Oregon starts labelling "diploma mills"

Unlike Hayes, I'm more than happy to acknowledge if I've made a statement I cannot support. I did. I have no idea if Hayes is telling the truth about his experience, and I don't have any desire to confirm or refute it. Therefore, I shouldn't challenge it.

Apologies to Hayes.

I've been reacting to his unsupportable crap for so long that I jumped too quickly this time, straying from my own personal knowledge. I assumed he was B.S.ing again, and I should not have.

Calling someone a liar isn't sufficient to support libel. Hayes has a lot of explaining to do before that monniker doesn't apply.

 

Ahh, but can you combine all of your interests at the same time Brown Teal (http://times-age.co.nz/weekly/2002/ducks.html) with the means to kill them (http://www.hayesandassociates.co.nz/).

Personally i like teal also, but a slightly different version: http://www.sjsharks.com/sharks/

 

RC,
Once again any credibility you once had has gone even further down the drain, but your tongue-in-cheek apology is nevertheless accepted.
But why don't you answer Mark's question about why he has not received a copy of your dissertation?
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Yes, thank goodness you're the credibility judge.

Just as soon as you tell us where you purchased a copy, as you've claimed. Or are you hoping Mark will give you a copy?

What is it with all this discussion about my dissertation, anyway?

 

By the way, I've sent a copy of my dissertation to everyone who asked for one, except Neil Hayes. He claims to have purchased it recently. We know that is not true; it is not for sale. But he'll get it and comment on it anyway.

I will not debate the merits of the dissertation with anyone--especially someone unqualified to do so like Hayes. I'll be happy to explain it, however, but I don't think that will be necessary. It's pretty straight-forward.

I've sent it to all-comers; now I will go back to sharing it with just the folks I know. If you're one of those, send me an e-mail and I'll send you a copy. If not, call UMI and ask them.

 

Well spotted Mike.
The recovery of the endangered brown teal has commenced, with 383 birds being counted in Northland - the last brown teal area on the NZ mainland. This figure means that close to 500 teal are surviving in Northland, which is the highest figure recorded for 15 years. Such expansion could seen brown teal back on the hunting licence by 2050! This is what happened to the North American Wood Duck, which was close to extinction in 1900 and bounced
back eighty years later to 3 million, and which is discussed in my manual.
Historically, in many instances, hunters have been the key to conservation and some of the world's leading conservationists were hunters at some stage - Scott, Durrell, Harrison, Aspinall, etc.
Membership of the world's leading conservation group - Ducks Unlimited - is largely made up of waterfowl hunters.
In addition, my Company and my family, have contributed thousands of dollars towards wetlands and waterfowl - and planted over 7,000 trees on our property and erected hundreds of nesting boxes, for grey teal, all over New Zealand.
We also operate of Waterfowl & Wetlands Consultative Division.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

There is absolutely nothing odious, incorrect or unusual, about the concept of self-supervision. A university appointed supervisor is an added resource. If the student can manage without a supervisor most appointed supervisors will be only too happy to let the student carry on without supervision, as long as one can satisfactorily answer questions at the scheduled conferences.

