is a public forum, but I don't think anyone would spend all day to monitor the forum (unless he/she is unemployed beside we all have a life). In fact, if the topic or subject is not interesting, I don't bother to check. Honestly, I don't have time to read everyone input.

I think Dr. Levicoff's enemies waited to have an opportunity like this for a long time. I hope I am flatly wrong.

 

It's very interesting to me how Steve has this seemingly magical ability to be right. For example, I believe months ago he was about the only person that thought that MIGS was a degree mill. He actually took a fair amount of flak about it. He didn't say much of anything about MIGS for awhile then MIGS decided to (how did that guy put it?) step on their own privates with golf shoes and file a lawsuit.

I'm not sure where Steve gets his magical abilities but maybe I'll go get me some books on Wicca.

 

He may not be right. There have been many things to criticize regarding MIGS, but handing out degrees for cash hasn't been one of them. Whether or not they are legally or properly constituted is certainly worth debating. But the school has yet to graduate one student. Not one. And whether anyone likes it or not, MIGS is included in CEU's approval in Mexico, listed (along with CEU) in the International Handbook of Universities, etc., etc., etc. If and when MIGS students earn master's and doctoral degrees from the CEU, the awards will come with that full authority.

Rich Douglas

 

Originally posted by Rich Douglas:
He may not be right. There have been many things to criticize regarding MIGS, but handing out degrees for cash hasn't been one of them.

True enough. First you have to buy a few research papers from Sheila. Then you can get the degree.

If and when MIGS students earn master's and doctoral degrees from the CEU, the awards will come with that full authority.

Full of what?

 

Rich,

Don't worry about Bill, he's a well known troll and has been kicked out of various newsgroups. You've spelled out enough reasons why MIGS shouldn't be dismissed as a mill. Don't you wonder about the anonymous posters here all reading alike?

Keep going, Rich

Andy

 

Steve never said they were handing out degrees for cash, did he?


Whether or not they are legally or properly constituted is certainly worth debating. But the school has yet to graduate one student. Not one. And whether anyone likes it or not, MIGS is included in CEU's approval in Mexico, listed (along with CEU) in the International Handbook of Universities, etc., etc., etc. If and when MIGS students earn master's and doctoral degrees from the CEU, the awards will come with that full authority.



What authority is that? A listing in the UNESCO Handbook has no legal force, as far as I know. There is no legal obligation for anyone to accept those degrees.

Accreditation is more than a listing in some book. It is a credible process of external quality assurance.

I think that whenever a school seeks to evade the higher education quality assurance mechanism in its own country, questions are raised. MIGS is an American school that is trying to evade the requirements of American accreditation by seeking offshore relationships more to its liking.

That puts the burden of proof squarely on MIGS. MIGS needs to explain clearly why they took the decision not to seek American accreditation. They need to tell us what requirements they are evading and explain why those requirements are not crucial to MIGS' quality. They need to explain Mexican higher education requirements and why MIGS finds them more attractive. And, perhaps most important, they need to clearly explain how those Mexican requirements are actually being enforced in their own particular case.

Unless MIGS explains itself, all people have to go on is faith. And that seems to be rapidly evaporating.

 

Come on Bill, he called them a degree mill.

Same applies to any degree, Bill. What's your point exactly?

But acceptance of the institution conferring the degree and therefore the diploma itself is very much related to catalogs and books in which the institution appears, and CEU is in all the requisite listings.

That's your interpretation and opinion, Bill. That and 75 cents will buy you a cup of coffee (or not, depending on zip code). There's no beef here. Where's the substance of your argument?

The main issue is whether or not MIGS is a degree mill. The burden of proof lies with those making the accusation, in this sense, MIGS need prove nothing.

Argumentative line.

 

It has been proven. First they weren't operating legally. Second, they have shown up on an official government list of degree mills. Point, set, match, game over. There's no way that MIGS could prove their end of the case with those facts on the table.

Contrary to your assertion that MIGS wouldn't have to prove anything, here's a quote that indicates otherwise from the "The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States" (1992).

