MSc in Critical Psych strictly via DL

Uncle Janko,

Please correct me if I am wrong. But didn't Dr. Bear state that it's difficult to say whether a school is a mill or not? Or some schools, or something like that?

Regarding MDS. To be totally honest, I never was concerned with or interested in MDS. Some (perhaps many) on here call it a mill, others do not.

Some on here call CCU a mill, others do not. Some call BOD a mill, Walston, a DL expert, does not. Neither does Dr. Bear in any of his books.

If I made a call on MDS, whose posts would I choose to accept, those who call it a mill or those who don't. Each person, as in nearly every thing debatable or controversial, can put forth stats and reasonable arguments to defend his or her case.

Drs. Levicoff and Bear do not always agree on certain schools being mills or not.

I have no earthly idea why MDS came into existence since TTS offers the same programs of study. Perhaps, as you say, it's a "cash cow." If this is the case, it's dishonorable and despicable.

I stand by my statement that if TTS sees MDS hurts its credibility, they should disassociate themselves from it immediately.

 

Hi All,
Since my name has been brought up, let me just say the following:

*ACCS was deceptive for not telling its students about its accreditation problems.

*Trinity was/is deceptive for blatantly lying about its accreditation by the University of Liverpool.

While both schools have differing ethical problems, they both center on what they have or have not told their students about their accreditation. I am a graduate of ACCS (D.Min.) and find their refusal to come clean on this issue appalling. What equally disturbs me is TTS's refusal to repent over their outright lies. I was enrolled at TTS and was definitely lied to about the U of L "accreditation."

That being said, I don't think either school is beyond redemption, but they both, at the very least, need to be honest about their situation. I would expect that from a secular institution, but since both of these schools claim to have Christ as their foundation, it should go without saying that they should be forthright on this issue.

Trinity has definitely upgraded their faculty since I was enrolled. I can't speak to their courses since it has been a long time since I took one. Their main problem now, as I see it, is a refusal to repent over their former deception and their connection with MDS, a blatant mill. That doesn't mean they can't offer a good education, but I personally wouldn't give them a dime until they get their ethical house in order. That is my personal feeling and has no reflection on Jimmy or any others that feel differently.

BLD

 

Dr Clifton:

On the ancillary question regarding MDS:

Not wrong, exactly, but off point. With all those doctorates, go do your own research on MDS. Look at the website, typefaces, faculty lists, graphics; look at the course requirements and degree expoectations; look at the credentials, such as they are; compare the relevant categories at TTS. You can readily establish for yourself that the two schools are connected. Do so--don't take my word for it. Then consider whether MDS is a mill. Consider how its requirements compare to TTS's, if you wish. How does MDS stack up? (By the way, if you don't want to answer, then don't. But say so. Please do not suggest that facts are not available. They are--however variously they might be interpreted.)

On the main question raised in my first post and reiterated/rephrased in my second post:

Have you anything to add? You have many degrees which bear labels relating to the analysis of human behaviour. You have been associated with very many schools of very different kinds. Please note that my question is getting rephrased with less and less nuance (will this make it easier to reply?): why the all-or-nothing high dudgeon from users of substandard schools, when users of RA/NA schools generally don't do that?

_____


BLD: Thanks for the post. I do not recall whether you had any direct connection to ACCS, but your post illustrates well my observation about the way proponents of RA/NA schools usually react to criticism of "their" schools. Best wishes, Janko

 

==


Thanks for posting Barry. I agree that is is possible for Trinity to offer a decent program while remaining unrepentant about past or present flaws in ethics [though IMO the TTS DA in Bible has glaring deficits such as slender admission prerequisites and no languages ] .

IMO applying to the NCA is not repentance for lies, neither is getting RA washing sins away---but that is just my opinion. . I rather think a substantial and specific admission of guilt duratively posted on the Trinity site and in magazines is in order since there the deceptions occured for years!

