The Case for the NA Doctorate

Um, how many times has Rich said, "I'm done with this discussion," then returned to continue losing the argument and say it yet again?

(That]'s a rhetorical questions, kids.)

At this point, I think it's kind of fun to watch Rich keep tripping over his own feet, esp. when the person who is besting him has two for-profit degrees, no doctorate, but obviously knows more about the H.R. field than our illustrious two-doc'er.

As for Rich insisting (twice) in this thread that I should know why he posted his O.P. at DLT and neglected to specifically cite it here, I truly have no idea. I wouldn't even presume to speculate how our colleague thinks, since he seems to be a bit lacking in methodology. He is, however, apparently a glutton for punishment, and I am delighted to accommodate him.

I do find it interesting that when John Bear posted at DLT, the wazoos there actually treated him with respect. Unlike Rich, John does not hold a doctorate in non-traditional higher education (his Ph.D. is in Communications). But everyone, both here and at DLT, knows that John is the leading thinker in this field. Rich, who has a degree in the field (although, based on when he graduated, Union would probably say that his Ph.D. is in Interdisciplinary Studies), still gets trashed at DLT. Even they know that he's inferior. Ya gotta love it.

On a non-related note, there is one thing about which I'm curious: Rich, during the course of your program at U. Leicester, did you ever actually, physically go to the University of Leicester? (Let's try to not avoid answering that - it's a very basic question that can be answered with one word.)

 

Are you really this dim, Steve? Or, as another person said to me in private, you're like an empty barrel rolling around--they make the most noise. You haven't had an original thing to offer this field in more than a decade.

There was a time when I thought your boorish behavior was the issue. But no more. Now I find it amazing you even post at all. It doesn't matter what you say to me or anyone else because, honestly, you're intellectually bankrupt. You have nothing. Jeez, even Neuhaus is trying!

Regarding Leicester, you really don't know the answer to that? Seriously? How clueless are you? Which answer would you prefer? (And hey, you ignorant idiot, you can answer that by doing a little research; you don't need to ask me. But knowing it isn't really your point, is it? So say what you were going to say, and dig your hole a little deeper.)

Steve, you've evolved into an irrelevant, one-note nobody. I have nothing to prove to you, and I laugh at each and every stupid comment you make.

Have a nice day!

 

This question has surfaced periodically on DI over the years, not merely in reference to Rich's UL experience, but in general regarding different types of programs. I believe most of us would agree that certain disciplines would/should require on-campus training, supervised internships, labs, etc. Examples of such would include surgeons, mental health practitioners, medical doctors, etc. However, there are other disciplines/fields of study that, after the required foundational studies at the B and M level, more easily lend themselves to post-graduate distance learning programs. Having earned both at the doctoral level (a professional doctorate earned on campus at a B&M institution, followed by a research PhD earned at a distance), it's a bit humorous to hold the position that a 30-32 day residency would be the component that delegitimized an entire doctoral level program. Said differently, "My PhD required a 30 day residency, your program required no residency, so my doctorate is better than your doctorate. Especially in a day when Skype, FaceTime, conference calls, face-to-face experiences via technology provide all the benefits of face-to-face interaction/engagement except reaching out and physically touching someone.

 

That is correct, Rich. I do not know the answer to that, and since I’ve never presumed to be a know-it-all, I’m delighted to admit that I have no clue as to the answer to the question I asked (and accurately predicted that you would avoid).

So I will ask the question once again, reminding you that all it requires is a one-word answer: During the course of your doctorate program at Leicester, did you ever actually go to the campus? Yes or no? It’s that simple.

By the way, I’m also happy to note (in light of RAM’s post) that, although I did the same required 35 days in residence at Union that most others did, none of them were in Cincinnati. I visited Union once about a year before I matriculated, then not again until after I graduated. My colloquia and seminars were held in the NYC and Washington areas, not at Union itself. So I’m suggesting nothing my question to Rich, I’m merely asking the question (which made him go ballistic, apparently).

And, lest anyone assume that I am attempting to come up with a new argument, my position for some 20 years has been quite clear: I believe that doctoral programs in the helping professions should have some degree of residency. I have never wavered in that position.

But if ol’ TwoDocDoug goes off the deep end because of a simple question that can be answered in one word, it’s a good reminder of what people may have to deal with when their ducks are not in order. They revert to sleazy insults. I mean, who does this dude think he is – me? :lmao:

As for RAM’s comments, it would be inappropriate to attempt a response since I do not know RAM (who, despite his or her long history here, is anonymous) or what his or her specific credentials are.

But let's not lose focus here: Did you, Rich, ever physically visit U. Leicester? Yes or no?

 

I'm with you on the Josephhthing. My first name is Joseph and I have never been fond of it. I dislike Joe even more. Yuck. I'll stick with Tony, short for Anthony, my middle name.

 

I think there are a few different schools of thought surrounding doctorates, in general.

There are those who think that doctorates are great for an individual who wishes to engage in scholarly research in a chosen field, an option that some embrace.

