Levicoff on Nations University

I agree and think it would be more descriptive for Nations to have a college component (undergrad) and Seminary (graduate). But as I note above the call everything a University trend is reality in the US. In my opinion Union Institute sounds better and more descriptive than Union Institute and University but then I dislike the "and" trend as well (e.g. Joseph Smith Bible College and Seminary). We could have a whole thread on University names alone. Trident U went through a few names before arriving at Trident.

 

It may be a heated discussion, but I think this assessment of a university beyond simply ticking the accreditation box is very worthwhile, so good on Steve L. and Neuhaus. I am glad that Nations students can receive some level of legitimate recognition for their efforts, but searching for Nations at this site highlights a number of legitimate concerns about quality of education that justify that further assessment.

 

I'm not going to do a point-by-point response to LearningAddict because I feel that as that method of conversation progresses it gets less and less productive. So, I'm just going to start my own "points."

1. Yeah, I get it it. A whole bunch of people totally "wuv" NationsU. It's the best thing since sliced bread. It cures the common cold. It runs your tummy at night to help you fall asleep. Whatever. Just as you ask Steve Levicoff to realize that his opinion will not make the world stop turning so should you realize that your emotional responses to a place you really "like" without the burden of objectivity will also not stop the world from turning. Nor will it make the world resume its rotation should it stop all on its own. If the opinions of NationsU critics are pointless then at least have the decency to acknowledge that your own opinions are equally worthless. Remember, man, that you are dust and to dust shall you return.

2. The PMB doesn't suggest illegal activity. But it is a red flag for a university. Largely because so many diploma mills operate out of PMBs, foreign post office boxes, registered agent offices or simply nowhere at all. Now, that red flag is somewhat mitigated by being accredited now, but that merely shows that the source of the funny smell isn't the giant load of BS one initially suspects. It doesn't make the funny smell go away.

3. Your continued defense of NationsU is veering even further from reason. Again, we're back to the "NationsU is good because NationsU has low tuition and this positive super awesome mission." So, NationsU is good and, as proof, consider the fact that NationsU is really good. hey, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just as others are entitled to look at Nations and not be impressed at all. While I was certainly surprised when NationsU received accreditation my immediate reaction following that was "Yeah, well, let's see if it gets renewed." I hope it does. Because otherwise it's acolytes will be here telling us all how NationsU was shafted by a corrupt system, didn't really want to be accredited anyway and we can begin the clock on the multi-year watch as they try to get accredited somewhere else. I also predict some foreign accreditor of questionable authority in that future (a la University of Atlanta). Truth is, getting an .edu website is a huge win for any school in the Mickey Mouse club. So that alone will probably drive more business to Nation's front door. Good for them, good for you, you've won the battle of "will Nations get accredited." Mazel tov! Now trying to force the place down everyone's throat because of it? Yeah, not gonna work.

4. None of this means, by the way, that Nations is incapable of earning the respect of its detractors. But it's been accredited for less than a week. So, maybe work on showing that this is an academic powerhouse rather than spouting off about how academics are really less important than the super fun buddy club that the school's alumni and fanboys have crafted. My point is that Nations likely won't strive for RA or offering something new and innovative to the field ("cheap" is neither new nor innovative). Low cost tuition? Good for them. There's an ophthalmologist down the road who puts coupons for LASIK in the local penny saver. Now, how much of a schmuck would I have to be to let a coupon weigh in on my decision for eye surgery? I'm not saying the guy is bad but that unseemly appearance doesn't instill confidence. Likewise, universities in PMBs who've struggled with accreditation need to show, not tell, that they are worthy of respect.