But what do I know? Perhaps, in fact, "CONFLICT RESOLUTION " , a subject TTS must know something about as it offers a doctorate in that, is actually achieved by not fessing up and pretending it really never happened

I also agree that Jimmy and others need to be persuaded in their own minds about the suitability of TTS for them. It is their choice. If they are Christians then God must guide them not us.

 

Jimmy:

Although many statements in your post are either patently false or intentionally misleading, this one certainly caught my attention. Do you believe the same concept should apply to individuals? If affiliation with an institution hurts your credibility, shouldn’t you disassociate yourself from them immediately as well?

For example, on numerous occasions, you publicly asserted that Dr. Paul Graves, president of Golden State School of Theology told you that they had applied for accreditation to the DETC and that the DETC had conducted a site visit. As it turns out, according to the DETC, what you claimed Dr. Graves told you simply wasn't true. However, this did not prevent both Dr. Graves and Kenny Rhodes, Academic Dean of GSST (at the time, he appears to be no longer affiliated), from publicly (on this forum) accusing you of lying. In other words, either you were lying or they were.

If GSST is, as you now assert, a legitimate and respectable institution of higher learning, don’t you think that having two such high-placed individuals from your alma mater publicly call you a liar hurts your credibility? Don’t you think you should disassociate yourself immediately?

If you were telling the truth about what Dr. Graves told you concerning GSST’s accreditation status, then it is obvious that such blatantly fraudulent behavior (among other reasons) unquestionably characterizes GSST as a degree mill. Don’t you think that claiming yet another degree mill credential substantially hurts your credibility? Don’t you think you should disassociate yourself immediately?

Do you understand that, by continuing to list the GSST degree, the implication is that you either are admitting it was you who was not being honest concerning Dr. Graves comments, or you simply do not care about the truthfulness and integrity of a school as long you as you can extract some kind of utility from the degree? Don’t you think either scenario hurts your credibility? I know that it has pained you greatly to renounce a number of fraudulent degrees you have previously claimed. I also know it will pain you greatly to have to renounce yet another degree from a questionable school. However, don’t you think you should follow your own advice and disassociate yourself immediately?

 

Gus, why not just refer people to the thread? It seemed inconclusive then as it is now.

Applying weasel word standards to common speech among individuals hardly means one is lying. When asked to recall the gist of a conversation it would not be unusual to have different recollections. Ask any policeman.

I remember the amusement of a judge who heard a case in which I testified. I was 3rd witness of 3 and had no clue what the others had said. While the gist of what we all saw was similar, most of the other detail was different.

 

I’m sorry, Dennis, Jimmy’s statements appeared in more than one thread and even in more than one fora. Were you unable to find them? Did you try the search function of this forum?

In any event, you might want to start with this thread, or this one. You will see that Jimmy wasn’t the only one claiming that GSST informed them of scheduled DETC site visits. Moreover, it contains a little gem in that we have a post by the Academic Dean (at the time) of GSST disparaging Trinity (TTS) over the claims of accreditation (he had done so before on this forum).

Precisely what is inconclusive, Dennis?

• 1. Jimmy repeatedly claims that Dr. Graves told him that the DETC in the process of accreditation and that the DETC had conducted a site visit. Other individuals also claim that GSST told them similar stories.
  
  2. Sue Reilly, Director of Accreditation for the DETC tells me that GSST was never in the process of accreditation, and the DETC had never scheduled a site visit. In fact, GSST never even submitted an application to the DETC!
  
  3. Kenny Rhodes, Academic Dean of GSST (at the time) posts a message on this forum trying to weasel around what constitutes “in the process” of accreditation, but does admit that the DETC never received an application from GSST (albeit offering false statements as to why) nor did it conduct a site visit of the school. He characterizes Jimmy’s statements as “misinformation.”
  
  4. Jimmy simultaneously defends GSST while politely chastising them for the way information concerning accreditation is released. He does, however, continue to insist that the information he posted (Dr. Graves telling him that the DETC conducted a site visit) is accurate.
  