There are others who feel that doctorates are the natural progression of formal education.mafter finishing a bachelors or Masters (depending upon your program) of course you're going to go get a doctorate, that's just what you do.

If you want to earn a doctorate and advance your field, that's great. But the vast majority of people have a much simpler desire; a job that can enable them to support themselves (and possibly a family) where they are treated with a modicum of respect and, in addition to pay and benefits, derive some sort of satisfaction or pride from the work they do.

I believe I'm being reasonable when I say that an NA doctorate is likely to cost the student around $20k. If they have an employer with a suicidal tuition assistance policy that would pay for it, well then, fine. Enjoy your degree. But, the vast majority of the mid career seekers who are getting these degrees aren't doing it to advance their field or because it, objectively, is the best option for them. They are often doing it because they fear degree inflation and feel compelled to stay ahead of the curve or because they simply don't understand what will help them advance their careers further. To that end, they are willing to self-finance or go I to debt for a degree that, frankly, won't hurt them at all. In that sense, Rich is spot on. For the average employee in the public sector they will not suffer immeasurably because they have an NA doctorate.

However, my criticism is the same I offered to TEKMAN in another thread regarding an RA (or foreign comparable) doctorate; research can be done without a doctorate, and if you don't want to teach how better could you use that money?

It's an opportunity cost question. If you spend $20k on an NA doctorate, is that the best use of your money? If you spend three years on that NA doctorate, was that the best use of your time? Because you could plop that $20k into a solid mutual fund and spend that time working on career advancing projects at work. At the end of three years you won't be a "doctor" but you'll have money in the bank, projects under your belt (which can count toward the arguably more valuable PMP, not to mention the resume fodder and connections built).

If you have loads of disposable income and really, really want the degree then yeah, may it serve you well. But the average midcareer employee looking for a leg up will likely find that their limited resources were misplaced.

So, Rich, I don't care if you "get" what I "get" because I'm not asking you to teach me about how HR works. I'm not asking you to convince me of anything or even to waste time on responding to me.

 

My father (also a Joseph but who went by a nickname) insisted in calling my Joseph for a time. So, I used to screw with him. He hated Muslims (a prejudice that well predates 9/11, so you can say he was a bigot before it was fashionable). So every time he referred to me as Joseph I would generally say "I prefer, Yusuf, inshallah." And it's true. If a gun was held to my head and I was forced to choose between Joseph and Yusuf, I'd probably go with Yusuf. Of course, part of that could be because I like listening to Cat Stevens...

I suppose I just never really "got" first names. It seemed incredibly useful in the Navy for me to just be "Neuhaus" as it distinguished me from everyone else (even if their name was also Joseph). But I notice that as a civilian some people are uncomfortable with that. I have coworkers who call me Neuhaus. But I think most settled on "Jay" because they were uncomfortable with calling me by one name.

I was always weird, though. So this isn't really new. My father often used to speculate that I was actually the product of an undiscovered affair between my mother and a philosopher (or a hippy which, to him, was pretty much the same thing).

 

My two cents on this whole thread: This began as an interesting topic. Sadly, it went into a tail spin almost immediately and became a pissing match between condescending blowhards. That's unfortunate. When I first discovered DI more than 10 years, I remember feeling excited at the tremendous amount of information that was available. I knew nothing and really needed some direction. I also remember being completely turned off at the manner in which many of its users derailed topics in favor of positing personal arguments, or shredded posts and made people defend every opinion as if it was a PhD dissertation defense. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same. I understand the need to present factual information on this board, or at least present opinion that is grounded in critical thinking. Far too many of these threads become useless because of broad generalizations, presented as fact of course, personal mudslinging, etc. Most shocking to me is that it is almost always the most highly educated individuals on this board who can't seem to keep it together and stay on topic without nitpicking each other to death. Geesh! How about we approach all of these discussions with a little humility??? How about we leave personal opinions at home, whether they pertain to a topic or to a person, and try really hard to respect the opinions and positions of others? How about we not shred every single sentence of a thread and instead look at the bigger picture or intent of a post? If in doubt as to intent, ask. Too many on this board argue the detail of a thread to the point where its original message and intent is lost. Lawyers do this all the time...they argue every aspect of a law and/or process to the point where the spirit of the law is lost, as is justice, replaced instead with tedious and erroneous legal process. Come on already....

 

Clever. I've always liked Cat Stevens.

 

Again, this is a typically vacuous question you can find out on your own. If you had any manners at all, I would have just answered it, as I have for many others who have asked about the program.

Every candidate must go to the university at least once in person to defend his/her thesis. I went to Leicester 5 times over the course of my program to participate in on-campus activities, one of which was my defense.

I have advocated the use of residential periods in a doctorate--whether they actually occur on the campus or (like with Union) do not. But I don't use it as a measure of quality, like Levicoff does. I'm a learning professional; I appreciate the contribution residencies make to learning. But I also recognize--as do many top universities--that doctoral students can and do succeed nonresidentially.

As for our topic, it would be interesting to see how the various doctoral programs at NA schools manage communications and enhance learning experiences despite a lack of classroom time.

