Oregon and Kennedy-Western

Wrong again Morgan, it is you and your fellow supporters of deceit and academic fraud that try to play both sides of the fraud vs. non-fraud side of the fence. On the one hand you say that you're for standard education and against degree mills but you are unwilling to define where this fence may be. You refuse to admit that this standard is best defined and enforced by accreditation but you refuse to list any habitually unaccredited schools that specialize in distance education that are academically sound in your opinion. The standards are already set buddy. It is you and your fraudulent ilk that don't accept it.

 

Because he (along with you) are the ones who are attacking accreditation.

The accreditation system already enforces the existing standard. We aren't the ones seeking to set it aside, you are.

I certainly don't think that all non-accredited schools should shut their doors.

But I do think that it's probably wisest to treat non-accredited institutions with considerable initial skepticism, until and unless their champions can make a convincing case for them.

Unfortunately, critics such as yourself always seem to demand that participants on this board just accept non-accredited schools uncritically and that we stop making any distinction between accredited and non-accredited schools.

Because the two of you are insisting that we ignore the lines that already exist. You seem to want us to treat accredited and non-accredited schools as if they are equivalent.

Unfortunately, if everyone did as you demand, we would be rendering academic degrees meaningless.

 

Yes, the standards are set and they are legal standards. It is a legal standard that no school is required to be accredited by anyone. Accreditation, again, is completely voluntary. It is a legal standard that absolutely no school is required to be accredited by a regional accreditor (which you argue is the only worthwhile accreditation). It is a legal standard that states have the right to decide who can issue degrees, not CHEA or the US Department of Education.

It is you who are trying to distort the system by saying that only RAs are worthwhile and everything else is "fraudulent." That is not the law. If you don't like what is legal, you need to change it. I am arguing for the status quo, not you.

 

No, you're arguing for some fantasy that doesn't exist. I, personally, am fine with the current systems. The existence of businesses pretending to be universities (like Kennedy-Western, Century, and Pacific Western) is a minor irritance in the whole scheme of things. Hardly worth worrying about--which is why the higher education community doesn't do more about them.

Here's a brain experiment: Imagine what would occur if every employer who employs someone with a degree from an unaccredited school was informed of that fact. No opinions, just the naked truth. Can you imagine the result? Chaos for many of those employees! And how many of those employers would respond with something like, "Sure, we knew that"? Hardly.

A K-WU "grad's" worst fear is that people will know what K-WU really is. That seems to rise up (or down) to the level of "fraud."

 

Hi Russ,

I would guess that most of your posts put false words in the mouths of others.

I say that most unaccredited schools are fraudulent. You've done absolutely nothing to disuade me from that view. Not even lying about what I say has convinced me that I'm mistaken.

Perhaps your status quo is deceiving employers with fraudulent degrees? You say not, yet all the examples of unaccredited distance learning schools you've spoken in favor of are either fraudulent or accredited. Let's talk about specific examples, that way I hope it will be more difficult for you to lie about what I say.

 

Do you claim to be a mindreader? I don't mind if you (and a few others) make wild claims that KWU is a degree-mill, because that is your OPINION. I do mind you pretending to know what KWU graduates think.

When I graduate from KWU, I will be proud to display my credentials because I will know how much work went into achieving that goal. And, since I previously went through the educational process at two RA universities I will be better qualified to support my argument that the KWU experience was as rigorous as a RA university.

 

I think that you are confusing legality with academic standards. Just because a school is operating legally somewhere doesn't imply that it meets any particular academic standard.

I've never once said that only RAs are worthwhile. Nor do I think that non-accredited schools are necessarily 'fraudulent'.

But if there's no reason to believe that a non-accredited school meets expected academic standards, then it's probably wisest to treat non-accredited schools with considerable initial skepticism.

If people want to champion non-accredited schools, then it's their responsibility to make a convincing case for the schools they favor.

There's no reason why anyone needs to accept all non-accredited schools uncritically, sight unseen. That would be extremely foolish.

