Oregon starts labelling "diploma mills"

Re: Gus

Interesting. So, criticisms of a school are limited to only those holding doctorates?

In academic circles (where it matters), Neil Hayes has no doctorate. The same will be said of you, too.

(I don't really care, and feel Dennis' comments about schools and processes should stand on their own. Apparently, he doesn't feel the same way about Gus.)

 

Neither have you. Taking an already completed work to an unrecognized school hardly qualifies as being "involved" in a Ph.D. program of any kind. That Knightsbridge allowed you to do this reflects not on your work's quality, but on their lack of it.

Also, didn't you already get a Ph.D. for that work? Why did Knightsbridge allow you to re-use it for their degree? That kind of double-dipping isn't acceptable at recognized universities.

Speaking of recognized universities, you often claim the process you used at Knightsbridge is commonly practiced at recognized universities. Why didn't you go to one of them? Why take a degree from a diploma mill, then another from Knightsbridge? Why not from a recognized university?

And if academia doesn't recognize Knightsbridge as a university, why should anyone reading this?

 

To "THE GANG" @ DegreeInfo, and to other members interested in DL education:

"Some doctoral programs permit the use of work already done (books written, symphonies composed, business plans created etc.) as partial (or, in a few cases, full) satisfaction off the dissertation requirement. But many schools insist on all, or almost all, new work."
An extract from Bear's 'College Degrees by Mail - 100 Good Schools that Offer Bachelor's, Master's, Doctorates and Law Degrees by Home Study' (revised and expanded for 1993-94). Many other interesting quotes are available from this book, with the section on accreditation making 'interesting' reading.
It is also of interest to see that Kennedy-Western University is listed, plus Adam Smith University and California Pacific. Greenwich University is also listed (must be a misprint surely?). Also, Newport University, SCUPS. Southwest University and Summit University. All of which have been rubbished at some time or other at DegreeInfo by 'the gang' of experts.
It was, of course, John Bear who 'inspired' me to become involved with TCU!
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

RC, It's extremely sad to see you continuing to disseminate such totally ficticious information.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Thank you, Neil, for demonstrating two very interesting things.

First, by pointing out that John has said some kind words in the past about these schools, then noting that those schools have been "rubbished" by Degreeinfo members, you've clearly shown that there is no "gang," and we are certainly not led by John. We're very likely to stray from his "party line" at any given time.

Second, you've demonstrated that things change over time. Some schools considered alternative 10 years ago are no longer--they haven't grown and entered recognized academia. (Except Southwest).

On another note, if you really look, almost never are the schools themselves the subject of scorn. It is usually the over-hyped utility/legitimacy of their degrees, almost always by people connected with those schools, that is the target of "rubbishing." You should know.

 

Gus Sainz writes:

> 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.

OK, Mr Googlehead, try the following Google search:

site:ac.uk "supervision is available"

I know enough about the British academic tradition to know that the historical implication of "available" here is "not compulsory". The professor (in Canada) who supervised my Master's thesis had done his own Ph.D. without supervision at Brunel University.

Either you "don't understand" exactly what you accuse Neil of not understanding -- or you're one of those Americans who confuse the USA with the whole world, which is odd for someone with your command of Spanish.

 

As usual, you don't refute it. That's nice.

 

Re: Gus

Silly Dennis is right. What do my credentials have to do with the matter? Did I rely on personal experience to make a point? Is your only reason for bringing it up an inept attempt at an ad hominem attack? Are you still trying to get banned from DegreeInfo to impress your bobblehead buddies on other fora? Why is it that you never post anything of substance?

I would certainly hope that when you, hopefully (those open book multiple-choice exams can be real tough), are awarded your degree, you know exactly where it “is coming from.” Of course, since you are already on the record as having no compunctions whatsoever misleading people concerning the true nature of your alma mater, where your degree “is coming from” is actually irrelevant, isn’t it?

 

I have a better idea, Neil. Why don’t you respond to the specific issues, quotes, and questions I posted? I don't know why you believe that simply spewing forth insults without any justification for having formed such an opinion is an acceptable substitute for intelligent discourse. I provided quotes (using the same source you did) that both proved that you misunderstood what you read (as they completely negated the point you were trying to make) and were intentionally and unethically quoting the authors out of context in an attempt to bolster your point. If you cannot substantiate your own arguments, one can only conclude they are groundless.