"In Gertz v. Robert I Welch (1974), the Court established that the First
Amendment required that public figures--persons with widespread fame or
notoriety and persons who had injected themselves into the debate about
a public controversy for the purposes of influencing the resolution of
the issue involved--also had to prove knowing falsehood or reckless
disregard to win their libel suits. The Court's decisions requiring public
officials and public figures to prove knowing falsehood or reckless
disregard for the truth has created a barrier to winning libel suits that
few have been able to surmount."

I assert that MIGS would be found to be a public figure. That being the case MIGS would have to prove reckless disregard of the truth by the N&T Steve in this case. To do that they will have to take down the state of Oregon as well. Like I said, point, set, match, game over.

 

Hi Andy,

Thanks for sharing your ignorance with us. For example, how does one get kicked out of a newsgroup? If you could please explain it to us then there's the fellow that uses the handle of factwatcher that we would probably all like to do some business with.

As far as worry about me goes, I agree with you there. I don't know why anyone should worry about anything I've said. This is just a discussion group and worrying about anything I say doesn't make much more sense than worrying about you have to say.

Have fun,

 

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that MIGS didn't require work to be done before diplomas are given.

One of the more insidious type degree mills is the type that suckers in the students and leads them to believe that they are earning a full fledged degree when in fact it is substandard. In your specific case I don't even believe that your degree would be substandard. I'm sure that Dr. Bear wouldn't let that happen to you but, MIGS has made some horrible mistakes. Rich, I sincerely wish you the best. I know that you're in a very uncomfortable situation.

It just appears that the board of MIGS has not been concerned about the proper things. First they should have been concerned about operating legally. Instead they decided to try and attack the first amendment. It appears that they have simply failed the scrutiny that their own dastardly action has brought upon them.

For your sake Rich I hope they can clean up their act and get it all turned around. Unfortunately it looks like they really put themselves in a hole, it appears it's going to be hard to crawl out.

 

Bill Huffman writes, re MIGS, It has been proven. [They] have shown up on an official government list of degree mills. Point, set, match, game over.

Please recall that the Oregon list also includes California Coast (whose graduates qualify to take the state therapist exams in California] and Berne [some of whose programs qualify for US student loan programs].

As I have written in Bears' Guide for years, one person's degree mill is another person's nontraditional university.

I continue to think MIGS is (a) academically sound, (b) properly accredited, and (c) has the worst marketing and public presentation of any school I've seen in the last twenty years.

John Bear, who will continue to be
a faculty advisor for MIGS as long
as Rich remains a student, fulfilling
the promise I made to him years ago

 

And, apparently, deaf.

Rich Douglas

 

I agree with everything John has written. I would just like to point out that I believe the context of my original statements was different. I believe that the context for John's post is the bigger picture of schools in general and Rich's situation in particular. The context of my posts was the opinions expressed by Steve Levicoff and the lawsuit filed by MIGS in response.

I clipped out the above quote from John's post because I believe it backs up my belief that the MIGS' lawsuit was ill conceived, poorly executed, and doomed from the start because it is nothing but a nuisance suit whose sole intent was to try and scare Steve into giving up his right to freedom of speech. I consider the MIGS action a blatant attack against everyone's right to free speech and I applaud Steve for taking the high road and not caving in to their cowardly action. (Although I bet a lawyer would tell him to capitulate but then that's Enrique's exact problem, I guess, and he can't understand ethical actions. )

I don't believe MIGS has a leg left to stand on regarding their suit. I think more than enough evidence has come to light that proves that Steve's statements were a reasonable interpretation of the current MIGS situation.

As for points a) and b) about MIGS I'm very pleased and happy to hear that. It appears to me the big problem with MIGS is the cause of c) which I also blame the lawsuit on. That is the MIGS board. If a) and b) happen to be in good shape at this point I believe it is more likely that it's in spite of the board. When there's rot at the top, it will normally eventually rot out the whole organization. At least that's been my experience in business organizations. I can only assume it's the same for schools.

Have fun,



------------------
Bill Huffman, [email protected]

 

Quite true... and the unfortunate part is that it is *EXTREMELY* unlikely that the rot at the top will go away.

