Oregon school definitions

Oregon

Fortunately for most of us even if we do pick a school that is not yet accredited, most of us will never go to Oregon (cloudy and depressing) so their strange laws are irrelevant...

 

Re: Oregon

Businesses that need degreed employees are lucky if they're in Oregon because academic fraud is explicitly against the law.

 

Bill, my advice is that if you have a problem with a school, tell it to the CA legislature or CPEC or the BPPVE. They might care. Also, if you haven't earned an advanced degree, what are you doing discussing advanced education? If you haven't, I highly suggest you get some form of legitimate approved or accredited education at the level you wish to discuss. Until you do, you have no idea how delightfully dismissable your comments are.

And as far as the ODA is concerned, I believe the ODA is a small office of 2 or 3 people, none of which holds an approved or accredited doctorate, correct me if I am wrong. The State is relatively insignificant from an economic and political standpoint. From what I've read, the ODA is underfunded, understaffed, overly bureaucratic, and as a result appears to be dysfunctional and ineffective. Your position is slavish to the ministrations of the ODA as if it represented some sort of religious dogma. That's fine. We all have our belief systems. Unfortunately, the ODA is not clear in it's own ministry. Otherwise, the administrator wouldn't be here seeking advice.

 

Hi Kirkland,

Your position that an advanced degrees is required before someone can discuss accreditation issues is laughable in the extreme.

I have no problem with CCU. I've said many times that it could be the best distance learning general education school that is perpetually unaccredited. I find it amusing that you need to spend so much time defending the "good" name of CCU. It seems like more evidence to me that state approved schools are an inferior choice. It is also interesting that I havn't attacked CCU yet you are so defensive (apparently due to years of having to defend your degree) you feel compelled to go into defensive mode. It is amusing that your defensive mode includes personal denigration and belittling of me, the ODA, the people that work at the ODA, and even the whole state of Oregon! Did you learn this when studying for your advanced degree? If this is what an advanced degree at CCU produces then I'm most pleased to be without.

Your unbiased and belittled amigo,
Bill

 

Re: Re: Oregon

At least I can sleep at night knowing that the State of Oregon has defined academic fraud is prosecuting those who would commit it. Whew! What a load off my mind! ;-)

By the way, the use of some qualitative research methods seems like academic fraud to me because you can't use SPSS on the data. Could we get Oregon to do something about those dreary qualitative research articles that neither start nor end with a parsimonious hypothesis? ;-)

Dave

 

Wow Kirkland, those are pretty harsh and inappropriate words. Most states would not compare to California or New York but that does not make them "insignificant from an economic and political standpoint". It seems to me that your criticisms of the ODA are equally incorrect. They are doing ground breaking work that is recognized nationally and helpful to all U.S. citizens. I think it is laudable they are seeking input from Degreeinfo, although I would be upset if they didn't take that input and then do what THEY believe is most important. Once again, I applaud the great work they are doing and hope they continue to do so.

 

I think it's amusing that the ODA and those who view it as a great idea see it as some sort of back door accrediting agency. I believe it's importance is grossly overestimated. Funny how a real accrediting agency (DETC) appears to view CCU differently as they apparantly have concluded there is a reasonable chance CCU can meet their criterea in the near future (by deferring the vote and not denying accreditation).

 

Kirkland, I never held the ODA up as what you say. You're denigrating them and me apparently because you don't have the intellectual fortitude to drag yourself out of the biased and defensive quagmire that you find yourself in. I think that it says far more about you than it does about me or the ODA.

I'm doing what I like. If you are too then I guess you like getting all defensive trying to prove over and over again that you made a good decision years ago. If it helps you deal with it then let me say that I congratulate you on your decision to go with CCU. I hope that you're having half as much fun defending that decision as I'm having watching you defending it even when it is not being attacked. I hope that when/if CCU does get accredited that you will finally find some peace.

Cheers from your belittled amigo,
Bill

 

I don't know who you are speaking of but certainly not me. I do not see them as a back door accrediting agent at all, but instead more of a door lock. Unless a school is either accredited or specifically reviewed and approved its degrees are not to be used in Oregon. The ODA's mere existence has put both marginal and outright mills on notice. The follow up punch that would be ideal would be a FBI investigation and closing of K-W and similiar schools.

 

Re: Oregon

You don't have to be in Oregon for that list to be used against you if the school you opt for is on that list.

Let me tell you from experience: if you get a degree from a university that is not accredited, especially one that appears on that list, there is a force that you may find yourself up against one day, no matter how much you or anyone else feels you "deserve" a degree -- no matter how qualified you may really be.

