St. Regis will not be listed by UNESCO/International Handbook of Universities

Easy, they are all in Anahiem California according to VisualRoute and hosted by.... well... ok I won't list that since the guy probably has no clue what is going on.

 

Jeff,

Obviously we need a business administration expert to assess the value of the work you're referring to. Are you one? And, did you actually read and reread the main body of that work? And as I explained, not everything is yet properly organized, we are working very hard on it. The bulk of the dissertations and other works that have been selected for publication do not appear on the journal yet. It takes time and our main priorities are elsewhere. For example, online coursework programs that will be offered soon using state-of-the-art technology.

Mark,

SRU was chartered in Liberia in 1984 and started as a bricks and mortar school. Chartered does not mean accredited in Liberia. Accreditation was granted in August, 2002 after four years of candidacy. And, Mark, I haven't forgotten your suggestion to use alt.education.distance. It's been tried before and it doesn't work. It's not productive for either of us ending up exchanging insults and abuse. That's what happened last time. Some SRU alumni were viciously attacked and some posters even involved and harrassed the families of those attacked. There were also some nasty, under the belt, attacks against Dr. Bear if you remember. So, some rules observed by all are necessary. Otherwise, some hotheads may even try, at the end, to physically locate and attack people. We don't want things like that to happen, do we?

Gus,

My decisions are never set in cement. I may decide now that this is my last post and then five minutes later, on second thoughts, decide to post another one. What's wrong with that? Integrity does not mean rigidity. Indulge in some flexibility instead of rigidity and you'll see the difference.

Nice talking to you all.

Regards,

John

PS: I won't say this is my last one because I don't know what Gus will say next. Gus, are you a preacher by any chance? Just curious.

 

See Gus, I'm totally unreliable. I had decided a minute ago not to post again tonight and, then, I changed my mind again. You certainly tried, but your preaching doesn't seem to be working yet. There's always hope for us sinners though.

Gee, Gus it seems to be working now, I just forgot what I wanted to talk about! Is this my punishment for being unreliable?

Ah, yeah. Earon Hi, how are you? Is the CCWU forum still alive? I tried to access it many months ago without success.
I agree with you. Dr Bear should publish another book (never say the last) based, like in the old good times, on thorough, objective, fair, and in-depth research.

Regards,

John

PS: Gus, I promise this is definitely my last post.

 

Dennis,

I'm sorry, I forgot about you. (Ouch ... here I'm posting again, sorry Gus)

The publications mentioned in my SRU bio are from the eighties. I'll send you the necessary info that may help you trace them, but you'll have to do all the footwork and that won't be easy.
If you can't trace them, I may have some single copies buried somewhere and I may be crazy enough to send them to you? I don't know, I might.

However, I've written many more books under a pen name, both in the English and Greek languages, which are not included in my bio. A pen name has been used mainly because some controversial theories are expounded in some of those books. You have to trust my word on that as I cannot divulge details or my pen name right now. Perhaps, at a later time. I provide no evidence of course, so it is your right not to believe me. Do you want to call me a fraud? If that makes feel better, go right ahead. OK? Feel better now? That's fine!

My best regards,

John

 

Hey, I can feel a huge unblinking eye watching me from high above .......

Please, Gus, I won't do it again. Cross my heart!

John

 

Hi John,
Welcome aboard. My opinion is that there is room for many opinions (but that's just my opinion).

CCWU forum: There never has been a CCWU forum to my knowledge. I believe the
CCWU students have something on the CCWU website but I don't have access to it and am not very interested at this point in time. Columbia Pacific alumni do have a forum (which I put together in association with a group of about 20 alumni). That forum has been active since March 2001 with roughly 100 alumni (and previously active via a private email discussion network). The CPU forum is now private and secured and for alumni only (although I suppose a talented hacker could get in these days). I have recently been replacing the existing forum with a new and higher quality forum (but it is taking some time as I work out the bugs).

Soon I will retire my involvement with the www.altcpualumni.org website and let others deal with it.

As for our friend John Bear, I think, John, being a survivor, has changed his stripes a little over the years. As the education world gets more conservative so does John. And if it gets more liberal John will be there in his liberal colors, continuing to profit. Ya gotta love it. I'm sure John's old pal Les Carr of Columbia Pacific would probably agree with me. Some of John's book advice has worked well for me (particularly on 'research doctorates' from European universities - thanks, John). Other written opinions from John (e.g., CPU) have produced rotten vegetable outcomes (but to be fair to John, no one knew back then, with the State of California heralding CPU as equivalent to accredited on its approval documents, that CPU would begin an early demise and resort to Indian accreditation as a last ditch effort to appear credible).

Ahhh.... the things we learn as we go thru life.