What, specifically, did I say (please, for once, support your arguments) would lead you to that conclusion? All I did was supply additional clarifying quotes from the same text you used to bolster your arguments. The quotes I provided proved that you not only did not understand what you had read, but also were intentionally trying to mislead others. Were you counting, perhaps, on no one else actually having read the book or having access to a copy?

No, Dr.Dr. Quack-Quack, the only thing that is obvious is that you seem to be incapable of corroborating anything you say, and that includes the above statement.

Please explain it to me. Please spell it out in more simple terms. I do indeed have difficulty understanding. I have difficulty understanding how you can believe you are being convincing when the source you cite, and more specifically, the quotes you provide, to corroborate the points you are trying to make completely negate them.

 

Read 'the' book Gus and I'll get back to you at the end of April - after a trip to the UK and Italy, and where there will be no RC's or Gustav's getting up my nose.
Just got back from checking our predator control traps, but sadly didn't find and RC's or Gustav's in the traps.
I've also got a dozen DL students to attend to this morning.
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Mark, With such a fine understanding of the topic, you will be pleased to know that you have been removed from 'the gang' and that your comments are appreciated.
Must away to finish packing my bags.
See you at Trinity College, Rome.
Neil

 

Re: Re: Gus

1. It's like taking fashion lessons from Ma Kettle.

2. Attack? Just wondered where your doctorate came from and then I realized that I have asked the question before and you apparently don't have.

3. Banned for a few innocuous comments??

4. My exchange with you is something of substance. Maybe I share a bit of what Mark has and I like to expose frauds.

5. By letting people believe what they will?? I am certainly hoping proper accreditation is in place when/if I graduate.

 

First, Mark, as the person who coined the phrase “Googlehead” (although I am fairly certain that you extended a fair modicum of effort attempting to disprove this claim) I speak authoritatively when I say you don’t understand the term or its usage. Second, if you have a point, make it and substantiate it. Only an Idiot Googlant, without articulating a point of his or her own, would simply tell someone to do a search, particularly one that had to employ pre-selected parameters.

Huh? Is there a point in there somewhere that relates to my statement?

Although this has nothing whatsoever to do with my statement, I did conduct the search you suggested, and it in no way supports your contention that "supervision is available" implies “not compulsory.” If I honestly believed that further public embarrassment would entice you to cease the obsessive behavior of scrutinizing every minutiae of my posts in hopes of uncovering any error or inconsistency (in the misguided hope that this will somehow establish you as a some kind of distance learning expert), I would post my comments on each of the search results on this forum. However, because I do not believe doing so would achieve the desired result, I will spare my fellow DegreeInfo members and refrain from responding to your pettiness in kind. Anyone so interested can conduct the search himself or herself.

Suffice to say that I doubt you even bothered to access the Web pages listed by Google resulting from the search you suggested. If you had, you would not have proffered such a search to bolster your argument, as nothing in the first page of the search results (those considered by Google to be the most relevant) substantiates your asseveration that "supervision is available" implies “not compulsory.”

I tell you what is odd, Mark. What is odd is when someone who considers himself to have such an extensive command of the English language as you do commits such egregious errors in reading comprehension as you have made. I honestly believe (and have mentioned this before) that your obsession with trying to prove me wrong (at anything, even a misplaced punctuation mark) is clouding your judgment. Why should I do a search employing the term “available?” Did I employ the term in my statement, or does it simply better suit your straw man argument?

Why did you interject the term “compulsory” (or better still, “not compulsory”) into the discussion? I can’t see that is has anything at all to with my statement. And what do your anti-American sentiments have to do with the discussion?

Somehow, although you quoted me, nothing you have said addressed my statement. Please reread it. I make no mention that a legitimate degree required a direct supervisor. Nor did not employ the terms “available” or “compulsory.”