5. The whole "well, the nature of universities is changing" argument is pure BS. It's the sort of thing someone says when they know they're university is so far away from the concept that they need to redefine terms so that their apologetics machine has some ammo. But I really like your France example because it actually shows your desire to overrule reason with emotion. Yes, bumming around France may very well be a good way to learn about France, french culture and the French language. And if those are your goals then bumming around France is your best bet. I've known exactly one person who actually learned a language in a college classroom (to a level that was useful). Worth noting however, that it was Biblical Hebrew and she still ended up going to Israel to polish her skills. But you see, it depends upon your goal. If your goal is to learn French then go to France (or Quebec if you want to learn messed up, old timey French). If you want to engage in the academic study of French, the French culture or the nation of France then go to a university. You can combine the two and go to a French university but the two experiences, taken separately, are not interchangeable. Otherwise high schools wouldn't bother hiring people with masters degrees in French, they'd just hire some dude off the streets of Lyon. After all, a plumber in France is going to speak much better French than the typical American-born French teacher, right? So why bother with academics at all? What does accreditation mean? Why are there universities? Religion is similar. I can experience religion by living in a monastery, going to bible group or reading every book I can get my hands on. But if I want to engage in the serious study of religion I go to a university. College or seminary. Guess what? There are plenty of highly respectable schools focusing on that very subject all with sterling reputations. So why pick Nations? Well, you said it best, it's cheap and has a form of accreditation that is, at best, extremely contentious.

I recognize the oddity of someone with an NA degree seemingly crapping on DEAC. But I'm also a realist. While I respect the founder of UMT and the reputation in the public sector for UMT (as well as the PMI accreditation), I recognize that there are critics like Steve Levicoff who consider my school a Mickey Mouse school. And yet, it affects me not at all. I am confident in my choice despite the critics because the degree offers me as much utility as I could reasonably desire for the money I paid. But I also acknowledge that DEAC accreditation is not a guarantee of sheer awesomeness. Just look at some of the schools it formerly accredited and how badly they veered off into the wilderness. Kudos to DEAC for dropping them but shame on DEAC for accrediting them in the first place. DEAC has improved drastically, in my opinion, but they too have a long way to go to prove themselves. It can be done and I get the sense they are trying to establish the,selves more in the mainstream. But today, relying solely on DEAC accreditation, the only thing I can say about Nations is "well, good, at a minimum a customer can probably expect not to have their bank account drained into an offshore account and the lessons are probably require some form of work."

But DEAC is a very mixed bag. You can't really compare California Southern and Ashworth. And DEAC certainly doesn't prove that Ashworth is "just as good" as California Southern (or any other school that has, or had, dual RA/NA).

But I think your unwillingness to let the critics have their own opinions without jumping on it likely says something about your own self-consciousness in how Nations appears. Your last post seems more of a rationalization to yourself than an attempt to sway me. So, there's NationsU, love it or ignore it. I largely choose the latter.

In closing, to quote the famous Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, "I'm done with this guy."

 

Lots of people in the Union community hate the "and University" thing. It was added after the acquisition of Vermont College. Union tried to dump VC a few years ago, but got no takers. Many were looking forward to reverting to the old name.

IIRC, Steve graduated under the 'The Union Institute' banner. I graduated under the latter. But back in the day, when it was the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, it was the Union Graduate School that conducted the PhD program, while the degree was issued by UECU. In those days, people talked about--and listed on their resumes--graduating from UGS. In conversation, I almost always refer to it as The Union Institute, while I use the full name in print.

An interesting finding from my PhD dissertation is that names really matter. Schools with more substantial-sounding names were more acceptable to HR officials that those with avant-garde names. A diploma mill (the notorious Columbia State University) got more love than every accredited university except one (it also evoked 'state' in its name). Yeesh.

Bring back The Union Institute!

 

I have wondered what process goes into the decision to change (or name) a school. You point out in your research that certain names market better than others. Yet corporate or corporatish entities (with money and an ability to hire experts) come up with names that set the teeth grinding of alumni and others alike. Some that come to mind are Capella, Argosy and Trident. Then there are others that just scream "online" or University of Phoenix style corporate office complex school when you hear them. University of Phoenix was actually a good name but they suffered so to speak from success and omni presence in strip malls across the nation. Putting AND in your name is another strange trend that seems more common among small bible college/seminaries or non traditional entities trying to get everything in one name. Is it easier for legal purposes? Better to have z college and zed Seminary as seperate names and this is more typically the case in large established schools with seminaries.