Later,
Earon

 

John S. Dovelos writes:

> SRU was chartered in Liberia in 1984

A Usenet post relates that in the SRU alumni forum: "There was also talk of when SRU was in fact founded. There seems to have been some discrepancy with dating of degrees in relation to the founding date of the 'University'. Advice was given to not discuss this further as this would raise red flags."
(http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5d023bc5.0307270904.66999e72%40posting.google.com)

> Accreditation was granted in August, 2002 after four years of
> candidacy.

-- when Charles Taylor was president, and the minister of education reported to him. Which shows that, contrary to Robert Stefaniak's claim, we are not wrong to tie SRU to Taylor's government.

> And, Mark, I haven't forgotten your suggestion to use
> alt.education.distance. [...] Some SRU alumni were
> viciously attacked and some posters even involved and
> harrassed the families of those attacked.

I don't believe that alt.education.distance was to blame. Here on DegreeInfo, Gus posted a bit of info from Paulie's family Website. Paulie got highly upset and starting e-mailing threats to me (since I was the only member of DegreeInfo whose e-mail address was obvious). "And so it goes."

 

I have a different take. I feel John has gotten more conservative for a very good and real reason. I began reading Bear's (and Bears') guides in 1980. Back then, there were several unaccredited schools that represented real alternatives--they simply could not get accredited. Also, it was difficult to determine which would proceed to accreditation because none had. Finally, it seemed some schools were simply destined to operate outside traditional (accredited) academia. But that changed.

There are few of the old schools operating anymore without accreditation. Most became accredited, a few died out, and a few continue. With the liberation of the process, it is fairly reasonable to say that no worthy school is now denied recognized accreditation. Because of that, it is also reasonable to conclude that schools that operate without recognized accreditation (except for a few fringe ones) are not recommendable. Their degrees enjoy considerably less acceptance, which has always been true. But now there are many, accredited alternatives. Today, it would be irresponsible to recommend unaccredited schools.

Again, back then, someone wanting to earn a doctorate while continuing in his/her profession had very few alternatives, most of them unaccredited. First, he/she had to accept the fact that whatever degree he/she earned, it would have lowered acceptance. Second, it was impossible to discern which alternatives would eventually become accredited. None had. A person pursuing an alternative doctorate in 1980 might choose Walden or Sarasota (later to become accredited) or Heed or Columbia Pacific (crash!). Who was to know?

These days, there is absolutely no reason (except in a few fringe areas) to recommend study with an unaccredited school. Any degree available from SCUPS or CCU can also be earned at any number of accredited schools. Cost or study requirements are not excuses--they're rationalizations for pursuing degrees from unacceptable schools.

 

Hmmm… It seems that I was right in my assessment.

 

No, we don't need an expert. I stated that I read the abstract of your dissertation, and it at least appeared to be an actual abstract of an actual dissertation. I will readily admit that I do not have the expertise to evaluate it.

However, you don't have do be an expert in business adminstration to recogonize that the work cited is not even remotely close to anything resembling a dissertation abstract. I am not an expert in the field, and I can see that it is clearly very simplistic. And if the abstract is reflective of the dissertation, it is clear that it would add absolutely nothing to the body of knowledge in the field. In fact, the information presented could be easily gathered from the popular media. And if it is not reflective of the content of the dissertation, (which I doubt) then it is a horrible abstract and should never have been accepted, much less showcased.

This dissertation/book report is extremely poorly written. Anyone with knowledge of the English language can see that. We don't need an expert.

Furthermore, the one single source citation is not in any recognized format, and does not provide adequate information. Most instructors, including myself, would not accept such a poorly written paper in a freshman level class. Yet this is a doctoral dissertation.

Finally, (I will say this for the third time, and others have expressed the same thoughts) it does not matter in the least if you have many more dissertations that are of far better quality. The minimum standards are what matters. This paper was not only accpeted as a doctoral dissertation, it was showcased by the university.

I will request the full dissertation and report back here on it, if I receive it (which I doubt.) But from what you have presented online, it appears that your university gave someone a doctorate for completing a very poor book report.

 

Gus,

I haven't been here all that long, and haven't seem to much shill action. Though I believe that this is the first time I have seen an overly active shill, except for on the Berne front. Do they always get this... uhmm unglued in the end?

 

Our opinions are not that different on this matter, Rich. But thanks for expanding. I would agree that John's conservative morphing is well positioned. You might notice that in my posts over the years I have certainly attempted to walk a fine line on the CPU situation. And rightly so. I think John's and my own repositioning is largely about how much we want to be directly associated with this (and other) school(s).

As for CPU, on one hand I take a critical position against the State, and on the other I take a neutral (but becoming more critical) position on CPU. While I found all transactions I had with CPU were carried out professionally by CPU's staffers, I believe, in hindsight, that CPU's owners were too caught up in their own illusion and did a great injustice to their stakeholders by not actively seeking regional accreditation (outside of California). Here I employ the Bill Dayson view that private unaccredited schools are sometimes too intertwined with their owners' personalities (akin to entrepreneurialism).