Levicoff has been needlessly defending his Union degree--instead of using it as a foundation upon which to build--for so long, it's the only thing he has left to say about the subject. But others know better, and more, as we have seen from Neuhaus, Pugbelly, PhDtobe and others.

 

There now, Rich, you see how easy that was?

(But you still had to take more than one word to answer it.)

Let’s face it, sport, I will always be laughing at you. Hell, I tried not to, especially since we share an alma mater, and because you sufficiently cleaned up your act from what it was during the MIGS days. But you’re such a glutton for punishment that it’s hard to resist. Especially when you went as ballistic as you did two posts ago in this thread.

I still fail to see why you’re engaging in mental masturbation over at DLT, but I’m delighted that you’re providing fodder for them as well.

For what it’s worth, you’ve now answered the question to my satisfaction, so I’ll now leave you to Neuhaus, who can trash your arguments in a far more eloquent manner than I choose to do.

 

Steve has successfully hijacked this thread. I won't respond further to him, but I hope we can continue the on-topic discussion anyway.

 

Now, have you ever seen a lengthy thread on this, or any other, board that hasn’t] been hijacked? That’s the nature of the Internet. Threads get hijacked into things that range from politics to sports cars. I think this thread has been remarkably on topic – the only diversion has been to the quality of your original post and the nature of your credentials. To wit:

Allow me to hijack that for a moment . . . If your Ph.D. is specifically in nontraditional higher education, then why do you list your own dissertation as being:

Playing with words a bit, aren’t we?

Notwithstanding that you list yourself as a two-time graduate of “USNY.” I encourage anyone who loves history to look up the University of the State of New York on Wikipedia.

The fact is, Rich, you are a graduate of Regents College. Which is an honorable thing to be – but to hype it as “USNY?” Give us a break. And this is the U.S., Rich – Regents granted the B.S., not the “BsC.”

So, of oourse you’ll keep responding. You cant help yourself. That’s why you continue to respond to the barbs thrown at you on DLT. Like I said, Rich, you’re a glutton for punishment.

Like I said, ya gotta love it. Even DLT has commented on our little tete-a-tete by referring to me as your stalker/lover. I have neither the time nor interest to stalk you, which would be far too easy if I did. You’re just a glutton for punishment. And as for lover, I’ve seen your photo, Rich (on your website). You have nothing to worry about.

Finally, let’s look at one of your bibliographical references from your dissertation:

I had given you the benefit of doubt and assumed that when you returned to Union to complete your Ph.D., all of your work was new. Remember, that was between the time you left Union (why, we’ll never know), end up at MIGS, then returned to Union.

Am I suggesting anything amiss? Nope. Just making an observation.

Remember, Rich, you’ll always have to defend your credentials. Just try not to be a cry-baby or whiner about it. Do what I do – ride with the punches, have fun, and learn to enjoy life.

 

Thank you, Steve. As I said....

 

Such abbreviation in a listing of credentials is actually quite common and acceptable. In the field of Management in particular Doctoral degrees are listed by their specialization in this manner. This is because at many schools there are often many specializations. For instance at the University of Arizona the PhD in Management Information Systems is actually formally titled "The Doctor of Philosophy in Management with a concentration in Management Information Systems (MIS)". UofA (one of their preferred abbreviations and Twitter handle) offers the PhD in Management in 5 other concentrations.

Here is their exact language: Technically, the Ph.D. in MIS is a Ph.D. in Management with a concentration in MIS. However, we usually refer to it as the MIS Ph.D. program or an MIS Ph.D.

https://mis.eller.arizona.edu/doctoral/plan-study

I have a PhD in Management with a Specialization in Information Technology Management. I list it, not surprisingly, as a PhD in Information Technology Management. No hiding, no wordsmithing, no games --- just like countless others before me and after --- Ad infinitum.

 

Steve, I'm not interested in your assessments. You're such a has-been that they simply have no meaning anymore. But your assertions are another matter. You are incredibly wrong on so many points that it's worth addressing.

I did NOT graduate from "Regents College." How can you be so misinformed? Regents College did not come into existence until 1984. I graduated in 1980 and 1981. (I also took an A.A. in 1979.) All my diplomas say "USNY." This can be readily understood by reading the reference you posted. This is what we called on the court a "self-check."

I've been very open about my PhD and exactly how it is designated. I'm fine with how I list it here.

Your assumptions about my work at Union are both misinformed and flawed. Besides, who cares what you think? You're not the arbiter of these things.

Finally, I don't defend my credentials, I explain them when asked. My educational and professional accomplishments dwarf yours by all measures.

As they say in the UK, piss off. :smile:

 

If these personal attacks continue you will be banned. Same rules apply to all.

 

I hope not. Levicoff has a long history with this board, and I'd hate to see it lost.

 

Rich - many have a long history (including you) but no one is above the rules.

 

Well guys, the referee commands must be obeyed at all times. It was fun while it lasted. Rich and Steve, time to be back to serious stuff. And the new star is Jay. Jay for president!