  5. Dr. Rhodes then insists that Dr Graves would never have said anything differently that he had (therefore, Jimmy is lying).
  
  6. I point out that Dr. Graves had recently registered as a member of this forum, was obviously reading the posts in question, and that the proper thing to do would be for him to issue a statement. The silence is deafening.

I don’t know what is inconclusive, Dennis. As Uncle Janko observed at the time, “…when Dr Graves and Dr Clifton make logically exclusive statements, one of those statements must be false.”

Jimmy claims that Dr. Graves told him the DETC conducted a site visit. The DETC claims that GSST never even submitted an application (a fact admitted by GSST). Can any amount of weaseling bridge the immense gap between these two claims? The fact remains: Either Dr. Graves lied to Jimmy, or Jimmy repeatedly lied about what Dr. Graves told him.

 

Why the insult, Uncle Janko?

I answered your questions.

I know enough about human behavior to know what your motives are here. I know what your goal is and I know what you hope to accomplish.

I will not become your prey, sorry!

You know the answers to your questions. You are a highly skilled and very gifted man of great scholarship and ability.

Let's keep the games in the Olympics, okay?

 

It's about motivation Bill, motivation.

I have no beef or quarrel with Barry Davis and find him an honorable, decent man and a fine Christian gentleman second to none. He is away above reproach!

 

===

??

So others here are not decent ; is that what you imply?

 

I guess it's just not possible for you to address me with the generally accepted rules of courteous, respectful, and civil discourse, is it?

Until you who has called certain schools degree mills, criticised and condemned degree holders from certain schools, criticised and condemned the credentials of some, and who gives advice regarding one's academic choices, come clean with your own academic background and qualifications as a DL expert, I don't care to discuss anything else about myself, my academic choices, my plans, my mistakes, my transgressions, etc., with you, sorry!

 

No insult intended, Dr Clifton, but if you feel one was intended, then please report the post to the moderator.

I believed that perhaps in my efforts to make the questions as precise as possible, I had complicated things unduly. In my 25 years of teaching experience, I have found that rephrasing questions is often helpful to both questioner and questioned in getting at the heart of the matter in question. You had not answered the central question and primarily spoke about your decision to enroll in TTS. I thought you were simply going off on a tangent (or had misunderstood my question due to my verbosity in asking), as we all do from time to time. So I asked again. Now you are expressing wounded feelings.

Please, also, since you can read my mind, tell us what you find therein. I asked you straightforward questions and you have chosen not to answer. Now you are resorting to insinuations about my character (something Chip said we ought not do), and that's too bad.

You have also accused me of seeking prey. This is groundless. It is also an attack of precisely the sort against which we have all been warned. I asked you in an ancillary question, in light of your prior claims to expertise in text-criticism, to apply that expertise to the website of Masters Divinity School. Apparently you do not want to do so, which is, of course, your perfect right. You also do not want to answer a legitimate question, appropriately asked of an appropriate potential source of knowledge (that would be you). Again, this is your perfect right. You list many degrees in your sig file. I had hoped that all that experience might well put you in a unique position to evaluate MDS.

If I knew the answers to my questions, Dr Clifton, I would not ask them. Please, since you know that I know the answers, tell me what those answers are, so that I can then know what I know as well as you know what I know. I need all the help I can get.

I am very sorry that you have found it necessary to cast aspersions upon me and my motives in posting. You cited a new frame of discourse being encouraged by the moderators. In that new spirit or frame of discourse, I attempted to ask you serious questions about serious schools (not mills) with serious deficiencies. I cited my own example of obtaining a degree from a school which I am prepared to criticize rather strongly, even if that calls into question my wisdom in enrolling there in the first place. I attempted to ask you questions in a careful and respectful manner.

Had I intended to call into question anything about your own academic choices or activities, I would have done so. But why? I sought your expertise.