So, I don't really blame John for distancing himself from CPU and other establishments he has been involved with. He's a survivor and sometimes survivors have to make such decisions. And we're all playing the credibility game in its various versions (seeking to appear more credible on the basis of some certified learning/ publications, whatever).
Earon

 

Well, I went back and forth on this, but I decided to post on John's site. I know, I know...

But I wanted to see if they would delete a post that is clearly factual.

My post was very simple: I started a new thread entitled "This forum is owned by St. Regis." The content of my post was:

This is clearly factual, and I provided the reference. So they should have absolutely no reason to delete this post, right?

 

Which would seem to verify that SRU is indeed a degree mill.

As I've said before, the best indicator of the quality of a school is the worst/least work done but still good enough to graduate, not by the best/most work done by the best graduates. This is especially true for unaccredited schools because it verifies the reason that they are unaccredited, they don't have good processes and controls in place to ensure that graduates have done the work. It also would indicate to me that people claiming degrees from SRU are claiming to be something that is not really justified.

 

huh, they deleted it... whoda thunk,......

 

Believed? No. But the little thing you added about being totally serious and not kidding might lead someone else to believe that you're a man of your word. That's obviously not the case.

As Gus pointed out, a legitimate mental health counselor would never joke about such things. Your little "joke" said a lot.

 

Some rogue has re-posted essentially the same message.

 

Jeff,

About 10 years ago, while I was driving my car in Sydney, Australia a police officer stopped me because I was not wearing a seat belt. The seat belt was broken so he couldn't book me for the offence of actually not wearing a seat belt because the belt was unusable. But, the officer wanted to book me anyway, so, after some thought, he finally booked me for faulty equipment. That offence involved a very hefty fine so I went to court instead of paying it.

I didn't use the services of an attorney because I was certain that I would win the case. In the courtroom I had to play two different roles, that of the accused and that of the attorney. That's allowed in Australia. I had to actually change seats when I played each of the roles. Somewhat akin to the "chair technique" in Gestalt therapy.

Witness for the prosecution was of course the police officer who had booked me. I had no witnesses. I started my examination of the witness with the question, "Officer, do you claim to be an expert on car seat belts? Or, do you have any qualifications related to car seat belts?" Answer, "No". Question, "Have you ever had any training of any kind relating to car seat belts?" Answer, "No". "Have you ever done any work, even for a short period of time that was remotely connected with car seat belts?" Answer, "No". Question, "How did you then ascertain that the seat belt in my car was faulty?" Answer, "I saw it, it was broken". Question, "What do you mean broken? What was the exact fault you detected when you booked me for faulty equipment?" Answer, (Silence). My final statement, "I put it to you officer that you do not have even the basic knowledge or expertise required to ascertain whether a car seat belt is faulty or not".

Case was dismissed by a smiling judge and I was reimbursed for my loss of income for the two days I had wasted waiting for my turn in court.

This is my reply to your assessment Jeff. It is invalid and unacceptable. Case dismissed.

I'll check why that statement of yours about SRU being the owner of the forum was deleted. This is very strange because nobody has been trying to hide the fact that distancedegree.edu.pk was set up by SRU. What we have promised is to be at all times open and fair to all posters and members, regardless of their origin and of their opinions as long as they observe certain rules.

If that policy is not strictly adhered to, I will disassociate myself from the forum.

Regards,

John

 

Bruce,

That wasn't actually just a "little joke". It was an educational metaphor containing deliberate exaggerations designed to make deeper impressions.

A few, with highly trained and integrated minds, grasp such metaphors simultaneously at both levels, i.e., intellectual and emotional, or left brain - right brain as it is trendy to say these days.

The rest are left with a deep impression on their "feeling mind" as we sometimes call it. Intellectually, the purpose and message conveyed by such metaphors remain hidden to them. However, when the right time comes, they will probably react and behave according to the learning provided by such metaphor without knowing why.

Best regards,

John

 

If our little Alkibiades can take some time away from mutilating the herms, the preacher has some questions:

The entire candidacy for accreditation took place while President Taylor was in office. How then can SRU have avoided any dealings with his regime?

Where is/was this putative B&M campus?

"We wouldn't want that to happen, would we?" What an interesting statement. Is it a threat?

Did you get your disgusting "joke" about Dennis from Enver Hoxha's memoirs?

How dumb do you think we are? Once you brag about subliminal messages, they're not very subliminal anymore, are they?

You have written all this wonderful stuff under a pen name, which (understandably) you choose not to reveal. Why then should we be impressed by you for having written stuff we cannot attribute to you?

Is it a good feeling to benefit from the endorsement of a government of butchers?
_____

To paraphrase what Fritz Hollings said to Dan Quayle: you're no Henrik Fyrst Kristensen.