As you noted, naming is something mill operators seem to have an easier time figuring out (Columbia State University and a host of English sounding names for mills allegedly located in England such as Palmers Green) than actual accredited non traditional schools.

 

Nations fits comfortably in that segment of non traditional accredited schools with quirky names. If it were me, I would suggest changing the name to Nations College and then another name for the seminary (graduate component). The Levicoff Memorial Seminary comes to mind.

 

Capella began as 'The Graduate School of America,' which some felt was a take on the 'Mall of America' located in the same city. Some might thing 'Capella' is an upgrade. It is named after the star.

According to Argosy's website: "The university derives its name from the noun argosy, which means a rich supply." Uh, okay. I guess they didn't want to go with 'Plethora University.' Pee-you and all that.

Trident seems to stem from a desire to retain the 'T' in Touro University International, it's prior name.

Some schools evoke the word 'state' even though they're not state schools. American Public University is not public, and American Military University is not run by the military. And so it goes, says the graduate of the University of 'Lester.'

 

Yep, off the rails:

"A memorial is an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event."

Wow.

Hopefully Steve has only departed another timezone and not this world as we know it.

 

Thinking future! I wish Steve a long and happy life on the road with many Broadway shows in his future.

 

Union had acquired Vermont College from Norwich University for two reasons. First, they were in hot water with the Ohio Board of Regents at the time (and, by extension, the North Central Association) and were hedging their bets in case OBR crashed down on them too harshly. In that case, you would have seen Union move to the V.C. campus in toto. Second, Union had only bachelors and doctorate programs prior to acquiring V.C. By bringing V.C. into the picture they gained successful master’s degree programs.

In the end run, as with many corporate mergers, Union kept the cream of the crop from V.C. and dumped the rest. The V.C. campus is now the free-standing Vermont College of Fine Arts, which has attained accreditation by the New England Association on its own.

Rich is correct, and my C.V. lists my Ph.D. from The Union Institute In conversation, I generally say The Union Graduate School to established that I graduated under the UGS model rather than the revised cookie-cutter program they now have. Rich was one of the last graduates under the UGS program model, which was far superior to the newer program.

I list my M.A. from Vermont College of Norwich University. (Even in the pre-Union days, V.C. graduates tended to list their degrees this way in order to differentiate our program from Norwich’s then-military campus.)

What has not been noted is that neither Rich nor I recommend Union Institute & University these days. The changes they made in order to kiss OBR’s ass (although OBR certainly had some valid concerns) changed the entire nature of their Ph.D. program and made them more like their profit-making competitors. For a picture of what the older-but-better model was like, go to Union Graduate School.

 

At the risk of totally hijacking this thread, let me add this:

Steve's right about Union and Vermont. They were ready to pack up and leave to get out of Ohio. The OBR, by the way, had some legitimate criticisms, but they were utterly draconian in their approach. I think they had it in for both Union and learner-centered graduate education.

I don't not recommend Union these days. It's just that, as Steve indicates, the place has changed a lot. It isn't the UGS model anymore. If it suits your eye, go for it. But it's like a lot of others out there these days. What made Union special--it's real DNA--was the learner-centered approach and the design-it-yourself PhD. That's dead.

 

I've known LearningAddict for a long time now. I highly doubt he cares what you think to the point of being self-conscious about it, especially concerning a school he's not attending. I also find your position on his post to be a lot of rhetoric. Who has he "jumped on" exactly by stating his view? If anything, your retorts just read like half-restrained anger, especially the last sentence, smh.

No one has said that the school is without its issues, or that it's good just because it's free or low-cost, you're injecting that premise on your own.

I myself never believed Nations would be accredited, but this had nothing to do with the quality of education, this had to do with the well-known fact that Nations was very rigidly set on focusing on the religious education to the point of not putting as much beef behind the rest, which I knew was going to make it hard for them to become accredited. But they've worked on that to the level of satisfaction that helped them reach accreditation, so this is no longer a matter.

