Trinity Has On-Site Visit by NAPNSC

Bah!

Ah geez, here we go again........


Veritas,
Michael

 

Still in d-e-n-i-a-l after all these years, I see...

I think it's a hoot too, Rich.

But I obviously wasn't referring to your first attempt at a Union doctorate - a failed one that you whined about for years and which required John's intervention for you to be readmitted, as I recall.

No, I was referring to your enrollment at the Monterrey Institute for Graduate Studies, in which you (1) called yourself a PH.D. candidate despite not even having applied, (2) identified yourself as a research assistant or some-such, (3) constantly hyped MIGS when everyone knew that Sheila & Co. were behind it, and (4) never repented of your travesty without using the word "but." As in, "I fucked up, but..."

All of which shows, of course, that the MIGS forum still has historical value.

And you still see nothing wrong in calling NAPNSC a legitimate effort, regardless of the specific language? That makes you a potential danger to the academic and professional careers of others.

You are new wine, my son - you need to age a bit more before your opinions and advice can be relied upon without a major dose of discernment being a very necessary ingredient. I'm sure it will happen (or perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part), but you ain't there yet, kid.

 

Steve (to anyone): Ad hominem, ad hominem, etc.

Anyone: Rebut.

Steve: "Quit whining."


It's always the same. Steve gets a lot of credit for his contributions. I wonder if he gets the "credit" for this kind of behavior? Whenever people answer him back, he becomes condescending and tells them to quit whining. It's pitiful.

I knew this would happen. For years, Steve has "lorded" over anyone without a doctorate, making a much bigger deal of it than it warrants. Now that I've earned the same one he has (in a more relevant subject, no less), he resorts to calling me "kid," as if he's somehow older and more experienced. (I suspect neither is true, especially the latter.) Well, I'm not making a big deal of my Ph.D., other than acknowledging it. Steve taught me the tastelessness of doing otherwise, and I appreciate it.

As for the rest of his comments....

 

NAPNSC accredited institutions may not have all the "T"s crossed but, Levicoff's "humble" opinion aside, they offer degrees that are useful to many.

Their accreditation, of all 4 schools, means that they have real education programs and are not degree for money operations.

Is the accreditation otherwise useful? Probably not.

 

Re: Re: Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

Regardless of whether people are "experts" or "putzes", their opinions are only as valuable as the reasons and evidence that they can provide in their behalf.

Being an "expert" means that one is better able to justify one's assertions, not that justification is unnecessary.

Then by all means, feel free to challenge it.

So far all you have done is try to push Rich's emotional buttons and blow smoke.

If we are "putzes" and you are the "expert", then just as you tell Rich, you have an added responsibility. You need to present yourself well, you need to make your points clearly, and you need to give us reasons why we should believe what you say.

Try to pull it together, Steve. Educate us.

 

Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

Bill, sweet cakes, try to pull your head out of your butt for a moment and use whatever critical thinking skills you may (or may not) possess . . .

We are talking about a so-called accreditor that (1) has been turned down by the U.S. Department of Education for approval seven times, (2) has alienated DoEd through its so-called public relations efforts, (3) accredits only four schools, and (4) is run and staffed by only two people (who happen to be a couple).

Rich calls that a "legitimate effort," I call it a sham.

Clear enough?

You may now return your head to the place where the sun don't shine.
__________________________

Incidental note: Some people may not like my style, or they may not believe that it befits someone with a Ph.D. I have no patience for idiots (unless they have a psychiatric diagnosis that warrants my patience), and merely call it as I see it. I don't give a rat's ass whether the egotists are offended; if I have placed a doubt in the mind of educational consumers who would consider a program based on NAPNSC's accreditation - or Rich Douglas' recommendation - a doubt which causes them to examine their choices further, then I've done my job, regardless of whom I may have offended. Domino nabisco.

Getting the guitar out . . . "I'm back in the saddle again . . ."

 

Lets call a spade a spade.

Ladies and gentlemen:

Lets call a spade a spade. We should separate the message from the messenger. Despite the sarcasm in Steve’s message, I totally concur that NAPNSC owner’s purported attempts to achieve recognition for his organization can’t be described as a “legitimate effort”. According to Dr. Bear, this organization has no employee. The owner and his wife are running the organization.

Ike

 

Re: Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

I was just complaining on another thread that nobody is willing to abuse me. To quote 'Little Shop of Horrors'... Thank you, DOCTOR!'

(Jeez, I have gotta stop reading that Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality website...)

OK, some meat to chew on.

(1) Yeah, there's that. I'm curious what the reasons were. I suspect that they were (3) and (4), along with a lack of a unique mission that distinguishes NAPNSC from the existing accreditors.

(2) Seems to be irrelevant to the point of this thread, albeit bad politics.

(3) NAPNSC's miniscule size is almost certainly a good reason for the Dept. of Education not to recognize it. That doesn't mean that it's accreditation lacks any kind of value.

(4) Given that they accredit only four schools how many staffers does NAPNSC need? But again, this may be a good reason why the USDoE wouldn't recognize it. Just as with universities, accreditors need to establish an independent corporate identity that transcends the personalities of particular individuals.

But the NAPNSC does seem to be more than just two people. When site visits and assessments are called for, apparently the NAPNSC calls upon outside assistance.

Here's how Trinity College and Seminary describes their NAPNSC site visit team (yes, I'm not sure how much I believe Trinity, I'm just passing on the information from their website):

http://www.trinitysem.edu/visitors/visitorspotlight.html

You might be right. It certainly isn't recognized accreditation.

But if NAPNSC really did get a couple of people from Iliff to go and look at Trinity, that does say a little more to me than WAUC accreditation would.

In my first post to this thread, I characterized NAPNSC accreditation as indicating sort of an 'upper non-accredited' stratum. If a potential student is like myself, with as many degrees as he is likely to need or want, but with continuing intellectual interests, this kind of non-recognized accreditation might actually have some value.

I see no reason so far to change that idea.

Thank you, DOCTOR!

(You really do remind me of the Steve Martin character in 'Little Shop of Horrors'. I'm surprised you aren't a dentist.)

 

Re: Re: Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

If you want somebody to abuse you, I know a few triggers.

 

Re: Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

I didn't recommend NAPNSC or its schools.

Still making things up to fit your needs, I see.

 

Re: Re: Re: You've Got to Be Kidding, Rich . . .

No you didn't, Rich. You stated that NAPNSC was a legitimate effort at establishing an accrediting agency. I took this to mean exactly what was written, i.e., a legitimate and sincere EFFORT at establishing an accrediting agency for nontraditional schools. You were precise in stating that NAPNSC had failed seven or so times in gaining USDoE recognition.

Have you forgotten that caustic and abrasive responses, tantrums, name calling and gutter language are typical behavioral patterns for little boys and girls?

 

Multumesc, Valdica.

 

Bine!

 

I no spel too goo tonight.

 

ok

ummmmmmm...................................