Why choose DETC?

Perhaps this will assist in understanding the point: http://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Without-Tears-Non-Mathematicians-Classics/dp/0205395090/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268411581&sr=8-1

And please, enlighten me on what my agenda is, exactly? What vested interest in the outcome of these matters do I hold? You said it, I'd appreciate it if you'd back it up. Or is it yet another unsubstantiated assessment?

 

I was disagreeing with you.

You wrote:

"At UoP, such a doctorate would be unrecognized for hiring and pay purposes. One from Capella, for example, would be just fine. I have to think there are many other situations where such degrees would be categorically excluded, despite the stellar nature of the awarding organizations. Sorry, but that's just the way things go sometimes."

I replied:

"Well if the University of Phoenix is out, then I guess that NY Regents graduates will just have to settle for second-choice places like Cal Tech's Biology division, which employs four Rockefeller PhDs (including a Nobel laureate). More of these NA graduates muddle by at Harvard, Boston University, University of Texas Austin, the University of Southern California, North Carolina State University, University of Georgia, UC San Francisco, University of Washington, SUNY Stony Brook, Duke University, New York University, Columbia University, University of Arizona, U. of Maryland, UC Irvine, U. Alabama Birmingham, the CUNY Graduate Center, and any number of similar places."

My point is that schools' reputations often matter more than the schools' institutional accreditation. Rockefeller University graduates don't seem to be at any disadvantage when it comes to university faculty hiring (Phoenix or no Phoenix), despite their degrees not having come from an RA school.

Notice, that I'm not suggesting that graduates of DETC schools will be equally successful. They won't be. What I'm inquiring into is the reasons why.

I think that the answer is to be found not in the DETC institutional accreditation, but in the manifest weakness of the current DETC lineup. If DETC could find and enlist a few DL intellectual/research powerhouses, then those schools would succeed on their own merits and their accreditation would hardly be noticed.

But in the absence of any academic reputation, DETC accreditation just isn't strong enough to carry the load all by itself. (Neither is RA accreditation, in many cases.)

 

Perhaps. But perhaps not. When one considers the individual's own situation, then yes, cumulative factors aren't relevant. Unless, of course that person enters into the decision with a clear understanding of the issues. If a person decided to pursue a degree from a DETC-accredited school knowing fully what the potential limitations were, fine. We all make choices in life. But not everyone does that. Judging from what we've been reading on these boards over the last decade, there is a great deal of confusion and not-knowing regarding accreditation. It doesn't help when some posters--invariably connected to DETC-accredited schools, BTW--try to obscure the obvious.

Saying it's okay for someone isn't the same as saying it's generally okay. It is not.

 

Lots of good stuff here.

Accreditation is the life blood of these old tired institutions. Any new accreditation is a financial threat....PERIOD!! Tuitions are skyrocketing, degrees are losing value in the marketplace so the market (along with technological advances) dictate that simpler, less expensive ways to obtain degrees will become available.

Will the current accrediting bodies accept it without a fight? No. Will the HR director who slogged through Harvard and has $100k loan debt think much of it? Probably not, unless he/she is honest and progressive. The US Dept. of Ed's acceptance of NA is the ultimate slap and has (slightly) tipped the playing field closer to even. At the same time, it is driving DETC tuitions up and RA tuitions down. Again, market forces.

The ultimate hypocracy is in jaded states like mine, NY where the State Dept. of Ed. requires RA degrees for most certifications from Psych, to Education to Accounting, but then uses DETC accreditation as marketing fodder for THEIR new DL programs that have not yet (and may not ever) gain RA accreditation.

THAT, my friends is the type of gall in the world of corporate academia!!

 

CS!, whenever there is change there will be resistance, heightened emotional intensity and defensiveness and this is exactly what is occurring in regard to this discussion regarding the crediblity and viability of DETC and their degree programs. In fact, DETC is evolving in a very positive direction and a number of their degree programs are gaining significant levels of credibility and potential utilization in a number of work and professional contexts. This change may make some individuals very uncomfortable but fortunately will not have any impact on the value of DETC degrees for students who can benefit significantly from them in a number of work and professional domains.

 

SIMON: Not quite so Mongoose. According to a thread on degreeInfo.com regarding CSU's new Psy.D program, it appears that counseling licensing boards including NY state as well as a number of others will legally permit a licensed counselor to refer to themselves as "doctor" with a Nationally Accredited (DETC) Psy.D. This is a major step forward towards the recognition of DETC degrees and as noted may even enable some graduates of this Psy.D program to become licensed in certain states as a Psychologist. Obviously prior to any student taking the plunge and gaining admission to any DETC doctoral program, they should explore the pros and cons of doing so prior to making any commitments.

