Northcentral U. achieves initial regional accreditation today

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait! DWCox, don't go! This is important

Exactly what I said, Wes. Gus didn't tell me who to vote for. Gus doesn't tell me everything. From that you claim that I said something to the effect that, I claimed Gus only tells the partial truth.

You sir, are a bald-face liar. You misrepresent what others say on many occasions right in this thread. When it is pointed out that you misrepresented their words you stick to the same old misrepresentation. If it were just an accident then I'd expect an apology or perhaps just an explanation but you have consistently stuck to the original misrepresentation and even repeated it.

The fact is that you didn't do your homework and the current degree that you're pursuing may or may not satisfy your goals. Someone in the same situation that you find yourself should not believe your obfuscating of this truth or they could find themselves in the same situation. The rest of the nonsense that you've spewed, while somewhat amusing, can be safely ignored (except that it indicates your posts can't be trusted, especially if you're repeating what others have said).

 

That link doesn't point to anything you quote from me, nor anything to do with this topic.

You seem to imply that I'm denying being wrong about NCU. Well, do you have an example of it? Geez, this is frustrating. I've always been fine about being wrong in predicting NCU's future. So what? What exactly are you "proving"? You're "proving" something that no one disputes. (Nor is anyone surprised, surely, that John or I guessed wrong regarding NCU. Are you?)

You're arguing with yourself! And losing!

 

Gus: I'm not an ACCS alumnus, but if your last post was not meant to denigrate that school, then your aim is a bit off.
Woof.

Please note that I'm not in the pissing-match-among-skunks component of this thread, either.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait! DWCox, don't go! This is important!

All of this has been discussed ad nauseum, Wes, but for your benefit, I'll repeat it again:

1. I thought, as many did, that MIGS had an arrangement with the CEU to conduct its programs and award its degrees.

2. I contacted Sheila Danzig, who I didn't know (but others sure did, as I found out later!). I worked out a deal where I would function in a role as a research assistant in return for a tuition-free program.

3. I applied.

4. I was admitted as a doctoral candidate.

5. I did some grunt work for them. I wrote two articles that never appeared in their newsletter (which was never published, to my knowledge.) I designed a comparison of doctoral program methodologies, which they posted on their website. (Without crediting me, of course.) I reviewed the faculty and student handbooks (which they ignored). I sent them a point paper on what I perceived to be the shortcomings of the MIGS design and its implementation to date. (They ignored that, too.)

6. I began forming a doctoral committee in order to carry out a learning contract. The committee was never formed; I did no studies.

7. Growing tired of Bruce Forman's half- and mis-truths, tired of the stupidly executed lawsuit with Levicoff, becoming suspicious of the true nature of their relationship with the CEU, etc., I quit.

I did a bit of work over about a year's time, drew no real benefits, and was out about a hundred bucks (for the assessment of prior learning fee, a program I ridiculed). You might want to make more of this than it is, but it's silly. And your petty attempt to imply that I've not been completely candid about all of this all of the time is just wrong and beneath contempt. But for some reason, you've chosen to wallow in this disgusting behavior.

And again, the link doesn't take you to anything related to this topic. Perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps this is yet another thing you know little about, but seem bent on attempting anyway.

 

Unk:
Once again, I am not trying to denigrate the school or its programs, but simply an administrative process. I was trying to point out the pitfalls of such a procedure in a humorous and colorful, albeit altogether truthful and accurate, way. In fact, that you should think my illustration denigrates the school only serves to prove my original point: ACCS’s admission process makes them look bad. My aim is true.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

-------------------------------------------



My post used phrases as "perhaps this was not official", "predicated on receipt of transcripts", "tossed out if prior learning not verified." Does this really equate with successfully enrolling a dog? This is an ineffective reductio ad absurdum is it not? Could one not initially enroll a dog in an RA DL program too? And does my admittance with the perceived conditions I included , as ACCS requiring immediate receipt of official transcripts , really equal your (they are) "undiscerning in how and who they OFFICIALLY admit"? You are taking my post in a manner opposite to what was therein said, that while I was "in", I was not "officially in" until they received my transcripts.

I outlined by comparison my Unizul enrollment experience which went somewhat similarly to the ACCS. I also understand from page 13 of the The London Bible College prospectus for 2002/3 that one can "be initially registered for PhD subject to confirmation" which I interpret, but have not verified, to mean that one could be enrolled for that program conditionally without providing all normal requisites upfront. Is that not similar to what ACCS and UZ did and which you flame at? I know this is insufficient for any inductive conclusion, but it provides some examples.

