Knightsbridge University

[DR ANATIDAE]

No, this idea is completely wrong, as I'm sure Dr. Hayes can tell you. He would only have to constantly defend his KU degree if he goes to the DI/DD forums and meets up with the gang and their followers. In the real world, he probably has never even been asked about it, good or bad. In the real world of business and commerce, they are busy doing not wondering.
Never in all the years I've had my two state approved degrees have I been challenged by an employer or friend, OR ANYONE. Now at DI or DD that would be a different story. There the holders of substandard RA degrees like Douglas and the providers of the very type degrees we hold, Bear and Douglas, now they do attack and help attack us, as they try to separate their past actions and behaviors from ours. They wanted the money from their various activities, but they no longer want the hsitory they were part of.
You see the used car salesman wants to sell you what he has on the lot today. He can't sell you what he sold last month, and there is their mistake. People know what they sold and the words told to them by the salesmen. In fact the quality of the used cars are in truth no better now than then, just different.

Spot-on Randall. Never once in my long involvement with wetlands and waterfowl have I ever been asked about what qualifications I have to carry out such work - creating wetlands, enhancing wetlands, managing wetlands, writing about wetlands, managing rare waterfowl, etc. And in the vast majority of situations it is what people can do and what they achieve that is of prime importance.
My hero has always been Sir Peter Scott, who founded the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust in the UK, and who saved numerous waterfowl species from extinction - without any qualification to carry out such work. Gerald Durrell, who founded the Jersey Zoo, and who saved many animals from extinction also had no qualifications to carry out such work. And I'm sure neither was ever asked about their qualifications.

[ham]

My hero has always been Sir Peter Scott, who founded the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust in the UK, and who saved numerous waterfowl species from extinction - without any qualification

the point is, then, just be good and just let people appreciate you for what you are. If qualifications mean nothing (and it very well might be in some cases ), why bother acquiring non-traditional ones? More so, why bother with "though" ways to acquire non-traditional qualifications, titles or degrees, when there is ebay?

[Randall Flagg]

A person should (in my view) do those things that are (legal-have value), and that will meet the needs and wants of that individual. Unaccredited schools have value and usage. If that is sufficient for the individual, fine. It's his choice. If outsiders disagree with that choice, too bad. They can do other things, as they deem adequate.

[ham]

will meet the needs and wants of that individual.

i never questioned this.
After all, i have received tuition for which there is no accreditation.
I only question how people who are fervent advocates of non-accreditation ( EG freedom in academia ), then spend so much time arguing that their largely unaccredited results are the same as those garnered through accredited education; they say skills will decide in the end (which is true, if i cannot order a coffee in French, what use is my doctorate in French? ), but insist on getting themselves unaccredited awards based on PLAR; they say none has ever questioned their skills (which may very well be true ), but then go great lenghts to prove it to the world with unaccredited awards.
Either you say you got skills, and let skills do the talk, or assume you need to prove something to the world, and get diplomas to talk.
To an absurd, if i am truly convinced I am a master in karate, I might very well fly to Japan and ask a few known karate masters to test me, and to write thereafter a letter with their opinion., instead of a unaccredited PLAR degree.

[Randall Flagg]

If people want diplomas, fine. If not they can go to the library. To each his own path through life. I don't see it as critical. If an Excelsior degree means enough for one and Harvard is enough for another, ok, both are satisfied. That's why one person drives a Pinto and another a Corvette. Both have cars and drive where they wish to go.

[Ben Johnson]

I only question how people who are fervent advocates of non-accreditation ( EG freedom in academia ), then spend so much time arguing that their largely unaccredited results are the same as those garnered through accredited education;

I object to the accredited is good/unaccredited is bad dichotomy. The mediocrity of public education dispels that theory.

People may choose to spend a few grand on a reasonably demanding unaccredited doctorate instead of the 40 grand for a Douglas type Mickey Mouse accredited degree.

There are real reasons to EARN an unaccredited doctorate.

[DR ANATIDAE]

The point is, then, just be good and just let people appreciate you for what you are. If qualifications mean nothing (and it very well might be in some cases ), why bother acquiring non-traditional ones? More so, why bother with "though" ways to acquire non-traditional qualifications, titles or degrees, when there is ebay?

There are a multitude of reasons why people acquire degrees when they are not necessarily needed - self esteem, self interest, self education, personal knowledge, personal ambition, the result of research and publication of that research, etc. In my case I already had a number if UK Royal Chartered qualifications, but my PhD has already opened up many doors in my waterfowl work that would not have opened otherwise, particularly when it comes to raising funds towards saving the NZ Brown Teal. As has the Honour bestowed on me by the NZ Government in the NZ New Year Honours List in 2005 - of course, this was the ‘icing on the cake’ for the Hayes family.
In the case of Sir Peter Scott, he received honorary doctorates from a number of universities - and I don't think he ever turned any down!

[Randall Flagg]

I guess the point is that people can do it the way they see best. Each person living with the good and bad of their choices.

No one has the right to say it's my way or the highway.

"Some people argue, in effect that if a school is not accredited, that it is a degree mill. This is nonsense. Look at the credentials of Dr.Walston and his collegues. And look at the work of the students."
--John Bear--Columbia Evangelical Seminary Website

Dr. Walston is a friend of Bear and has a Ph.D. from Greenwich University. Now wouldn't it be nice if the same attitude of generosity and understanding was shown to others, not just friends and colleagues?

[Randall Flagg]

I do not and would not argue whether a degree from an unaccredited school is better, as good, or worse than that from the various accredited schools so touted by those who hold those very same accredited degrees. They like what and how they did it best. A Chevrolet owner says mine is best. The Ford driver says, no, mine is best. At the end of the day both drive to and fro liking what they did. In the end, it doesn't really matter, if what you have done or bought is enough and satisfactory to you.

I once had a man tell me he would not marry the same woman if he had it to do over. But since they were already married, and for so many years, he could live with the situation. If Douglas can live with the good and bad of Excelsior and Gus with TESC, I would imagine most can survive Pacific Western also. It's a matter of taste and choice.

[ham]

People may choose to spend a few grand on a reasonably demanding unaccredited doctorate instead of the 40 grand for a Douglas type Mickey Mouse accredited degree.

of course; some alternative offers fit this bill, others are (to my surprise) as (or more) expensive than traditional ones.

I guess the point is that people can do it the way they see best. Each person living with the good and bad of their choices.

far from me to go beyond weather chatter here. What others do, or their own reasons for doing so, is not my problem.

I am only stating my opinion about what I see as a sort of circular argument about skills making degrees superfluous, yet degrees are at some point needed...etc.