Unaccredited / State Approved!

Yet you don't understand why a degreeinfo poll is not statistically valid. Where did you take these statistics courses? Oh, let me guess...

 

Dear Dr. Hayes,

May I suggest that since your degree is from a degree mill that makes K-W look like Harvard that you keep in mind the saying about not throwing rocks when living in a glass house.

Regards,
Bill

 

I assume this would be covered in the most basic of college level statistics classes. It certainly isn't a question I wouldn't expect from someone who has done graduate level work much less attained a Ph.D. It is pretty clear that you have probably done some excellent work supporting wildlife, but NOT earned a Ph.D.

 

Honestly, Dr. Duck, thanks for exposing yourself here. If a true student is pursuing a Master's degree or a Ph.D., they will have at least a small bit of knowledge about statistics. In the future, we will simply be able to point them to this thread to demostrate how ridiculous your claims are regarding the value of unacredited degrees. Good work!

But wait! I'm sure you are going to defend yourself by actually addressing the point. You would never try to avoid my questions (throughout this thread) if you are correct, right?

 

I can't see how that's possibly true if you can't see why a DegreeInfo poll is not scientific. I hated Statistics like poison, but even I remember enough to realize the sample size is too small, too skewed, and there is unlimited potential for "packing the ballot box".

 

What incredible drivel from four supposed intelligent people! None of whom obviously know anything about K-W, statistics, scientific analysis, polls, or about my background. Yet they pontificate like world authourities! And become extemely rude and arrogant when someone dare question 'their' comments!
Dr Duck

 

How is it "rude" or "arrogant" to point out the obvious fact that a DegreeInfo poll is not scientific?

You have claimed to have intimate knowledge of Statistics, yet you can't grasp so basic a concept of a website poll not being statistically valid. Where exactly did you become so intimate with Statistics?

I have a feeling I know the answer.

 

Thanks for your rude post Bruce. I'd suggest you close this thread also.
Dr Duck

 

FN

Once again you write a post that makes no sense. You posted you had no idea what a scientific poll is and then go on to tell us what a grand knowledge of statistics you have. When several people point out the lack of logic in that claim you denounce their posts. I guess the best defense IS a good offense.

 

"Incredible drivel" is unfortunate. Where is kf5k to criticize the tenor of that comment? Oh, that's right....

As for the poll, the esteemed Dr. Hayes certainly knows that its validity is questionable because of randomness and self-selection, as has already been pointed out, but not due to sample size, which can be factored for.

A sample must represent the population from which it is drawn. When the participants are able to choose to enter not only the pool of possible participants, but also to become participants, there is no way to ensure they accurately represent the population. Thus, one cannot make inferences about the population based upon the sample results.

A second way such a poll violates random sampling is related to self-selection. As noted already, those connected to Kennedy-Western (or other schools like it) might be more motivated to participate, skewing the results.

Yet another way such a poll violates random sampling principles is that participants can vote more than once. It is a simple thing to create another identity and vote again, repeating the process until one is satisified with the results.

Finally, a sample drawn from Degreeinfo participants reflects exactly what? It isn't reasonable to make inferences beyond the population of Degreeinfo participants. It is safe to say that Degreeinfo participants do not reflect the general public, for example, and are considerably more informed about such matters.

Finally (finally), wasn't there a huge rejection of Kennedy-Western on that poll?

 

Gentlemen, this last series of posts demonstrates a "feeding frenzy". fnhayes simply asked Jeff an open ended question ...what was the difference between a scientific poll compared to the degreeinfo poll. He didn't say he didn't know. It's a common debate technique. JeffHampton admitted he doesn't know yet he attacked fnhayes on the subject. Frankly, it should have been left there, but to save face the attack continued by throwing fnhayes' school in the mix to discredit his position (and not-so-indirectly him). And others jumped on the bandwagon. It's an interesting pathology and fascinating to observe however it all seems to be very destructive without any purposeful end.

 

Sorry Kirkland, your comment ignores the fact that Dr. Hayes drew silly and even false conclusions from the poll in question. Contrary to your assertion, I believe it is an excellent demonstration of what can happen when one throws rocks while they're living in a glass house.

 

Bill Huffman, I don't see where the above post is throwing rocks and I don't understand the analogy concerning throwing rocks and living in glass houses. The opinion is clearly stated as such, and while it might have been in error I don't see the need to "start up the engines".