I'm glad you do not intend to denigrate ACCS. But it seems to me that comments as "not appear money hungry", "lend credence to criticism of TRACS", "those kinds of activities may be why boards only accept RA" effect that outcome regardless of your intent.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

My interpretation is that it is a practice that can easily be interpretted as suspect. From the general point of view, most common degree mill practices are practiced by at least a few upstanding schools. Different practices have more or less upstanding schools sometimes doing the same thing. This is, in part, what makes a legal definition of degree mill so difficult. One of my favorite examples is almost universal degree mill trick of one price for a degree. Almost all (perhaps all) degree mills charge by the degree while almost all upstanding schools charge per credit. I've been told that there are some fully accredited schools that also charge per degree. (I forget their names, sorry.)

The point is that the practice of accepting the applicant before verifying anything is a common degree mill practice but not so common for upstanding schools, at least I hope not.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

Bill:

First of all, the gist of your original post was that Wes was not “reporting inaccurately” when, within hours of his telephonic admissions procedure (which you assumed was similar to yours), he claimed to be D.Min. (in progress). You may have had a niggling doubt as to whether your admission was official (hence your use of the word “perhaps”), but by altering his credentials, Wes either believed his admission was official (as he has claimed in the past), or simply wanted others to believe it was. However, you don’t have much to back up your believe that your admission perhaps wasn’t official, as according to your post, “I asked, ‘am I in,’ and she answered ‘yes.’” It appears that the only thing you had to base your suspicion that your admission might not be official is the fact that the legitimacy of the procedure didn’t seem quite right.

Interestingly, other ACCS alumni have reported undergoing a much more comprehensive and discerning admissions process in the past. Could this be a recent develop at ACCS? Or even the work of a well-intentioned but misguided employee? Truthfully now Bill, wouldn’t you rather see your alma mater be at least a little more careful in communicating to prospective students what their actual status is?

Regarding your experience with Unizul, I believe there is a big difference between being informed of your acceptance by a doctoral mentor or department head (especially if you have had prior communications with him or her) compared to a member of a school’s administrative staff (based solely on an initial telephone call). It is quite possible that Dean Song either makes the decision and the rest of the admission procedure is somewhat of a rubber stamp process (assuming, of course, you’re admissible) or simply has the clout to get it done, as this is not an uncommon scenario in academia.

So, Bill, to put matters in context, you cannot have it both ways. Either you think acceptance and admission to ACCS is immediate, official, and unconditional upon a simple phone call, or you believe that it is ethical and accurate to list a credential prior to it being official. Which is it?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

---------------

Virtually every college in this courtry will permit anyone to take a course. Simply pay the tuition. One might be referred to as a non-martriculating student, but can and most often will receive credit for any/all courses completed during the non-martriculating period -- of course an acceptable grade must be earned and sometimes this standard is raised to a "B."

So pay, the money, complete the course(s), apply to a degree program, gain acceptance, file petition for credit received during non-matriculating status and there you have it.

 

Bill Huffman: Some (maybe most) of the South African universities list a total degree cost for research degrees, but that's not really comparable to cost-per-course in US terms, since there aren't courses. However, they often bill students on a semester or yearly basis, instead of demanding the entire amount up front (which would be prohibitive). Most have continuation fees if the total elapsed time to completion exceeds a preset limit. The Australian unis also charge on a per-module basis, as in the US. I have noticed posters quoting total costs for Capella, Walden, etc., but I don't know if that's just the result of adding up per-course fees or if the schools actually quote a per-degree cost.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait! DWCox, don't go! This is impor

"...So I do trust everything that Gus says but have found that I can't count on him saying everything. "

Bill, what exactly did you mean by the above statement?

I understood this statement to mean that you can't always trust Gus, to present the entire picture.

If I am wrong, here, I'm Sorry! Might you consider the possibility of someone else interpreting this statement the same way?

 

Squirrels?

 

Stop the insanity; let’s go back to our primary objective, which is to inform our fellow “net citizens” about the opportunities in distance learning. This series of messages are becoming personal attacks and do not make any significant contribution.

 

Squirrels. Not skunks. Here, have a nut...there's plenty to go around.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

 

What I saw described was a conditional admission, or revocable, if you prefer. Hardly unconditional. The offense of a degree mill is not unconditional admission but unconditional (apart from $$$) graduation. Somebody told me about going to medical school at some European university many years ago. Everybody was admitted, but after the first term, most were gone, gone, gone. Now that doesn't strike me as fair to a substantial portion of the students (those who were too dumb to make it, as opposed to borderline cases), but 'taint millish.
Now if a phone rep lied about accreditation or otherwise deceived a prospective student in order to get $$$, or took it upon himself to grant unconditional admission, that's millish. Expediting things over the phone so that the prospective student can start a class--and the school get paid for that class only, while requiring all the credential puzzle pieces eventually to be assembled properly, ain't millish.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

Yes.

No, but only because you did not say “please," and moreover insisted that I do so on my very next post. So, as you can see, I have not.

 

Tchuk tchuk tchuk squee squee.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

------------------------------------

You're a sport, Gus! See you next time!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wes, seek help.

---------------------------------

You may be right Bill, I don't know!