As far as the PMB goes, I get what you're saying, but it's a reach to throw everyone into the same bin because some actual mills did some shady dealings that go far beyond whatever the use of a PMB could afford. The PMB itself is never the issue; it's a legal service widely used by legitimate businesses. As of right now we have no reason to cast aspersions on Nations and their use of it. Besides, Nations isn't hiding its faculty like the diploma mills generally do (or make up fake faculty). Now, if they were hiding their faculty or falsifying it, then I'd say something is up.

Is Nations a "Mickey Mouse School"? Fine, it's a "Mickey Mouse school". Whatever. There are thousands of "Mickey Mouse schools", and what is or is not considered a "Mickey Mouse school" really depends on the circle. The schools everyone in this thread graduated from are considered "Mickey Mouse" in some circle, but people who can think for themselves aren't going to worry about that and neither will most employers; for religious education, even less will care.

Lastly, about the University thing; LA's concept is actually simply the truth. People generally never cared about that, they care even less today because of how things have changed, and I doubt you could round up just 3 random people on the street (heck, on a college or university campus for that matter) who could tell you the difference between a college and a university. Is Nations a University by textbook definition? Nope, not even close. But the question is--as LA put it--who cares? The answer is, virtually nobody. You don't have to accept that, but your unwillingness to accept it won't change the reality.

 

I never said that LearningAddict is self conscious about what I think. I suggested that LearningAddict, and every other vigorous defender of NationsU, is self conscious of NationsU because deep down you know it's a Mickey Mouse school but you really want to believe that the school isn't a joke. Maybe it's because you invested time and money into it. Or maybe it's just because you find yourself embracing their mission. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. I've said as much multiple times throughout this thread.

But NationsU, like many religious schools accredited and otherwise, has so far shown itself to be more capable of building a cult of followers moreso than actually making a meaningful co tribute on to the academic discipline of theology. DEAC accreditation has shown, at a minimum, that it isn't a diploma mill. But all signs continue to point to it being a degree mill (I.e. A place that, while accredited, still offers a super easy path to a degree not up to the standards of a traditional university). It's up to NationsU to disprove that misconception. But even if it doesn't I'm certain throngs of supporters will continue to bang their bibles against their keyboards hoping to try to shut up the heretics (the people who criticize Nations). Hey, that's your right. And apparently I need to point out again that yes, while my opinion doesn't impact (and never has impacted) NationsU and its ability to operate neither does your vociferous defense of NationsU silence criticism. The difference between us is that I never disputed NationsU's legal authority to operate. That is, I never intended my opinion to actually bring about any action. I'm not standing outside of NationsU's garage office with a sign in protest trying to turn people away. You, however, are here trying desperately to convince me that my opinion is of so little consequence that it barely warrants acknowledgment. So be it. Then why you are acknowledging me?

As for half-restrained anger, I think you are once again projecting. At a minimum it tells me that you don't find My Cousin Vinny nearly as funny as me which, in and of itself, makes me "smh" in pity toward you. As I've said before, I don't really care about NationsU. I likely never will. I still think it's a joke. It's just an accredited joke now. That puts it alongside Ashworth College. What's Harvard known for? Well, many things, but I'd rank their law, business and medical schools up there. What's PennState known for? Lots of things but football overshadows many of them. What's Nations known for? Struggling to achieve the lowest tier (reputation wise) of accreditation and being cheaper than dirt. Hey, I guess any legacy is better than no legacy.

But hey, if DEAC is all you want to sleep well at night, then run with it. But trying to twist my words and throw in little jabs at me, personally, really shows which side of this discussion has a lot of anger.

I would've thought all of you NationsU kids would be a little bit more "turn the other cheek."

Oh well, to quote the words of Mona Lisa Vito,

"my biological clock is ticking away *stomping foot*"

Which in this context I'm relating to my desire to conclude this post and go eat breakfast. Cheers,

 

Quoted this part to say that the concept of "degree mill" was rejected here a long time ago IIRC, and for good reason. You're either a literal diploma mill or you're not.