I'm not talking about a law. Or an ethical concept. I'm talking about nameless, faceless, self-appointed judge-jury-executioner style outing. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

If you get a degree from somewhere on that list, you may find yourself up against the likes of "Rick Martin" or "Jenny Masseldorf". One day, you may wake up, and find your box full of emails that have been sent to local media outlets, your clients (should you ever post them or mention them), the Pope -- who knows who. Your name could be smeared in public. People may start a campaign against you.

And because these people are vehement -- feverishly driven by their crusade -- they will not stop until they get satisfaction.

It's not about whether you are qualified. Or if you're a nice and decent person. Put one of those school names beside yours -- and the Spanish Inquisition may end up sending you an email like this:

Perhaps the emails will be ignored. Perhaps they won't. Perhaps one day -- you'll find that your client doesn't renew a contract with you because your association with them will be plastered on Usenet during a time they are under review by some body. Perhaps the person who becomes the judge-jury-executioner will know just enough about who and how to contact people that you will find yourself without a hope and prayer of defending yourself against the anonymous acusers.

Take it from someone who became the target of the Spanish Inquisition during a time that his only income was coming from his teaching contracts -- contracts that were not renewed due to just such a scenario.

 

Re: Re: Oregon

Such individuals are pathetic examples of complete lack of character and conscience. They apparantly get pleasure by doing evil to someone. I'm reminded of a good friend of mine who was on a jury. In the final deliberations, it was obvious to everyone on the jury that the man was innocent. Everyone that is but one stubborn elderly lady. At one point after being pressured by the other jurers to acknowledge that the evidence clearly pointed to the innocense of the accused, she caved in and blurted out in anger:"this was my one chance to send somebody to jail." I would think in a case like you described above there would be some legal recourse. It may take some detective work but the individuals who perpetrate these kinds of dirty deeds could be identified eventually. If an individual holds a legitimate, legal, earned degree (even if unaccredited) I would think an attack like you described would constitute libel. Maybe some of the legal experts on this forum could weigh in on this.

 

Re: Re: Re: Oregon

Even if all I held was my own right hand with my left -- at the very least it was tortious interference.

However, I am not a litigious man. I have never sued anyone, or consulted a lawyer on whether or not I had reasonable grounds for suing anyone.

I have been sued -- once -- when I was younger -- in small claims court. The judge was so angry that I had been sued that she more or less threw it out on its ass when the guy suing me didn't even bother to show up to the court.

Even in that case, I sought the forgiveness of the man who sued me, and it was granted me.

I believe on reconcilliation.

I've mentioned these things only to encourage people to be very cautious when they consider something that could have consequences on their careers.

I never had a timebomb in my CV. It was never about whether Quinn Tyler Jackson was a qualified professor.

I pissed someone off by calling them a "vapor" -- and during the attacks, received a one word email sent anonymously that simply read: "vapor".

It was something personal on the part of the person who did it, it would seem. I came across to that person as overly arrogant, or overly confident, and perhaps I was those things. I'm sorry to have come across that way.

People considering messing with non-accredited schools -- remember the words of Chesterton:

"A man must be orthodox on most things ... or he will never have time to preach his own heresy."

 

Re: Pick one

In contractions and posessives.

 

That's because you voice your opinions about others as in your posts? Those opinions are usually personal attacks based on fabrications. (Like you need a graduate degree in business before you can know anything about accreditation. Or that Rich Douglas is hiding his dissertation. Or. that Gus hasn't ever been to school. etc. etc.)

Dennis, please explain how taking distance learning graduate school uniquely qualifies people to speak on accreditation issues? You've made this same argument in the past. Did you actually find a class on accreditation? What text book did you use? Oh I see you were just using this as an excuse to launch into your personal attacks.

Dennis is a troll. Either that or he's incapable of logical thought. So I think a troll is the most likely conclusion and is also giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Like like like I Said said said.

 

Re: Pick one

You're right, there's no apostrophes in possessive pronouns or adjectives. dadgummits. Stupid little hash mark, it's a lazy way of writing, and there's rules to go with 'em too!! should've never been invented... wup, damn, can't get rid of 'em.

 

It is not expertise to discuss whether a thing is or isn't based on whether it appears on a list. This is not critical thinking or logic, it is not research or learning. In its basest form, to carry out this task, one hardly needs to know how to read. In some cases, one can merely point. Bill has demonstrated that anybody can discuss the topic of accreditation especially in the field of higher education and that it is not necessary to have actually attained an advanced education just as it is not necessary to be a trained dentist to knock out a bad tooth. And yet, if you are going to spend any time within the subject, and discuss institutional best practices, standards, law, governmental procedure, social science, psychology, business and policy, it sure helps to have some understanding.