My point was that a university appointed supervisor is much more than just an “added resource,” and anyone who viewed him or her only as such didn’t understand the process or the nature of research (particularly scientific research) and a doctoral degree. Of course, I shouldn’t have to explain what I meant to someone who comprehends English, unless, of course, that individual had an (not so) hidden agenda and ulterior motives for misconstruing my statements. Although, in truth, you didn’t really misconstrue my statements, you simply ignored them and created an argument of your own.

If you disagree with my opinion, instead of creating an argument completely unrelated to what I said, why don’t you state specifically what you disagree with and why. If at all possible, support your arguments, and do so without condescendingly instructing others to conduct an irrelevant Google search of your own design.

 

And for the record, Mark, into the preceding post, I have purposefully inserted a number of orthographical and grammatical errors. I did this solely for your amusement. Please don’t bore the members of this forum by pointing them out publicly.

Enjoy!

 

Re: Re: Re: Gus

What your answer lacks in wit, it makes up for in irrelevance. C’mon, Dennis, can’t you come up with a convincing answer to the question?

Your response is not entirely accurate, Dennis. You have previously asked me what degrees I have earned and the names of the institutions that granted them. I have politely declined to answer both questions. As such, you are free to make any assumption you like. I must point out, however, that they are only that—assumptions.

I have, over the years, shared many of my reasons for not divulging my credentials. Moreover, despite numerous requests, to date, no one has provided me with a single, sound, logical reason why it would be to my benefit to make such a disclosure on a public forum.

I didn’t say or imply would be banned; I simply asked you if that was your intention. You didn’t answer my question.

This is interesting. You are going to expose me as a fraud for not claiming any credentials? I’m curious. How, exactly, would you go about accomplishing this?

Of course, at this point, you haven’t called me a fraud; you’ve only implied it. If you ever muster up the cojones to actually accuse me of being a fraud, I trust you will specify the precise intentional deception I am guilty of, the injury another party has suffered as a result, and provide substantiation for your claims.

I have no doubt you are hoping proper accreditation is in place by the time you graduate. However, as to “letting people believe what they will,” counterfeiters and con artists also use the same excuse. You are, however, on record (right here, on DegreeInfo) stating that you will do much more than that; you admitted you would purposely lead someone to believe misinformation concerning the institution that will one day (hopefully) grant you your degree.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

1. The Ma Kettle thing was pretty good. You are humorless Gus. You're tighter than an old tomcat fueled on cheddar.

2. Credibility.

3. Already have. Elsewhere.

4. Duh - like I've denied it.

 

Okay Gustav,
You think you have an IQ of 195?, but when are you going to answer my question about what qualifications you have? (If any) Meaning - education, training, experience and skills of any sort!
Dr Anatidae (Knightsbridge)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gus

You can be funny, Dennis, in much the very same way the three stooges are, on occasion, funny. The Ma Kettle reference was neither funny nor apt (unlike my credentials, we all know how she dressed). Now, if you had referenced a nude Ma Kettle…

Moreover, as far as the accusation of being humorless, Dennis, you have never been more mistaken (I know, I know, that’s saying quite a bit). It’s just that, unlike you, I manage to be quite funny without resorting to banalities or having to make a complete fool and ass of myself. I do admit, however, that much of my humor requires a certain intellectual horsepower in order to appreciate it.

Credibility with whom? Haven’t you noticed that those who keep harping about my credentials have something in common? Give up? They all happen to be individuals whose opinions are unimportant (the colloquial term “rat’s ass” came to mind) to me and whom I am quite certain do not have the best interest of my family and me in mind. Interestingly, those individuals whose opinion I do value are unconcerned with my credentials. To them, I have credibility.

The bottom line is this: If I am not credible, if my statements are untruthful, then, regardless of my credentials, it should be a simple matter to refute them. The reason why you and my other detractors do not do so, and (particularly in your case) instead resort to banalities (out of what I am certain is just sheer frustration) is simple—you can’t.

Credentials don’t make credibility, Dennis, truthfulness does.

Are you saying that you have publicly accused me of being a fraud, specified the precise intentional deception I am guilty of and the injury another party has suffered as a result? Did you actually provide substantiation for such claims? I must have missed it. Perhaps you just muttered it under your breath?