 

I thought that most states that recognize NA in some form will allow you to use the DR. title as long as you're not advertising yourself as physician or Psychologist, which is the licensed title for the Boards of Health for a person with a BoH recognized Psych degree? At least that's the research that I've found for OK.

 

There is a very interesting component to this discussion. Whenever anyone speaks in terms of global generalizations such as discussing general stereotypes of specific ethnic and religious groups or as in this case, the lack of value of DETC degrees, these generalizations speak in terms of norms but exclude individual differences and experiences which run counter to these generalizations. So stereotyping DETC degrees as being inferior to those from RA institutions is akin to looking in a distorted mirror at an amusement park and perceiving our image as either being elongated or too wide but does not negate the fact that our image still remains intact, although distorted. In like kind, stereotyping DETC degrees as being inferior is a gross distortion of the "image" and credibility of these credentials but cannot negate their intrinsic value and worth to numerous individuals.

 

Simon, I think DETC has moved beyond change and is now a DL standard.

In addition, I see DETC as a positive component of our contemporary society, where consumers are choosing how and where they will study. In essence, it reflects our modern day demands of education for those who have full time jobs, families and busy schedules.

It's understandable that healthy and vibrant change often brings about fear and frustration on the part of those unable to cope with it. In many respects, the RA mindset is like the neurotic patient that is unable to cope with change, and instead reaches for a pill. Sadly, many of these patients won't fare well in the post DETC world. But, that is life.

 

I agree that DETC is evolving, but I'm less sure about the words 'credibility' and 'viability'.

DETC has recently been admitted as an accreditor into the doctoral space. That's a tremendous void and the task that DETC schools now face is filling it. DETC graduate programs must generate reputations both for theoretical scholarship and for leadership in the areas of applied practice. It's a huge assignment and none of the DETC schools is remotely close to being there yet. More troublingly, few of them show much sign of even trying at this point.

Many full-time B&M doctoral programs are not only free tuition, they actually pay their students housing and expense stipends to attend.

And apart from competing on low price (people often get what they pay for), do any DETC doctoral programs have any cool features, any fascinating research projects, any unique intellectual or applied-professional strengths, that might attract a doctoral student to enroll and attract an employer to hire these people once they've graduated?

 

First, when I was a campus chair at UoP, I had an applicant for the faculty whose master's and Ph.D. came from Central European University. I couldn't hire her because at the time CEU was accredited by the NY Board of Regents. Despite the fact that (a) that accreditation is legitimate and rigorous and (b) the school was certainly comparable to RA schools, I couldn't hire her. We were in the process of exploring the foreign credential evaluation path when, BANG!, CEU became a candidate for RA (Middle States). On that basis, I was able to hire her immediately. (CEU has since gone on to full RA.)

Second, I used to be a big fan of many unaccredited DL schools. Back in the halcyon days of the '70's, taking one's Ph.D. at an unaccredited school was often the only option for a working professional. While there were some schools that were clearly inferior (PWU, Kensington, La Jolla, etc.), you also had Kennedy-Western, Columbia Pacific, California Pacific, California Coast, Saybrook, Walden, Sarasota, and several others. It was hard to imagine any of them going on to RA, but it was not hard to imagine that good doctoral work was being done at them. I don't support those options anymore, generally. Why the change? Because times changed. Many of the really good ones eventually became RA. A few trundled on as unaccredited. A few more dropped their doctoral programs and got DETC accreditation. And now several DETC-accredited schools are offering doctoral degrees. There is simply no need for accepting the limitations of an unaccredited degree anymore. If someone chooses that path, that's his/her business. But that doesn't make it a good idea generally. The same with DETC-accredited schools. An individual might choose that path and it might be just fine for him/her. But that doesn't make it a good idea generally, either. And wishing the gap between RA and NA didn't exist won't make it go away. It might not affect you, and that's fine. But the limitations and risks illustrated here and elsewhere are very real, and should be taken into account.

This is a difficult, multifaceted issue. The discussions usually include people who've put their time and money towards earning a degree from a DETC-accredited school. They have a stake to defend, and that sometimes makes them react emotionally to the negatives. That's unfortunate. Better such energy be used to improve the situation, rather than to decry or deny it.

I know of one prominent poster (who no longer posts on this board) who is in the habit of saying something like "I have an RA degree and you don't, so that makes me superior." I don't agree with that stance, of course. This isn't a "my degree is better than yours" issue. It's about the truths around the RA/NA issue. And isn't it okay to acknowledge both the positive and the negative? Union was brought up earlier in this thread--really, for no good reason. It was noted that Dr. Levicoff and I have been critical of Union in the past. Right. You see, even though we both have serious stakes in Union's success (we each hold a Ph.D. from Union), we were willing to talk about the warts. It's okay to do that regarding this thread's topic, too. It doesn't diminish the accomplishments of these schools, nor their graduates'. But it is important to get past the denial in order to get on with fixing the thing.

