Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bye! In this, my last post to this thread, I would like to clarify some of my opinions and positions that are being paraphrased by others and, intentionally or not, being distorted. Concerning ACCS I have nothing personally against ACCS, nor have I ever asserted that the school or its programs are substandard. The only reason I even broached the subject of ACCS was an alumni claimed (and another alumnus corroborated having a similar experience, although he interpreted the outcome differently) that ACCS officially admitted him into a doctoral program based solely on a telephone call and a credit card payment without examination of official transcripts. Contrary to what some are saying or implying, these were not my contentions; these were the assertion of alumni. In fact, I doubted that this was the case many months ago, and continue to doubt it now. It is important to note, however, that the assertion of official status by one of the alumni was self-serving in that it alleviated potential ethical ramifications. Like I said, I don’t personally have a problem with ACCS or its programs. However, when an individual publicly posts credentials and opines that it is ethical to so because the school informed him or her that they were officially admitted, where then, does the fault lie? However, if in the unlikely event that this individual’s assertions are correct, and ACCS is officially admitting people based solely on a telephone call and a credit card payment, I want my position to be perfectly clear: I would consider that to be extremely unseemly behavior on the part of an institution of higher learning. If, on the other hand, and as is infinitely more likely, ACCS is admitting individuals on a provisional basis, or contingent upon the receipt of transcripts, that is in line with what many other institutions do. Once again, not once have I even suggested that to do so was improper. However, if the statements by alumni on this forum (who report being told that they were admitted and enrolled and nothing else) are to be believed, it appears ACCS needs to do a better job apprising students of the fact that their admission is contingent on other factors. Credentials No one has seemed to have directly attacked my position on this, choosing instead to make it seem as if I had some kind of problem with ACCS instead. In fact, my sole concern with ACCS was within the larger scope of the ethics and norms of how and when to list credentials. This is my opinion plain and simple: It is unethical to list oneself as having a doctoral degree (even one in progress) without having been officially notified of admission into the program by the school. Feel free to disagree. That’s it. If someone wants to discuss this in general and academic terms, I’ll be glad to do so—in a different thread. I will not respond, however, to any discussion as to when ACCS “officially” admits its students. ACCS alumni can’t seem to agree; and I don’t care. It’s the alumni who should be concerned about how the public perceives their school. Wes I did not want to mention Wes, but unfortunately the biggest distortion of all currently being perpetuated concerns my responses to his posts. Contrary to what some believe, I’m not out to “get” Wes. When he stopped posting erroneous information concerning programs and licensing requirements, I stopped replying to his posts. When he stopped posting to this thread for a while, I thought it was a wise thing for him to do, as nothing he was saying or doing was helping him further his goal of licensure in the State of Tennessee. When he returned, chock full of vitriol, his posts an incessant stream of ad hominem attacks, I sadly realized Wes does a far better job of undermining his own positions and opinions (and unfortunately sabotaging his own goals in the process), than anything I, or anyone else, can say or do. Strangely, however (and I’m sure quite unintentionally), some of his antics do bring up larger (and as such vastly more interesting) ethical and educational issues. These, hopefully, we can discuss in other threads, in general terms, without having bring up anyone’s name. That’s it. Read and reread my posts, if you like. Comment all you want, I will not be responding to any other posts in this thread. If you want my opinion, send me a private message. And if you can somehow twist my words so that they present a different argument or viewpoint than I’ve presented here, perhaps you should consider applying for the job of White House Press Secretary.