"'Under your own management' is the key to the nature of postgraduate (and particularly doctoral) education." See this in Phillips & Hugh 'How to get a PhD'. (Available from Amazon UK)Another interesting quote:
"In contrast [to the sciences], in the humanities and the social sciences students often come with their own topics within the field in which the supervisor is expert, and academics give a service of research supervision. Being busy people, supervisors often have to ration the amount of attention they can give. Reearch supervision has to compete with the supervisor's own current research (which can be considerably different), undergraduate teaching and administration. The supervisor will have only a general interest in the results of the student's research, and will act more as a role model than an apprentice-master. The danger to watch for in this culture is the neglect of students for long periods of weeks, months, even years." (Phillips & Pugh, 3rd edition, p.3).
Transferring experience and knowledge in an existing project, in the humanities and social sciences, is quite common. Indeed, I'm sure that this is exactly what RC did at Union? RC claims that he had a research committee, but who really supervised him, apart from himself?
In addition:
"With the growth of information technology and electronic communication systems it is becoming increasingly possible for research work to be carried out from your own home." (Phillips & Pugh, p.9)
So, for 30+ years I was, in fact doing fieldwork - work that I could not have possibly done elsewhere. Therefore it is perfectly logical that I had a headstart on the dissertation project, and was therefore in a very sound position to then be able to later transfer that into Knightsbridge University credits. (At least my estemed German university Professor thought so!) But he also recognised that well my work had been widely seen as a major contibution to the welfare of the NZ Brown Teal, with many published research papers.
Looking at this more closely we can address the four intrinsic PhD elements:
Background theory - essentially, that you know the field of enquiry by heart, inside out, and are familiar with everything that's been written on the subject
Focal theory - that you can describe in great detail just what it is you are researching, why you are doing it, what the problem is and how you are going to analyse it.
Data theory - justifying the relevance and validity of the data that you will use to support your thesis. This is where you provide an answer to 'why is the study relevant/important/of interest?'
Contribution - a detailed spelling out of the contribution that the findings of your research will make to the overall knowledge base of humanity. As Phillips & Pugh say 'a discussion as to why and in what way the background theory and the focal theory that you started out with are now different as a result of your research work' (p.61).
If the school/university is satisfied that the student is capable of addressing these issues, they should have no problems with registering you as a research candidate. (I suspect this is what happened in RC's case.
In medicine, students are actually required to do practical research before they will be accepted. See for example http://www.mdphd.pitt.edu/features_curriculum.asp and http://bret.mc.vanderbilt.edu/mstp/html/frame_research.htm.

Amen
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

More bluster, same lack of content.

Doing a "dissertation" on one's own, then shopping it around to get a degree is hardly normal. If it was, Hayes would have been able to get one from a recognized school, instead of a diploma mill and another school some call a diploma mill. (Trying to give Knightsbridge some benefit of doubt. )

As for my own committee, you show ignorance about the Union process. While the learner is the chair of the committee, all committee members supervise the work done. That includes two core faculty members, two adjunct faculty members, and two peers. In addition, one's seminar work is supervised by seminar conveners, who are core faculty members. Finally, one's work is also reviewed by an assistant dean, and approved by the dean.

This kind of supervision doesn't exist at diploma mills, which is why Hayes doesn't undertand it.

 

If the above was really the case RC how on earth did you manage to be awarded a PhD?
I can assure you that my level of objective PhD supervision far exceeded anything you can dream up.
But I'm sure you really believe that you know much more than what's written in the best selling "HOW TO GET A PhD". Afterall, you've written best sellers yourself!
And your naive comments about Knightsbridge are also long past their use-by date.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

For what it is worth ---- I took Dr. Douglas on his offer for his dissertation a few weeks ago and finally recieved it today. I am in the midst of reading it now (between class work). Just for the record, I asked and recieved - I do not know Dr. Douglas.


peACE,

ACE

 

I also asked him for a copy, but in spite of telling all at CollegeHints that he would send a copy on request, he was quite rude and said I would not be getting a copy - even though I offered to pay all expenses.
Anyhow I have a purchased copy elsewhere and it is on its way.
Earlier, I offered to send RC a copy of my dissertation, and I'm still happy to do this - on receipt of $5,000NZ. (Rampant inflation in New Zealand!)
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Thank you for confirming my statement.

 

You've quoted my e-mailed response on CollegeHints. It was hardly rude. But I refused to send my dissertation to someone who has already been willing to steal it. That you continue to claim to have purchased it--but refuse to reveal the source--makes you out to be an even bigger liar than before. You have not purchased it, but will no doubt receive it from someone who has received it from me. Fine. But you remain utterly unqualified to comment on it.