 

I think Dr. Hayes' rude response says a lot.

Dr. Hayes has repeatedly defended his choice of school to take his doctorate. His main point is that his own doctoral work is evidence of the scholarship attainable in such a venue. Well, I guess not. It is remarkable that someone with a doctorate could display such a lack of understanding about research methods. His response, besides the insult, is that he has had a great many "qualifications" (courses, I would assume) in this subject. Again, because he's made such a big deal about the quality of his doctoral work--and because others have made a strong case regarding the school he took it from--it begs further inspection.


Claiming a fake doctorate from a fake school, defending other fake schools, then questioning the non-scientific nature of a Degreeinfo poll? Puhleeze....

 

If I missed a previous answer answer, I am sorry.

To be considered a "scientific poll" the participants need to be random selected, or a randomly selected sample taken from a sufficiently large population to provide a close to normal distribution of the participants. In addition the poll needs to be validated for completeness and non-bias before use.

The general requirement for assuring normality is to have a sample size that is calculated to provide this normality. A “very rough” guide is the sample size is at least 35, randomly selected.

What makes the degreeinfo polls non-scientific is the lack of randomness (unless we are talking about the comments associated with them) and the relatively small sample size. In as much as the pollees select themselves this further degrades any projecting of data to the population (either of degreeinfo viewers or the DL population as a whole.

Also since very little effort is made to validated the questions in the first place (see numerous “But you forgot…” comments), this also degrades the accuracy of the results.

The degreeinfo polls can be considered funn, but NEVER scientific!

 

Why try to revise the past when it is right here for everyone to read? As you know, your summary isn't even close to the actual discussion.

Indeed, Dr. Duck did not say that he did not know the difference between a poll here and a scientific poll. Quite the opposite. He said that he thought the poll here was an accurate representation. Here's the exact quote:

"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?"

When I pointed out how foolish this was, he asked if I could spell out for him what constitutes a scientific poll and how this differs from the polls here.

I did not say that I didn't know. I said that since I am not an expert in statistics, I could probably not explain it adequately to someone who obviously has absolutely no background in the subject.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting this, or do you simply lack reading comprehension skills?

 

From the responses, it seems that quite a bit of luggage will be attached to any post now from fnhayes. Seems the standard process is: say something that opposes a convention, get insulted from the regulars and/or faithful, respond in kind, then that response is used for general justification for a general melee with usually someone's school being called into question (if arguable) to further a point or to discredit the opposing opinion. I'm sure this can be formulated.

Jeff, good question... what was it you said again?? Don't you have your degree to polish or something... I don't mean that in a personal way... I'm sure its a very nice degree.

 

Hi Kirkland

Yes, I think you are correct. If someone holds a degree mill up and says it is a legitimate school, then goes on to prove opposite by their posts it will definately affect how people see that person and react to their posts. As it should.

 

"It is safe to say that DegreeInfo participants do not reflect the general public ...". This comment from Rich Douglas clearly sums up the K-W situation, and the personal views of a minority of people on DI who are so vociferously opposed to K-W and to anything non-RA really mean very little in the 'real' world.
The facts on K-W can be clearly seen from the K-W prospectus, from the Annual Report of the company that owns them, from the 1,000+ companies that recognise K-W (and pay the fees for their staff) and from the ever increasing size of the K-W student enrolments - enrolments which are spread throughout the world.
I would strongly recommend that those of you who consider K-W to be a 'degree mill' take a look at the facts and bring yourself up
to the present period in time, instead of remaining in the century
before last.
In the 'real' world whatever you RA Fanatics/Shills think is really quite irrelevant and, as I said before, your enjoyment in life seems to stem from abusing people who have views contrary to yours.
When I can fit it into my schedule I will comment on the ficticious ten point list on K-W put forward by Rich Douglas.
Dr Duck

 

Dr. Hayes, it is a fallacy to argue that because a certain thief has been successful that no law was broken. It is equally a fallacy to argue that because K-W has been successful in victimizing many people that they are not a degree mill. It is even more ridiculous to argue that because dishonesty pays for someone in the present that someone is living in the past if they don't embrace the dishonesty.

(You also play fast and loose with the truth. e.g., where's this list of 1000+ companies?)