 

Great thread!

 

Okay, that's twice. And like the last time, it bears no resemblance to the discussion at hand, and misinterprets the points being made.

Holders of degrees from regionally accredited schools have no stake in the success or failure of DETC-accredited schools, nor their graduates. It has no bearing on us. You may wish to frame it in a "my degree is better than your degree" paradigm, but I've already opted out of such a discussion because I think it is pointless. Attempts, like the one above, to attribute it to me miss the mark.

I've tried to be accommodating and supportive regarding DETC accreditation, while simultaneously pointing out some of the concerns potential applicants should consider. But that balancing act grows tiresome when burdened with posts like the one above. Frankly, I question whether the academic backwater that is DETC is really worth the trouble. It would be much simpler to just rip into it without regard for its positives. Many of its defenders will react the same anyway, blind to anything that chips away at their fragile fiction.

Try this one on: in my study of HR professionals' reactions to different forms of institutional recognition, they held state approval (non-accreditation) in higher regard than national accreditation (using DETC as the example). NA vs. RA? You must be joking. Students and graduates of DETC-accredited schools have a long way to go just to separate themselves from California degree mills! Good luck with that.

 

Then degree-mill degrees would seem to be 'credible' and 'viable' on occasion. Seeing as how most places don't regulate the use of the word 'doctor' (outside some medical-related contexts), simply lying about having a doctorate would seem to be 'credible' and 'viable' too if it succeeds in influencing people. My point is that your criterion is too weak and that it falls prey to reductio-ad-absurdem implications.

Besides, I'd question how impressed the professional and academic communities will actually be with the current crop of DETC doctorates. Laymen? Maybe. Professionals and academics? Doubtful.

That's not to say that it can never happen. But the DETC doctoral schools still have a great deal of work to do. They are standing at the beginning of their road, not at the end.

 

BillDayson: Then degree-mill degrees would seem to be 'credible' and 'viable' on occasion.

SIMON: We are discussing DETC degree programs, approved by the United States Department of Education NOT Diploma mills which are not analogous on any level to the discussion of DETC degrees! Bringing diploma mills into the equation is therefore tangential and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Dayson: Seeing as how most places don't regulate the use of the word 'doctor' (outside some medical-related contexts), simply lying about having a doctorate would seem to be 'credible' and 'viable' too if it succeeds in influencing people. My point is that your criterion is too weak and that it falls prey to reductio-ad-absurdem implications.


Simon: You are absolute incorrect. Who says that "most places" (I assume that you are referring to states not "places"?) don't regulate the use of the word doctorate? In fact "most places" (states) do regulate the use of the title "doctor" and in fact have a number of very stringent statutes pertaining to their appropriate use including punishing those who refer to themselves as "doctor" if they do not have a legally accepted degree by jail terms up to one year!

In addition a graduate with a doctorate from a DETC school (ie, Psy.D) is not lying or misleading the public whatsoever and are legally entitled by state rules and regulations guiding professional codes of ethics to do so. So it is not a matter of my criterion being too weak but that you don't understand the statutes of state licensing boards that legally enable graduates from a DETC doctoral program to refer to themselves as "doctor". Of course if you wish to argue your reservations regarding DETC doctoral degree with them I suggest that you do so. I would enjoy being a fly on the wall listening to that discussion.


Dayson: Besides, I'd question how impressed the professional and academic communities will actually be with the current crop of DETC doctorates. Laymen? Maybe. Professionals and academics? Doubtful.

SIMON: It is not a matter of impressing professional and academic communities with the crediblity of DETC doctorates because the fact is that the same entities you mention above question the credibility and viability of distance online RA doctorates as well!

Dayson: That's not to say that it can never happen. But the DETC doctoral schools still have a great deal of work to do. They are standing at the beginning of their road, not at the end.

SIMON: So what is your point? Obviously this is a relative beginning for these DETC doctoral degree programs because they are obviously novel additions. However, this in no way leads to your inference that they will be of less credibility or use than RA.

 

On-topic, people.

No personal attacks, veiled or otherwise.

 

There may be some stake. Managers with NA degrees most likely will consider an employee for a position who holds NA degree then a manager who is RA degree holder.

I know I would as DETC degree holder will not ignore NA accredited candidate.

I hope with the time Ed.D and DBA's with DETC accredited degree will get faculry position at NA universities. If DETC doctorates program also prepare for academic positions then why not try get in to all universities.

I can see an owner of private RA university allowing DETC Doctorate to teach there. Planting the seed.

 

I suspect you're right. But DETC and the other NAs occupy such a tiny speck of the higher education world.

 

I definitely agree that the reputation and utility of DETC degrees has been improving over the years and it appears that it is continuing to improve. I too expect it to continue to improve in the future.