Newlane University

Andy Summers was a decade older than Copeland and Sting. He was always destined to go on a separate path. But they continue(d) to get together and play over the years.

 

If I wanted to study how to construct highways, would it be best to study at Newlane or Tulane?

 

Tulane - actually any number of lanes you want, provided they have a Civil Engineering Faculty. And yes, they do - ABET Accredited. I just checked.
But I'm sure Newlane (Philosophy only) could manage a brilliant discussion of the logical, ontological & ethical reasons why any particular highway should / should not be built.
Epistemological reasons too, should they be required.

 

Rick Blaine.

Because, you know, everybody comes to Rick's.

 

Well, they did in 1943, but...

 

Yeah, I meant, you know, before the beginning of a beautiful friendship and all that.

 

This is one thread that has gone so many different directions in such a short period of time it kind of makes me think I'm missing a party.

 

Riboflavin.

 

Guilty --- again, Your Honor.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/07/29/liberal-arts-degree-tech/?sh=369eae86745d

Did you see this article that reports how silicon valley is specifically interested in liberal arts degrees like philosophy? In the future, knowing how to think may be the most valuable skill of all.

 

I will join this discussion, because for years I heard multiple presidents of companies, CEO's saying that we can train people but we don't have time to educate people.
The CEO's specifically interested in liberal arts candidates that the companies will groom for eventually top leadership positions.
Some took the advise and earned multi major degrees.
One person I know had a Philosophy as a major and digital media/multimedia as minor.
He was unemployed long time, then got a job laying cable for telecom company but not giving up on applying for various positions.
Was given a chance with an international company as associate in product development group working on high visibility projects. In 2019 there was a formation of new group that executive management hand picked the members and he was taken to lead ergonomics related product management team. His official title is Associate Director.


.

 

Big businesses sometimes go on strange kicks. I remember a major oil co. here, that back in the late 50s early 60s especially liked to recruit Uni grads who had done well in Ancient Greek. Yes - such people could actually be found, then. Apparently, the company execs had a firm belief that these grads would have the mental slant that would serve them well in managing the oil business.

I think they're off that kick these days - maybe on another equally odd-seeming one. As far as the study of philosophy goes, I have a personal aversion. Almost all the philosophy grads I have known seem to be calamity-prone - usually economic disaster. They seem to have BIG problems keeping employed and keeping their lives right-side-up. More than other educated people - a lot more. Not generally a mark of enhanced thinking ability, according to Johann. I'm sure none of the philosophy-lovers on this forum fall into that category.

Philosophy may give a person something in the way of thinking -- even if I don't believe it. What it doesn't seem to do ever, is impart common sense into people who haven't got it. I don't know of a field of study that will do that. And a philosopher-turned-programmer is just that. A person who is brainy in two fields of interest. One did not necessarily make the other.

 

I took a high school Philosophy course where part of the course was spent justifying to us why philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor and one of the reasons was that philosophy majors had the highest incoming LSAT scores of the majors under examination. There was no evidence that it was the major itself responsible though, because if I'm remembering correctly Engineering was the next highest, and while structured, logical thinking is important in both disciplines I think that is where the similarities end.

 

I can see a three-way relationship here. All three require logical thinking. If a person, highly intelligent, with a natural bent for logic and reasoning, has spent his/her last four years in the study of philosophy -- that reasoning will be sharpened and he/she will do well on the LSAT.

Law is largely a profession of "reason engineering" the construction of logical arguments, some of which may have to be six-pronged to ward off various anticipated attacks. So these intelligent, qualified "reason engineers" have some experience adaptable to constructing arguments that will (largely, we assume) work as designed.

Engineering - constructing machines etc. that will work as designed. Yes, logical thinking required. Any college degree requires intelligence. Some people's intelligence is sharp but not linear. They are often intuitive and somewhat all over the place, not necessarily the best at linear construction of logical arguments. They are brilliant in other fields.

 

This kind of discipline overlap occurs other places, too. I've noted previously about engineers who successfully migrate to the business world. Several I've known have a knack for teaching business subjects - and I think it's because in both fields, the same kind of intelligence is needed - the ability to "see how all the parts work together", be they business processes or machines etc. I had three business instructors who took the same route: engineering, MBA, (Ph.D in one case) business, teaching - all of them the best I had. Coincidentally, all three were women. I've known male engineers who earned MBAs and successfully migrated to business - just never had any as teachers.

 

Great discussion on Newlane and the value of a Philosophy degree.

My name is Josh Stanley I am one of the co-founders of Newlane University (formerly Teachur). I'd be happy to answer any questions, thoughts, doubts you have about our program.