MIGS, according to everyone except Sheila, is a Sheila and Bill Danzig operation. And I am becoming more and more convinced (particularly given the mid-1970s action by the Postal Service against one Sheila Danzig in Ft. Lauderdale FL) that the woman is absolutely without the ability to comprehend that there's anything wrong with her sleazy tactics.

For MIGS to survive, it will (IMHO) have to completely divorce itself from the Danzigs. Not in name, not in marketing, but absolutely, completely, so that they have *NO CONNECTION* to the program. Otherwise, I can't imagine Sheila being able to keep her anti-Midas touch from tarnishing MIGS reputation further. The fact that she simply *does not* see any problem with selling term papers on the same page as she's selling a school offering allegedly prestigious degrees pretty much speaks for itself. And no amount of marketing, hype, or sugarcoating, will change that history.

As John Bear said, it's the absolute worst marketing he's ever seen in 20 years. As Tom Head said, it's the first time he's thought of schools advertising on matchbooks as a step up from something.

Someone needs to contact CEU (and possibly the Mexican accreditation authorities) *immediately*, arrange for translation of all the information that has been uncovered so far about Sheila, NSMI, the fact that they're illegally operating in two states, the comarketing of MIGS and a term paper plagiarism service, and *STAY ON THEM* until they do something. Like cut the Danzigs loose and try to reorganize with Armando and the rest of the legitimate folks.

This situation is just appalling. And the sad thing is, none of it would have come to light if Sheila and Enrique hadn't been so stupid as to attempt to shut Steve up.

 

I certainly agree with 'C'.

While I have the greatest respect for Dr. Bear, I would really rather hear 'A' from a credible accreditor, rather than from any single individual.

Which leads us to 'B'. The assertion that MIGS is properly accredited. I'm still not convinced.

As I understand it, accreditation is more than a listing in a reference book. It is a credible and recognized system of educational quality assurance. Unfortunately, in MIGS' case nobody seems to have a clue who is responsible for overseeing the quality of MIGS' doctoral programs.

Has MIGS ever come under the direct scrutiny of any accreditor or quality assurance body? When and how? Under the Mexican system, when a Mexican school enters into a foreign collaborative relationship, who specifically has the responsibility for overseeing the academic standards of the foreign program provider? Has MIGS here in the United States ever hosted a site-visit?

Here in the United States we have a widely understood and quite credible QA mechanism in regional accreditation. But for whatever reason, MIGS chose not to submit to American quality assurance. Instead they entered into a relationship with a very obscure Mexican school, and have attempted to "piggy-back" on that school's Mexican approvals. All without any explanation of how that works in practice.

That puts the burden of proof squarely on MIGS. If they choose to skip credible quality evaluation in favor of something that few understand, then they have the responsiblity to make their new arrangements as credible as they can.

If they have undergone a credible QA process, then they should post the details on their website. That should be very easy for them to do, and it might help their credibility immeasurably. They need to be a lot more forthcoming and detailed than a normal RA school would need to be, because they are asking prospective students, employers and the professional and academic communities to have trust in something that nobody truly understands.

Until they do explain their "accreditation" more clearly, I think that a stiff dose of skepticism is healthy.

 

<<For MIGS to survive, it will (IMHO) have to completely divorce itself from the Danzigs. Not in name, not in marketing, but absolutely, completely, so that they have *NO CONNECTION* to the program. Otherwise, I can't imagine Sheila being able to keep her anti-Midas touch from tarnishing MIGS reputation further. The fact that she simply *does not* see any problem with selling term papers on the same page as she's selling a school offering allegedly prestigious degrees pretty much speaks for itself. And no amount of marketing, hype, or sugarcoating, will change that history.>>

Well said Chip. You really have to wonder what sort of influence Sheila could possibly have over the MIGS people who have solid academic credentials (such as the President & Vice-President). They have to be either blind or ignorant to not see the damage that her association with the school is causing. At the risk of giving ourselves too much credit, I believe quite a few people drop into a.e.d. (and here soon enough) to get opinions on schools, and I can imagine what the responses would be now to MIGS.

I just really don't get the whole Sheila thing. I watched the video clip on her website, and she's not what I'd call a captivating personality. What is the possible attraction???


Bruce

 

The only thing I can imagine is that she sold them on what appears to be her only come-on, money hype.