 

Hello Jim:

Would you give some specific information that illustrates your claim of comparable rigor, and some specific information that shows that this comparable rigor is a general requirement for seekers of the degree you seek?


Thank you.

 

Agreed, that it is opinion that KWU is a degree-mill. Although I would consider it a fact that KWU is sub-standard.

I would be very interested in further detail. Also if you could try to reconcile the above statement with the testimony given at the Senate hearing, I think that it could be a most interesting discussion.

 

I'll think about this a little before I respond. I have to be a little diplomatic in my comparison between KWU and accredited universities. I still have three courses and my dissertation to complete. I don't want to offend anyone who may be my professor.
I will say that I read about the problems the KWU undergraduate students have, from their postings on the KWU Pub. Their problems are not much different than I experienced at UMUC. Distance learning is as difficult today as it was 20 years ago. The folks that graduate from any legitimate DL program should be praised for their dedication.
Jim

 

I've said before that I consider the education institutions as a spectrum. You can set the acceptable line of standard and substandard at one point in that spectrum. I set it at a different point. I also set two accredited schools below KWU on that spectrum (I won't name them because I may end up with a professor from either of them).

I have lots of negative thoughts about the Senate hearing. I won't get into it with you.

 

Coward. Why not name them? Where's the courage of your convictions? And are you identifiable here, in any case? If not, why do you worry that a potential professor would?

Then get into it with me. What, precisely, are your negative thoughts about the Senate hearing?

 

I forget where I read it but a learned man once wrote,

How Conveeeeeeeeeeeeenient!

Jack

 

While you "proudly display your credentials, will you be proudly telling people:

(a) K-WU is unaccredited,
(b) K-WU has never been accredited,
(c) K-WU has never been approved by a state agency,
(d) K-WU has "moved" its license several times while continuing to operate in California,
(e) K-WU isn't licensed to operate in California,
(f) K-WU doesn't sell its degrees to residents of its own state,
(g) K-WU doesn't require a full curriculum for earning a bachelor's,
(h) K-WU awards life experience credit without verifying the experiences, and
(i) K-WU awards life experience credit to graduate students?

If you do, I'd love to see the look on people's faces when they realize you're listing a diploma from a degree mill as your very own. If that's something you find prideful, go for it!

Oh, and what, pray tell, is your "argument" that K-WU is more rigorous than an RA university? Please, please tell us the ways this is so, and which RA universities this applies to. I am dying to hear that.

 

Since you refuse to name the two accredited schools that you feel are inferior to KWU, I can only conclude that you can't really back up your opinion with any facts.

I guess that the last sentence falls into the same category?

 

Pace! Dr. Douglas!

When a doctoral student is actually tied up in a program, it is perhaps a bit MUCH to ask him to repudiate his school, program, and desired credential in a single e mail.

Ideally, he will see that his choice of school is...unwise perhaps? BEFORE he expends vast effort and significant treasure. But I suggest with due diffidence to you that a gentle but insistant approach might be a bit more effective?

 

Your response seems to imply you think I was actually attempting to affect a change of attitude in him. No way. Degree mill customers are often comparable to religious zealots--no changing their minds with some straight-forward--if midly annoying--facts. No way.

Rather, I chose to point out the absurdity of "displaying with pride" such a "credential." I fully expect it to fall on deaf ears. How could he live with himself if he actually came to grips with what he's purchased?

"Denial" is not just a river in Egypt.

 

Hello Jim: OK.

 

Jimu-san can't play now. He has to do his homework.
Hoshi

 

Jimu-san,

Ž„‚Í^ŽÀ‚ðŒ¾‚Á‚Ä‚¢‚È‚¢‚±‚Æ‚ðl‚¦‚éB



Wa-tashi-wa scoshi wah-kati-mas, demo annata wah-kati-mas-sehn

I am sure my spelling on the Japanese phonetics may be off a little, but maybe you will understand what I have tried to say JWS.


Jim likes to repeat this a lot, but always avoids specifics.