Unaccredited / State Approved!

disingenuous= lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere. No need to flower it up, if you wish to call Fnhayes a liar then do so. You say he is disingenuous at best, what is the worst? He may have facts proving his statements or in the other case may sincerely believe his statement, and in either occurrence he would not be insincere. Do you have any proof that he is deliberately trying to mislead anyone, and in fact is a liar?

 

It is entirely possible (in my mind) that Dr. Hayes was being insincere about his statement because it was so off the wall. If this were the case then it would be a disingenuous post. It would not mean that Dr. Hayes is necessarily a liar. It could mean that he is just trolling for an emotional reaction, for example. It could mean many things besides what you said. You said that only so you could personally attack Rich, IMHO.

Regarding your previous stament about 21 units. The K-W official requirements for admitance into the "program" is ZERO credits. Do you not believe the official entrance requirements? Do you think that K-W specifies easier entrance requirements than what they really require? Do you believe in the tooth fairy? Santa Claus? Do you think before you post? Do you still not understand the definition of REQUIREMENTS and MINIMUM? I'll be happy to explain it again if you have already forgotten.

 

I called no one a liar. That would be a personal attack and a violation of the TOS.

I did, however, say that unsupported statements about the acceptability of Kennedy-Western degrees is disingenuous. I also believe that being disingenuous is misleading to others. Whether or not such behavior is intentional I cannot say, nor do I care to do so. I'm not interested in his--or anyone else's--motivations. Commenting on such things is ad hominem and likely a violation of the TOS. But I think exaggerating the acceptability of Kennedy-Western degrees is being disingenuous, and warrants a response.

 

Fnhayes can be disingenuous only if he deliberately tries to be misleading. If he has personal experience/proof, or sincerely believes what he is saying, he has not been disingenouus. If you are to accuse him of these negative motives it is incumbent upon you to offer the evidence that he was deliberately being less than truthful. The accuser has the burden of proof, not the defendant. He should have the right to his opinion without having motives attached to his post. If you are to add these motives you should be willing to support your charges. It would have been no trouble to have simply said that you disagree with him and then said why. If your statements were of value, your views would have been accepted. Terms like Ignorant and disingenuous add nothing to debate other than unneeded heat. They are negative and cause irritation that could be avoided if not made in the first place.

 

kf5k: "Fnhayes can be disingenuous only if he deliberately tries to be misleading. If he has personal experience/proof, or sincerely believes what he is saying, he has not been disingenouus. If you are to accuse him of these negative motives it is incumbent upon you to offer the evidence that he was deliberately being less than truthful."


Okay. From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1655
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness.


Sounds about right. I asked for FNHAYES' support for his contention that acceptance of Kennedy-Western's degrees is rising. I offer reasons to think this is not so. I also said that making such statements is disingenuous. I stand by that. It is reasonable to conclude that someone making multiple posts on a subject and maintaining the same theme in the face of much evidence to the contrary is making a disingenuous statement. It cannot be chalked up to simple opinion or naivete. Again, the statement, not the person.

Kennedy-Western is not a university. It is a business posing as one:

1. It lacks adequate educative processes.
2. It doesn't have recognition and/or accreditation as a university.
3. It has "moved" its operations several times, avoiding any outside regulation.
4. It cannot enroll students in its home state.
5. It is illegal to use their degrees in Oregon.
6. Related to (1) above, it awards degrees to anyone for completing a few courses.
7. The degrees issued by them are useless in higher education.
8. The degrees issued by them are useless anywhere a degree from an accredited school is required.
9. The degrees issued by them are frequently not accepted by employers--especially those who know about such things.
10. It has during its history claimed spurious accreditation.

None of the above has ever been in serious dispute. Some attempt to make a case that it is a lesser school because of these things. That's like saying a Chevrolet sold without an engine, tires, and an interior is somehow less of a car. It isn't a car. And Kennedy-Western isn't a university. Its operators and students co-conspire to pretend it is one.