For the rest of that diatribe full of inaccuracies, accusations, belittling, condescension, and very bizarre hatred towards Nations to the point of being comical, all I can say is... oh, Neuhaus, you're so cute! :arms:

Bye Bye now :wavey:

 

The academic rigor of a university does matter. And while I, personally, disagree with the term "degree mill" I think it belies a certain reality. Earning a bachelors from a place like Ashworth is easier than at a B&M university. Much easier. Easier to the point of being almost comical. I've taken many courses at a number of universities. I have basis for comparison. This isn't simply a matter of a school of a lower tier (like comparing a business course at Harvard to a business course at a community college). It's a comparison of two things that share nothing in common save that they are both, at least nominally, universities.

That's a discussion that can be very interesting. And one I'm always eager to have with someone who wants to engage in an adult conversation. Adult conversation doesn't seem to be your strong suit. How fitting then that you prefer to drink a group's KoolAid then engage in such discourse! Heck, I have quite a few opinions (both good and bad) about the school that awarded my MSM! In fact, my ultimate conclusion would probably be that I liked my education and I enjoyed my coursework but UMT should drop the "U" because I don't feel it really belongs in the world of a university. Because that's a critical view of an organization that I hold even though it undercuts the dignity of a credential I possess.

In any case, if finding me cute brings you peace then I will certainly not argue with you. I dare say I look especially good in a grey suit.

P.S. I'm not surprised we don't get along. I always preferred Agent 99, anyway.

 

Wow....just wow....smh. Neuhaus, eat a snickers.

 

Dr. Levicoff makes a distinction between 'degree mills' and 'diploma mills.' In short, he feels diploma mills are businesses that sell fake degrees--diplomas that have no real meaning, and are used to fool people. Degree mills, according to him, are schools that are legitimate/legal, but are substandard.

This distinction capitalizes on the difference between a diploma (a certificate printed, signed, and given to the graduate) and a degree (a title assigned by an academic institution).

While I appreciate the effort to make this distinction, I would caution that nowhere else in the known universe will you find it. Everywhere else, the terms 'diploma mill' and 'degree mill' are used (and misused) interchangeably. Additionally, applying this distinction can be problematic--especially as concerns what is and is not a 'degree mill.' (We can readily agree that diploma mills--businesses that sell certificates to enable buyers to pose as graduates--are pretty easy to distinguish.)

But a degree mill is a tougher call. As John Bear reminded us in his books, one person's degree mill is another's alternative university. Thus, we see the degree and diploma mill monikers applied to fully accredited and recognized schools. It is truly in the eye of the beholder.

So, is UoP a diploma mill? Using Levicoff's criteria, of course it is not. People who make that allegation are clueless or agenda-filled. Is it a degree mill? No more so than Ford is a car mill or McDonald's is a burger mill.

I would caution careful use of either of these terms, whether or not you make the same distinctions between them that Levicoff offers.

 

I'm really pretty sure, at this point, that you have no idea what tone I'm writing in. I'm not sure why you are choosing to read what I write as angry. It is not. Dismissive? Indeed. Angry? Not the least bit.

 

I just found your rantings rather strange (cult, etc) while claiming indifference. It is obsessive. You can be "dismissive" if you wish. That is your right. Everyone has opinions. Your's has no credibility with me. It is simply (as you note) an attempt to be clever. In point of fact, I do find it an attempt, but not clever.

 

i don't care if I have credibility with start-up school fanboys (and girls!) who choose to hide behind a cloak of Internet anonymity.

If you want discourse, I'm happy to discuss with you. I'm thrilled to have a civil discussion. But I'm not going to cower back because you think your favorite little concept college doesn't have my respect. If I have so little credibility in your eyes then move along and ignore me.

Because i have noticed that no one seems keen on vigorously defending NationsU under their actual name. It's easy to lob attacks from behind a screen name. Post under a real name and I would consider not regarding you as nothing more than a potential shill.