As for the alleged price for your dissertation, please understand if I demur. Not regrarding the price, of course. It's just that I teach my students about citing reliable sources, and your dissertation simply doesn't qualify as such. The research enclosed might very well be utile, but without a sufficient level of review we cannot know, can we? Acceptance of your dissertation by an unrecognized school doesn't quite cut it, does it? Representatives of and for Knightsbridge have cited examples of recognized universities using published works as the basis for awarding the Ph.D. Somehow, this is supposed to justify for their awarding a degree for an unpublished dissertation, like yours. Interesting, but it begs the question: Why didn't you submit your work to a recognized university? Why choose a diploma mill and an another school (Knightsbridge) which is unrecognized? Until we hear this I would suppose all your other comments regarding nontraditional doctoral education would be suspect.

 

Rich,

Thank you for my copy. I can certainly understand why you would not send copies to people whose only motivation seems to be finding fault and flaws in your work and making lame attempts to discredit you.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

RC,
You really need to look in the mirror when reciting such profane
nonsense. You certainly do no credit to Union Institute.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

fnhayes, there was no argument with the quotes in your post. The quotes just don't prove what you seem to think they prove.

Please explain how the supervision for your dissertation exceeded what is typical for a real dissertation. This seems impossible if you weren't even in a program at the time that it was written.

 

I must disagree. My dictionaries are rife with words to which “self” has been prefixed, but “self-supervision” is not one of them, as the concept is oxymoronic. In other words, the term, and more importantly, the concept, is incorrect.

If you think that a university appointed supervisor is nothing more than added resource, then you don’t understand the process or the nature of research and a doctoral degree.

I don’t disagree that there can be a certain amount of autonomy. However, you may be surprised to discover how many of your so-called “scheduled conferences” take place during the process of earning a legitimate degree.

I find it quite amusing that you quote from a book that you either didn’t read, didn’t understand, or choose to unethically quote out of context to suit your needs. You conveniently omitted the phrases that actually explained what they meant in the quote you provided.

• “In doctoral education, you have to take responsibility for managing your learning and for getting yourself a PhD. Of course, there will be people around to help you – your supervisor, other academics in your department, fellow students and so on.”

Semantically, there is a big difference between “managing” and “supervising;” the two terms are not synonymous.

I am not clear on what you are trying to prove. The paragraph you quote follows a long discussion of the quasi-symbiotic nature of the relationship between the doctoral candidate and his or her supervisor that exists in the sciences. In fact, they go so far as stating, “Joint papers will be the norm.” Is it your contention then, because students in the humanities and social sciences are afforded a higher degree of autonomy, that the literature you claim to have authored is not scientific, and that the degrees you have acquired are in non-scientific fields?

Moreover, Dr.Dr. Quack-Quack, do you feel the following statements from the same source you quoted are at all relevant?

• ”The overall university framework for research students ensures that there is a basic similarity for all doctoral candidates as they progress through their studies.”
  
  “It must be remembered that students need the regular support of supervisors if they are to develop sufficiently to achieve the PhD degree.”

Personally I find it quite amusing that you choose to support your position (whatever that may be—you have, once again, failed utterly in articulating it clearly) with a text, the aim of which, according to its authors, is to (1) explore the nature of the relationship with one’s supervisor and how to discuss ideas with him or her, (2) help supervisors better manage the process, and (3) put the entire activity (the relationship between a doctoral candidate and his or her supervisors) into context. Reread (this time for meaning) the section in the Preface entitled “The aims of this book.”

I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that you simply don’t understand what you read. Needless to say, this puts in doubt everything you write (or claim to have written).

 

Gus

And your doctorate came from??? Oh that's right, I forgot. Oh silly me.

At least I know where mine is coming from.

 

Gus,
Why don't you sit down and read 'the' book a little thoroughly (that's if you have a copy!), instead of pretending you understand its message.
From what you have said above it is clearly obvious you know little about the award of a PhD - its purpose or its value - and nothing about the supervisors role in a PhD programme. You have obviously never been involved in a PhD research programme, or in the supervision of one.
Please read again what I actually said and what 'the' book has to say about 'supervision'. I'm happy to spell out what it says, in more simple terms, if you have difficulty.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)