I congratulated you on your new degree. I do not hold a high opinion of GSST, but my congratulations were sincere. I try to congratulate all new-degree achievers when they announce them, whether I know anything about the person or not, or whatever I may think about the school from which they have just graduated.

I hope you will find others more congenial discussion partners in the new spirit of degreeinfo, and I regret that I have failed to meet your standards.

Uncle Janko

 

I did, twice already. Simple post about a new M.Sc. counseling DE program, 32 posts later it's all this crap all over again. This is just as much Jimmy's fault for getting sucked in.

 

Why can't you simply respond to comments, ideas, opinions and observations? You claim to want civil discussion, yet your interpretation of that term differs from everyone else’s interpretation. If you take exception to or disagree with anything I say, why don't you either refute my statements or ask for clarification and corroboration? I will be more than happy to comply. I just can't understand why you seem incapable of ever giving straightforward answers to simple questions (not just mine, but anybody’s questions)? Is the new Jimmy the same as the old Jimmy?

Come clean (sounds like you’ve been hanging out with some unsavory characters)? Pray tell, Jimmy, what does my academic background have to do with the subject matter at hand? What would you like to know and why is it relevant? What do my degrees or alma maters have to do with the issue of the mutually exclusive comments publicly asserted by you and GSST?

Geez, Jimmy, I wasn’t the one who called you a liar on this; in fact, until now, my money was on you having told the truth rather than Dr. Graves. I’ve always been of the opinion that GSST is a mill, and when you first made your allegation about Dr. Graves’ untruthfulness, I suggested that you drop out of the program (you had not yet completed the degree), and request a full refund. Not only did you choose to complete the program, your behavior now is not that of an individual who believes his honor and credibility have been impugned.

Moreover, can you point to a single post in which I have referred to myself as a DL expert? Ever? It seems that the concept of credibility eludes you. Credibility is achieved by being consistently truthful. It is a product of one’s statements being verifiable and being able to withstand scrutiny. It does not come about easily, and it must vigorously be defended when challenged. Credibility does not come from credentials; some individuals’ credentials actually detract from their credibility rather than enhance it. And that, Jimmy, is precisely what we are talking about.

If you don’t want to discuss your choices, plans, mistakes, transgressions, or credentials, then I suggest you don’t trot them out when it is convenient for you to do so, such as when you want establish some kind of authority or elicit sympathy. In my opinion, however, they are the only interesting things about you (you must think so as well, judging by the kaleidoscopic nature of your sig file). If you were truly sincere about forgiveness and redemption, you would use your experiences to warn and dissuade others from committing the same mistakes; few individuals have as much direct personal experience with blatant degree mills (both as a customer and proprietor) as you do. The fact that you don’t and instead continue to defend and live in a state of denial and evasiveness about your past speaks volumes.

The fact remains: Either Dr. Graves lied to you, Jimmy, or you repeatedly lied about what Dr. Graves told you. Which is it? Your answer and truthfulness in this matter could potentially have a serous impact on the lives of many innocent and unsuspecting individuals. C'mon, show us some of that repentance and redemption.

 

Thank you, Bob.

Are you not usurping Dr Clifton's prerogative, since he and I were conversing, not you? Did Dr Clifton ask you to report the post?

I asked Dr Clifton a series of serious questions after offering my congratulations on his newest of many degrees. He didn't answer most of my questions, but did offer some tangential material in reply. I attempted to rephrase the questions, and Dr Clifton chose to take offense, so I explained what I wanted, along with expressing my dismay at the interpretation he chose to place upon my words.

This was a thread about psychology, after all. Dr Clifton claims various sorts of credentials in fields related to psychology and counseling. I had a question and sought his insight. He took offense, which I regret. You became punitive, as though some harm had been done to you by serious questions seriously and civilly asked of another poster.

Please do him the courtesy of letting him speak for himself.

 

I second the motion.