Guess what this is

[johann]

George:

Are you trying to set an Olympic record for Backpedaling?

(1) IF you'd read my posting, you'd have read that ALL the schools on "my list" were accredited by ASIC, except Zaskin College, which was accredited by this Government-approved accreditor: British Accreditation Council for Independent Further & Higher Education. Zaskin is on the "approved sponsor" list with the other schools - last page. I don't care how "useful" you consider my list. If not to the Brits, it's useful in its present form to me and other forum-readers. On the other hand, YOUR list - in its present form - might be useful as a basis for litigation by legit, authorized schools.

(2) UIUC or CHEA are free to disagree - but I think it IS your job to research a list you've been handed, before using it to cast wild unfounded aspersions against legit schools. As for its use as a John-Bear type "what's this" contest, (his was a GOOD one - yours isn't) it WAS your job to read and "vet" it first. You don't need a formal job description, or a Ph.D. for that!

(3) I never accused you of inventing the nursery rhyme. You once CLAIMED to have made up the word "galoumf," in that particular spelling. I quoted the old rhyme to prove you did NOT.

George, I think for once, you've been out-argued by a semi-educated, derelict old rummy who can't even drink any more. We should get back now to what we know: me to my space cartoons at the alte kockers heim and you to your quarks and mesons.

Goodbye!
Johann

[g-gollin]

a semi-educated, derelict old rummy who can't even drink any more.

I am sorry you're not happy with your education, and also sorry you can't drink any more.

Please generate a proper table as I requested.

GG

[johann]

George:

(1) I'm sorry you didn't invent the word "galoumf" as you once claimed in this forum.

(2) I'm quite happy (so far) with my (incomplete) education - as far as it's progressed. (2 colleges 1 University). My first tertiary graduation was at 46, my most recent at 62. It's definitely not my last!

(3) I'm very glad I can't drink any more. My health is surprisingly good and I'll hopefully enjoy years yet with my sons, their families and my beautiful tribe of grandchildren - all of whom I love deeply. Nothing like family - trumps everything!

(4) Re-do the list? No - I refuse. Just because I can -- And you can't make me - - - - I'm not one of your physics students!

Get over it, George --

Johann

[Hungry Ghost]

The list is not "my" list.

Ok, so who's list is it? You've never really resolved the guessing-game that started the thread.

If a school's name appears on the list, then what should we conclude? Why should we do that? What makes the list authoritative, assuming that it is?

Is this a list of schools that were accredited by ASIC and that somebody else believes (for some unstated reason) to be doubtful?

This whole thread is so relentlessly cryptic and so filled with hidden agendas and prickly attitude that I'm finding it increasingly annoying.

[g-gollin]

If a school's name appears on the list, then what should we conclude? Why should we do that? What makes the list authoritative, assuming that it is?

Is this a list of schools that were accredited by ASIC and that somebody else believes (for some unstated reason) to be doubtful?

This whole thread is so relentlessly cryptic and so filled with hidden agendas and prickly attitude that I'm finding it increasingly annoying.

A British professor I met at the CHEA Annual Meeting in Washington DC a few weeks ago described the list as the British government's official, but for-internal-use-only list of diploma mills. He described it as a list of mills, told me that he (the British prof) was too old to care what anyone in the UK government might do to him for releasing the list, and said that the government did not make the list public because the legal challenges by the operators of diploma mills might require the government to put more resources into legal wrangling than they wanted to do at that point in time.

For the moment, let's assume that the professor who gave me the list described it accurately, except that "diploma mills" was colloquial and should have been more precisely phrased as "course providers the UK government judges to be of unacceptably low quality." In answer to your questions:

HG asked: "If a school's name appears on the list, then what should we conclude?"
Answer: that the UK government judges the school to be of unacceptably low quality.

HG asked: "What makes the list authoritative, assuming that it is?"
Answer: The fellow who gave it to me identified it as an official, government-employed list. If he was not misrepresenting the provenance of the list, then it is authoritative in that it is what the UK government uses in policy decisions.

HG asked: "Is this a list of schools that were accredited by ASIC...?"
Answer: The list has nothing to do with ASIC outside of the fact that some AIC schools appear on the list. It is not a list generated by ASIC.

HG said "...relentlessly cryptic..."
GG replies: the British fellow didn't seem to care whether I posted the list with his name attached or not. I thought he was being honest with me, and also underestimating the amount of flak he'd catch from releasing the list and felt it best to leave his name off it. I'll send him a link to this DD thread, see if he wants to register and offer any of his own comments.

[rockon]

If a school's name appears on the list, then what should we conclude? Why should we do that? What makes the list authoritative, assuming that it is?

Is this a list of schools that were accredited by ASIC and that somebody else believes (for some unstated reason) to be doubtful?

This whole thread is so relentlessly cryptic and so filled with hidden agendas and prickly attitude that I'm finding it increasingly annoying.

A British professor I met at the CHEA Annual Meeting in Washington DC a few weeks ago described the list as the British government's official, but for-internal-use-only list of diploma mills. He described it as a list of mills, told me that he (the British prof) was too old to care what anyone in the UK government might do to him for releasing the list, and said that the government did not make the list public because the legal challenges by the operators of diploma mills might require the government to put more resources into legal wrangling than they wanted to do at that point in time.

For the moment, let's assume that the professor who gave me the list described it accurately, except that "diploma mills" was colloquial and should have been more precisely phrased as "course providers the UK government judges to be of unacceptably low quality." In answer to your questions:

HG asked: "If a school's name appears on the list, then what should we conclude?"
Answer: that the UK government judges the school to be of unacceptably low quality.

HG asked: "What makes the list authoritative, assuming that it is?"
Answer: The fellow who gave it to me identified it as an official, government-employed list. If he was not misrepresenting the provenance of the list, then it is authoritative in that it is what the UK government uses in policy decisions.

HG asked: "Is this a list of schools that were accredited by ASIC...?"
Answer: The list has nothing to do with ASIC outside of the fact that some AIC schools appear on the list. It is not a list generated by ASIC.

HG said "...relentlessly cryptic..."
GG replies: the British fellow didn't seem to care whether I posted the list with his name attached or not. I thought he was being honest with me, and also underestimating the amount of flak he'd catch from releasing the list and felt it best to leave his name off it. I'll send him a link to this DD thread, see if he wants to register and offer any of his own comments.

So, you post a list of schools provided again by an unnamed contact, you qualify this list as an inside list of diploma mills used by the British government and, then, you just leave it at that!!! No documentation, no evidence, no names, no explanations, no retractions, no nothing!!!

Probably you think that playing with schools' and peoples' reputations and livelihoods is just a game or a frivolous diversion?

Rockon

[worldtraveler]

It has been four years since anyone has posted in this thread. Many colleges and universities in the US are dumping DETC accreditation in lieu of accreditation by ASIC. Does this mean that ASIC is finally being taken seriously?

[Eric]

I'm far from expert but I'm told that some colleges can't get re accredited by DETC because DETC raised the bar.
Some lost accreditation with DETC because they no longer qualify under new tougher requirements by DETC.

I have no knowledge about ASIC, so can't comment on them.

I seen only one college no longer accredited by DETC that lists now ASIC. Univ or Atlanta
Are you saying there are more?
Just out of curiosity who are they?