SCUPS Seeks National Accreditation

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by c.novick, Aug 12, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    DETC accredits 2 law schools and one physical/occupational therapy program offering doctorates. First professional doctorates only.
     
  2. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I believe that I understand your point. I was attempting to demonstrate that even if you give a person the benefit of the doubt regarding point #2, you still wind up with the same conclusion. It is my opinion that it all hinges on the person's intent in making the statement as I've described. The intention is to create a false idea, to deceive.
    Jack
     
  3. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    A used care salesman is selling a car. The odometer reads 80,000 miles. However, he knows that the odometer was replaced with a new one when the car had 170,000 miles on it, so the car actually has a total of 250,000 miles on it. A customer asks, "Is the odometer accurate?" He simply says, "Yes."

    (According to dictionary.com, one definition of accurate is "Capable of providing a correct reading or measurement.")

    Was the salesman being truthful? Do you not see an ethical problem with his answer?

    In my opinion, it's a lie of omission, just like the one Dennis says that he plans to tell.
     
  4. cehi

    cehi New Member

    Rich,

    I am grateful for your response. Thank you.
     
  5. cehi

    cehi New Member

    James (KF5K),

    Thank you for your comments.
     
  6. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Here is analogy that might be even more apt.

    Suppose someone graduates from a regionally accredited school with a Bachelor in Organizational Behavior or Business Leadership. Another department, rather than the school’s AACSB accredited business school offered the program. Would it be proper for that graduate to answer yes when asked if the school that granted his degree was AACSB accredited?
     
  7. Lajazz947

    Lajazz947 New Member

    Hmmmmm

    I remember being BLASTED by some of the forum patrolmen/women ( Jack Tracey in particular) for asking advice when SCUPS told me that they were going to apply for accreditation.

    That's all I'm gonna write.
     
  8. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

    I believe that most who question others about a school being accredited are trying to ascertain for themselves if the school is legitimate or not. They typically aren't looking for an overengineered response. And most don't typically understand the nuances of accreditation/approval. That doesn't mean that in certain circumstances you shouldn't give a detailed response but in most cases a simple "yes, the school is accredited" meets the need, if that is true (otherwise, the unitiated inquirer will think "uh oh, I've heard about those degree mills things, this must be one!!" (which is not conducive to a positive interview, meeting, or a long and lasting career) If the inquirer has a larger agenda with more specific questions, he/she will let you know, then respond truthfully to the questions in as positive a manner as possible. Why deprecate yourself unnecessarily? If the degree was attained before accreditation and the inquirer needs to know specifics then yes, CCU or SCUPS were institutionally approved and certified by the State of California.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2003
  9. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Lajazz

    When you find out for sure, it's too late.

    A doctorate - but it would look a little pale beside a Pepperdine MBA.

    Also, it costs almost twice as much as a CCU DBA did.
     
  10. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    I don't think the school is the overriding concern. The schools accreditation is only important because they are trying to ascertain whether the program (the degree being representative of the successful completion of the program), meets a certain standard (isn't that what accreditation is all about?).

    I don't think the truth qualifies as being an over engineered response, while purposely omitting pertinent information certainly does.

    All the more reason to take extra care not to mislead and take advantage of them, don't you think? You seem to be advocating that this is a situation to be exploited.

    Yes, but whose needs are really being met? Isn't the whole purpose of lying and misleading others to ensure that your wants and needs are fulfilled at the possible expense of the want and needs of others? A simple “yes” is very misleading.

    Is this the same enquirer that you previously stated didn't understand the nuances of accreditation/approval? If you knew in advance that the enquirer was well versed in accreditation issues and your alma mater’s history, would you attempt any subterfuge? If your answers would be different depending on the expertise of the enquirer, then you are proposing taking advantage of someone's naiveté. We are back to the same age-old situation concerning the utility of unaccredited degrees—their utility is in direct proportion to the ignorance or apathy of those charged with evaluating them.

    Why intentionally mislead someone? If we've learned anything from Presidential politics, it's that the cover up is always a worse crime that the original malfeasance. You knew the utility and public perception of your degree before you earned it. Now you are advocating clearly unethical behavior in order to enhance the utility of the degree.

    Asking whether the school is accredited is specific. Just because, in the near future, you might have the opportunity to exploit a particularly unique set of circumstances doesn't mean you should, you have to, or even that it is ethical. Want to know what the DETC thinks of all this?
     
  11. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: Hmmmmm

    I remember that too. In fact I remember it so well that I can tell you two things about the exchange.
    1) I was probably out of line, not so much in what I said but certainly in the way I said it. I'd like to offer my apology.
    2) My criticism of you in that thread had nothing to do with SCUPS and their alleged bid for accreditation. By the time I entered the thread it had deteriorated into another subject altogether. You have suggested (above) that I "blasted" you for asking advice regarding SCUPS. While I may have unnecessarily blasted you, it had nothing to do with SCUPS or your request for advice. I've been honest in this regard, so should you.
    Jack
     
  12. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    Re: Re: Hmmmmm

    Wow, I am impressed. That is something you do not see here much.
     
  13. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Sorry Rich, I can't answer that one without making it personal. :D
     
  14. kf5k

    kf5k member

    Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmm


    Apology:
    In fact it's so rare I believed it had become extinct. It seems to me saying someone is ignorant/disingenuous/ or worse is the normal manner of speech here, and one regular even claims it's done to help people. Sure it is, talk to your boss/ wife/kids/brother/sister/mother/father/friends and see how they respond to this kind of help. No, it's just easier to trash talk to a computer screen than to people face to face, and much safer.
     
  15. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2003
  16. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

     
  17. Lajazz947

    Lajazz947 New Member

    Jack, you have set the gold standard for the forum

    Jack, you have set the new standard. I humbly accept your apology though none was requested. THAT makes it even more meaningful.

    While I continue to disagree with some of the members on a variety of issues I still view the board not only as a wealth of information but as an open forum for ALL opinions.
     

Share This Page