 

I do not believe it necessary to use terms like ignorant or disingenuous towards Fnhayes or anyone else. You have education, intelligence, surely you can debate without adding the heat that these terms involve. I find many of your views completely different from mine and I disagree with many of them, but it's not necessary for me to call you ignorant or other colorful phrases. I believe you can take the high road and present your views in an educated manner devoid of these anger provoking terms. If you should choose to use these terms of description towards me I will respond in kind. BUT you will be the FIRST and I'll only respond to you in that manner if you do so first, it's your choice. I prefer to stop these flame wars but both sides have to want it that way. As I said I'll refrain from going first to the negative terms, but you'll be treated to the same meal you serve me. We shall see which of us, from this time forward, goes negative first.

 

Sorry James, that was Scott's (plcscott's) comment I was referring to, not yours.

 

Bill:

I would not, and could not argue with most of what Rich has written. The only problem I have with the above that you both have written is the zero credits required, and only taking 21 credits for a degree. Just about everyone on the pub has had previous education with the majority having an associate’s degree. Rich has been on the pub in the past until they kicked him off (which I do not think was right), and should be able to tell you that is what most have said. If you know someone that has only taken 5 courses with no other education then show that information. If you were pulling that out of your rear than that would be on the same level you are accusing fmhayes of. I think the argument against KW was made well enough without repeating the 5 courses only. I would not argue the facts that I know are true, but I know in my situation I sent my 88 credits in on transcripts. I had 6 courses, and a 75 page final project to complete.

You have made your case well, but if you throw out things that are not true then how are you better than the shill's you so despise. I am not promoting KW, in fact I would probably do the opposite, but let the arguments above that there is no dispute over stand. I do not think you will go to KW with a high school education only, and take 5 courses to get a degree. At least that is not what I have been told. If I am proven wrong then I will chalk that up to you, but if not then I think you are using less than factual information.

Regards,

Scott

 

Sorry Bruce, I was under the impression that the K-W poll clearly reflected DegreeInfo voters thinking on K-W. If this is not the case then there is really no purpose in DegreeInfo polls, or any other polls?
My comments on K-W stem from the annual report of the Company that owns K-W, K-W itself, and the fact that K-W spends an incredible amount of funds promoting itself. These matters clearly show that K-W is indeed a very successful operation, and that its degrees are well sought after and widely respected.
The ten points list by Dr Rich denouncing K-W are generally ficticious, as on the world scene there is little evidence to support any of them, apart from the Oregon decree - which is really a little meaningless on the world scene; particularly in South East Asia, Europe, the South Pacific and a large number of other countries.
Dr Duck

 

How many times are we going to repeat this?

 

How many times are we going to repeat this?

 

Fictitious? On what basis?

1. It lacks adequate educative processes. Kennedy-Western awards degrees for the completion of a few courses, without any discrimination between those students with a little (or no) college credit and those with substantial amounts. It is the same 5 or so courses, plus a paper. Another poster documented his own experience with them where he submitted a resume and a list of conferences attended and received substantial credit towards an MBA (prior to enrollment, of course).

2. It doesn't have recognition and/or accreditation as a university. How is this "fictitious"? The only form of recognition it has is a license permitting it to operate. It goes through no approval process (never has); there is no outside agency conducting any form of evaluation to determine whether or not it functions sufficiently as a university. Wyoming doesn't do it, and clearly states that its licensure is not to be construed as an approval of the school by the state.

3. It has "moved" its operations several times, avoiding any outside regulation. California, Hawaii, Idaho, and now Wyoming, all without really leaving Southern California. Legitimate schools don't do this. Name even one accredited school that has picked up and "moved" that many times in 15 years. No way.

4. It cannot enroll students in its home state. A simple fact that Kennedy-Western acknowledges.

5. It is illegal to use their degrees in Oregon. A simple fact that the ODA acknowledges.

6. Related to (1) above, it awards degrees to anyone for completing a few courses. No one contends this. No one has ever stated they (or anyone they knew of) had to complete anything that resembles a complete curriculum in order to earn the degree. Everyone gets enough transfer credit in order to be faced with a few courses and a paper.

7. The degrees issued by them are useless in higher education. There are no accredited schools that, by policy, will accept degrees from Kennedy-Western. When the industry rejects a practioner, it is not part of that industry. K-WU is not a university according to higher education. Bear's survey of admissions officials documents this.

