School of Business and Trade (sobat.org)

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Mac Juli, May 5, 2020.

Loading...
  1. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Well-Known Member

    Hello!

    Stumbled upon an interesting unaccredited school which offers free courses and "degrees": the School of Business and Trade, see: www.sobat.org. Only a small fee for the certificate is charged if you want to get one.

    While they are unaccredited and clearly say that they are ("Please note we do not answer non-serious enquiries, especially regarding accreditation and credit transfers to other institutions"), I have enrolled out of curiosity and found that their courses have a surprisingly high quality. Their end-of-course exams are quite demanding, comparable to "normal" undergraduate MC exams.

    Well, maybe someone can get some value out of this institution? The one thing that somewhat bothers me that I have *no* clue who these people even are...!


    Best regards,
    Mac Juli
     
  2. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    The lack of faculty, administration, or ownership information is concerning. Especially when compounded by them paying extra for WhoIsGuard protection. They also have peculiar methods of payment, which also provide anonymity, and specifically do not accept credit cards or bank transfer which is highly unusual for a Swiss enterprise. It's also suspicious that they've announced they no longer will "mail" credentials, they will simply email you a pdf that is about the quality of what my middle schooler could put together. At this point it would be hard to consider it a plausible candidate for a legitimate school attempting to spread "quality tuition-free education for all".

    Well I went down the rabbit hole... they're blocks away from a large and legitimate Swiss school with the same name, just with the words in reverse.... so that is some seriously deceptive marketing.... their google street view also pulls up that their reported address is in a random hipster fashion district (with no indication of their presence), that is fairly unlikely a non-profit educational venture could afford or would be located at.... they also do not appear to be a registered enterprise... all of their reviews appear to be very generic and from people in remote corners of the world... unwillingness to answer questions is a tad unusual as well...

    With all of that, I'm rather impressed that they've apparently put the work in to have some worthwhile courses. Hope you enjoy them and get something out of them, but I'd probably leave them off any resume and just enjoy the knowledge you may have earned.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2020
    Maniac Craniac and Mac Juli like this.
  3. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Well-Known Member

    All that seems rather strange, as it neither confirms the impression of a honest effort nor the impression of a normal degree mill, huh?
     
  4. TeacherBelgium

    TeacherBelgium Active Member

    I completed 6 of the 12 courses in 4 days of time.
    If I have completed all 12 I'm going to apply for a '' degree '' master of science in business studies.
    I'm not really taking it for the learning as I already have the Isabel I mba. I'm just taking it to add another master to resume.
    I'm diploma addicted haha
     
  5. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I agree with everything you've said. But, Devil's Advocate on the no listed faculty piece...

    Neither does Penn Foster.

    I...probably wouldn't. But you do you.
     
    Dustin likes this.
  6. chrisjm18

    chrisjm18 Well-Known Member

  7. TeacherBelgium

    TeacherBelgium Active Member

    But listing a faculty is pointless in this case since there is no study support.
    You take a couple of online quizzes and shazam you have a diploma if you succeed and apply for the certification.
     
  8. msganti

    msganti Active Member

  9. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Unaccredited does not automatically mean mill. Just means the school doesn't have those fancy accreditation-looking papers. Well, it does mean "Mill" to a certain long-term poster, but I don't want to "poke the bear."

    It's a bit like calling undocumented people illegals, only not as bad. There is no such thing as an illegal person.
    Perhaps unaccreditable is a better synonym for mill. A school so bad it can't get meaningful accreditation for any price.

    I think the comparison is very useful. Neuhaus cites a well-known, long-established, accredited (Might some say better?) school that follows the same practice - to show it might not be such a bad thing in all circumstances as some might think. He has a point.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  10. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    And I don't care what US documents that appears in. No excuse. It's in the same class as "A total ban on Muslim Immigration."
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  11. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Please explain to me why it is "not fair."

    One of the red flags raised for this school was that it does not list its faculty. My point is that here is another accredited school, familiar to all of us, that likewise does not list it's faculty. That doesn't mean that there is something wrong with Penn Foster or that this school is of similar quality. It simply means that on the matter of listing faculty, there are some accredited schools that follow the same practice.
     
  12. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    You will notice that a large portion of that page consists of names and titles with no credentials.

    Admittedly, I didn't see that page. So your point is taken. I know that they didn't always list everyone. Even when they do, credentials are not always listed. In any case, my original point was simply that not listing faculty, while not best practice, is not really a surefire indicator that a school is bad.
     
    Johann likes this.
  13. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    (Gasp!) No? Isn't it a NIFI no-no? :)
     
  14. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Well, sure it's bad to call them "illegals," but I'm a pretty huge fan of the dying art of call things what they actually are. If you immigrate illegally, you're an illegal immigrant.
     
  15. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily. If I cheat on my taxes (and I don't) I'm not an illegal taxpayer. I'm a tax cheat or a tax evader (illegal would be redundant - evasion is always illegal.) And if I park illegally, I'm a parking violator - not an illegal parker. "Illegal Immigrant" is still wrong. The immigrant him/herself is not illegal - he/she is a person. His/her action can be termed illegal. e.g So-and so immigrated illegally. If you wanted to call such people "immigration violators" perhaps there'd be some justification - but I'd still prefer "Undocumented." It's factual and less polarizing.

    Yeah, yeah, I know - but I don't think in this case I'm splitting hairs. It's too important to be written off as that. Human dignity.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  16. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Nor do we have "incomplete taxpayers", "unmetered parkers" or "shoppers without borders".

    "Illegal immigrant" is a noun phrase where the adjective "illegal" modifies the action, not the person. It means "one who immigrates illegally." It doesn't mean "an illegal one who immigrates." It has never meant that, and nobody has ever claimed it meant that except those who are against its use.

    Segue back to the topic of this thread: an unnaccredited school lacks accreditation and diploma mill churns out diplomas. Any questions? ;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  17. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    "Immigrant" is a noun, that denotes a person. The action is indirect, so "illegal" cannot not directly modify the action. (That would take an adverb) "Illegal" modifies the noun "immigrant" a person, not an action. So I think it's wrong - on both grammatical and humanitarian grounds. "Illegal immigration" is different. "Illegal" modifies a noun, "immigration" that directly pertains to an act - not a person. That's OK grammatically and doesn't slag anyone either. It's factual.

    It's like I once learned in a supervision class. "Focus on the facts - not the person."

    Summary:

    "Illegal Immigrant" - not OK grammatically, syntactically or on humanitarian grounds
    "Illegal Immigration" - OK on all fronts.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  18. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Right, I should have said that it modified "immigration" whose meaning is embedded in the meaning of the word "immigrant". As in "one who performs the act of illegal immigration".

    I disagree on everything else, however.
     
  19. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Fine. To each his own. I'm glad you still feel calling such people simply "Illegals" is wrong. That's the important part. Having been an immigrant - although it was a long, long time ago - perhaps I'm being oversensitive on this. I'm still conscious of the vast difference in treatment between my own "regular" entry here and the atrocious things that today's migrants / undocumented have to face in many places. Two wrongs don't make a right.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  20. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    No person is illegal.
     
    Johann likes this.

Share This Page