Just a few key points:

* We are registered in Utah and we have been aggressively seeking Dept of Ed. approved accreditation over the past 4 years. We hope to receive accreditation in 2021.

* We have recently received accreditation through ASIC and we are proud of that fact, only about half of our students are in the US, many of our students are in Europe, Africa, and Asia and are actually more concerned with the international accreditation than a US accreditation. 


* We chose Philosophy as our first offering as a signal that this was not just job training but academically serious education.


* We are well aware of the scams and diploma mills that have popped up in the US and around the world over the past few decades. While the critique of these programs are justified (and we will join in with the critiques), rarely does the the conversation moved past the condemnation of the programs to asking "why is there such a demand for these programs?" if there are healthy strong options for people to earn their degree, why are so many people looking for these for profit options?

* Though the mention of cost in a previous post was correct at the time, we have changed a little bit since then. All student who enroll pay a $99 enrollment fee and then $39 a month during their studies until they hit $1500. If a student hits $1500 before they have finished their degree, they are no longer billed and have full access to complete their degree. If they finish their degree before they hit $1500 they would pay the remainder owed to receive their degree. We have found that the low monthly payment is more important to many of our students than the total paid over time.

We love to discuss what we are doing, so feel free to ask us about anything. My co-founder Ben Blair may jump in on these conversations as well.

 

The prevailing opinion on this board - including that of people who are experts in the field, not rank amateurs like myself - is that ASIC accreditation is basically meaningless in the academic sense, here. ASIC accreditation has no recognition as such from CHEA or USDoE. Although ASIC makes much of the fact that they are listed by CHEA (as an overseas accrediting body) and have a place on a CHEA Quality Commission, that does not make them capable of awarding recognized US accreditation. US recognition comes only from those two bodies -CHEA and USDoE. ASIC is not listed as a recognized US accreditor on either body's list.

ASIC themselves say in their materials that ASIC in no way adds to, or represents degree-granting authority. An ASIC accredited school must rely on the degree-granting privileges conferred by its own country. I am reliably informed also, that ASIC has no remit whatsoever outside of UK.

If you disagree with any of the above - please tell us why.

 

Echoing Johann above, it's not a bad thing that Newlane has ASIC accreditation, but it feels disingenuous to rely on that as accreditation as Americans understand it.

It's also interesting to see "ASIC is not recognized by the United States Department of Education" right above a paragraph that strongly overstates the acceptance of unaccredited (in the CHEA/DoE sense) credits.

Breaking it down by line:
"Note: While many organizations and educational institutions both within and outside of the United States recognize ASIC as a reliable accreditor of colleges and universities"

Others with more expertise on ASIC can confirm if this is true

"in the United States, many licensing authorities (e.g., teacher licensing, etc.) require degrees earned from colleges accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education."

I would argue, virtually all of them do.

"Moreover, in some cases, accredited colleges may not accept for transfer courses and degrees completed at colleges not accredited by agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education."

Again, virtually all of them.

"Further, in the United States, some employers may require a degree-granting institution to be accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education as a basis for eligibility for employment."

...

"Before undertaking any program of studies in higher education or training, Newlane University strongly advises interested applicants to consult with licensing authorities, professional associations, colleges and universities, and prospective employers to determine with clarity if the desired degree program will meet their professional requirements."

This is putting the burden on the student, rather than Newlane simply being honest that they don't have the accreditation as Americans understand it. While you may have many foreign students, you're headquartered in Utah and I think it's important to be clear about the recognition of your degrees awarded there in that context.

 

As I mention in my post above, though your points may be valid in the US, ASIC is an accepted accrediting body for much of the world. Teaching English in China for example they will accept a degree from schools accredited by ASIC (as a singular example).

Though I appreciate some of the critiques of ASIC, the reliance on Dept of Education approved bodies is a very US centric view of education. Moreover as we have gone through the accreditation process we have found that really the Dept of Education approved designation is specifically designed for and tied to title IV funds (grants and loans) which we have no interest in participating in.

The process to become an accredited school is that you must be open and demonstrate student progress for 2 years, then go through the year+ process of applying for accreditation. That entire time you can't add or subtract degree programs and you are not really allowed to discuss the accreditation progress explicitly. Merely pointing out that an institution is not accredited yet is not the same as implying they are diploma mills or worthless. In fact our first recent graduate was recently admitted into a very good graduate program with her degree in philosophy from Newlane.

Many of the assumptions and attitudes about accreditation on this board are outdated and don't reflect a changing landscape in global higher education.