8. The degrees issued by them are useless anywhere a degree from an accredited school is required. This is true by definition.

9. The degrees issued by them are frequently not accepted by employers--especially those who know about such things. My doctoral research documents this. Perhaps if I'd written it about ducks....

10. It has during its history claimed spurious accreditation. From www.degree.net : "National Association for Private Post-Secondary Education Washington, DC. Mentioned, in 1990, in the literature of Kennedy-Western University. They say they are not an accrediting agency but a private association of schools, however Kennedy-Western claimed accreditation from them."

Fiction? You're going to have to do better than that.

 

Are you kidding? You have a "PhD" and you don't know the difference between the type of polls conducted here and a scientific poll?

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. You espouse your opinions as facts, and then when presented with facts you call them "ficticious." Unbelievable.

It's amazing how effectively mill advocates unintentionally demonstrate the true value of their "education."

 

Hi Rich:
3 things:
1) How many students from Chadwick did you survey?
2) Congrats on you PhD

Earon

 

Scott,

What defines the graduation requirements from anywhere is the minimum required units. If some people do extra it is irrelevant to defining the graduation requirements. Even if most people do more work than required that is still irrelevant to impacting the graduation requirements. In other words, just because (your words) most people have associates degrees, it does NOT mean that an associate degree is required. You yourself even admit that an associate degree is not required so I don't understand why you bother to talk about that?

Now, I believe that you yourself have admitted that K-W does not require any college credit before someone can be admitted. If you do not believe this to be true then please state it specifically because this is stated in the K-W material. Now the actual classes required before K-W will bestow their "degree" is not documented. It appears that the minimum is 5 classes although I wouldn't be surprised if K-W has let people get by with fewer. So 5 classes plus the term paper is about 21 credits.

Please point out what information above is not factual. Who told you that the above is incorrect? What were you told is the correct graduation requirements? Isn't it further evidence that K-W is a degree mill based on the fact that we are even having this conversation instead of just looking up the graduation requirements like we would for all real schools?

 

Jeff, Can you please spell out for me what you believe is a 'scientific' poll and how such a poll would differ from the K-W poll?
Dr Duck

 

The K-W documentation says that a test may be required if the person has not previously completed at least 60 units of college level credit. It has been posted here that listing at least ten professional seminars or training classes taken while on the job would suffice as well as the 60 units. (IIRC, the person said that no proof was really needed, that just listing the ten seminars/classes was enough.)

I have never heard any report on what this test is like that can "officially" be taken in lieu of the 60 units. If you had any further information on this, it would be interesting?

My opinion is that 120 semester credits is the requirement for a Bachelor's degree. If it is less than that then it is not a standard Bachelor's degree. I believe that I pointed to the two excellent articles linked from the home of DegreeInfo for information on the two academic methods for converting "life experience" into college credit. Other ways (such as the K-W way) are the ways that degree mills do it, not academic institutions.

I appreciate your honesty in the last statement.

 

No, I can't. I'm not an expert in statistics, so I don't think that I could explain it adequately to someone who obviously has absolutely no background in the subject. It's a complex subject. I would recommend taking a statistics class. You obviously weren't required to take one earn your PhDuck. And that, in itself, is extremely telling.

I will say that the biggest (but not the only) difference is that in order to have a sample that is statistically representative of a population, you must have a truly random sample. A self-selected sample has absolutely no validity.

To put it in simpler terms, don't you think that K-W students/graduates are far more likely to partipate in a poll about K-W than the general population of this board?

 

An extremely disappointing answer to my question Jeff.
I can assure you that I have a number of qualifications in Statistics - Applied Stats, Stats Analysis, Stats Interpretation, etc., - as well as having studied and qualified in numerous Management/Administration/Marketing fields.
And as CEO of a major NZ importing/distributing/exporting company I have also produced a number of market research questionnaires, related to sporting goods. On the duck scene I've also produced numerous questionnaires relating to waterfowl & wetlands.
I've also had some direct experience with 'opinion polls'!
But, sadly, your somewhat naive answer is all to typical of a small (exclusive) number of DegreeInfo members who seems to get a kick out of life by attacking an individual rather discussing a particular topic in a constructive/sensible/informative/useful manner.
Dr Duck