Twice now, you have publicly implied that I am a fraud without providing a scintilla of evidence. I hope you are aware that it is now your credibility that is in question. C’mon, Dennis, show some fortitude and post the accusation and evidence on this forum.

You haven’t denied it, Dennis, how could you? Your post is here for everyone to see. It’s just that lately you’ve been insinuating that what you meant was that you hoped CCU would have been granted accreditation for their doctoral programs by the time yours was granted, instead of what you actually said, which was that you would simply mislead someone into believing the degree game from an accredited school even if that particular program wasn’t accredited at the time your degree was granted and in spite of the fact that the accreditor in question (needless to say) frowned upon such behavior.

Now, without having to disparage any degrees, credentials, or schools, using only an individual’s own words as evidence, are you beginning to see how easy it is to prove that he or she has no credibility?

 

Last I heard from you, Dr.Dr. Quack-Quack, you told me you would respond to my queries no sooner than the end of April. I suspected (not incorrectly, it seems) that it would take you that long to procure a copy of the text we were discussing and attempt to read it. I also suspected (I guess we’ll see) that after realizing that the text in general, and particularly the quotes you proffered, belied much of what you contend, you would never discuss said text again. Like I said, I guess we’ll see.

You claimed not to have the time to simply explain a quote you cited and how it supported your argument. Yet, obviously, you are still here (as well as having the time to post on other fora), and, much like a piranha, it seems that the urge to make a fleeting darting attack when you saw another member of your school engaging in such behavior proved irresistible.

In answer to your question (although the hypocrisy is almost too much to bear), please see my response to Dennis. Just ignore the part about being funny; it doesn’t apply to you.

Save the stoats!

 

My understanding of the British system is that, like American universities, they generally won't take on doctoral students when resources for proper support and supervision aren't available.

You might want to take a look at the QAA's Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education - Section 1: Postgraduate research programmes - January 1999

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/cop/cop/contents.htm

Notice particularly:

4 Research opportunities should only be offered where students can be trained and supported within an environment which is supportive of research.

In considering what constitutes an environment supportive of research achievement, institutions will want to consider:

what constitutes a successful community of academic staff and postgraduate students engaged in research;

the quality of supervision available including the research skills of prospective supervisors;

the facilities and equipment that will be made available to research students...

Notice also:

14 Supervisors should possess recognised subject expertise.

In ensuring that appropriate staff undertake supervisory duties, institutions will wish to ensure that supervisory staff are qualified and recognised by peers in their own subject field.

15 Supervisors should have the necessary skills and experience to monitor, support and direct research students work.

Institutions should consider:

the provision of training for supervisors and continuing staff development;

whether, if a supervisory team is appointed, one member should be designated as the first point of contact;

what alternative arrangements are necessary and appropriate where the supervisor(s) is unavailable to act for a temporary or extended period.

16 Research students should receive support and direction sufficient to enable them to succeed in their studies.

Institutions will wish to consider how to ensure that:

individual supervisors are not overloaded;

there is a framework for regular supervisor/research student interaction, with a minimum frequency of (and responsibility for initiating) scheduled review meetings between the student, supervisor(s) and, if appropriate, other individuals;

students are introduced to other researchers (and appropriate academic bodies and societies) in their field;

participation in institutional and external discussion forums is encouraged, with the presentation of research outcomes where relevant;

advice is provided on health and safety, ethical and other issues;

there are routes for the research student and supervisor(s) to seek independent advice should communication links within the relationship break down;

support is provided to the supervisor(s) where serious concerns of student ability or application to the study programme have been identified.

17 The progress made by research students should be consistently monitored and regularly communicated to the students.

Institutions will wish to consider:

the nature and frequency of contact between the supervisor(s) and research student;

the nature and adequacy of monitoring reports (including their production and agreement,
institutional review mechanisms and feedback arrangements);

the mechanisms for advising research students if desired academic standards have not yet been, or are unlikely to be, achieved;

the provision of counselling and advisory services;

the transfer arrangements between registration categories;

the mechanisms by which decisions to suspend or terminate a research student?s registration may be taken.