Talk:Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

Stan Dale

I had thought about writing an article on IASHS, and to include Stan Dale as a former faculty, to link to an article on him. this book states he is a graduate. he founded the Human Awareness Institute, which probably has many ties to iashs. i will try to add this at some point. good article, well sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unaccredited institution

IASHS is completely unaccredited by any generally recognized educational accrediting body, such as the Department of Education, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, or Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The only institution that ever recognized IASHS was the "Association for Private Postsecondary Education in California", which is likely now-defunct, and even in its heyday, was simply a consortium of about a dozen non-accredited institutions that agreed to recognize each other.

The lack of accreditation for this institution is barely mentioned in this article, and I've tagged the article as "unbalanced" as a result. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is described as non-accredited in the opening sentence, with more detail in the Academics section. By my recollection, approved means basically that it is a valid non-fraudulent business but no representation is made regarding their educational standards. I think the APPEC was (is?) in the process of being decommissioned or something like that, but I did not find anything indicating that IASHS was seeking accreditation or alternate approval; this may have changed.

Would a little more detail explaining the term of art "approved" and the function and status of APPEC allay your concerns? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The institute is accredited by the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education which is a unit of the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which is government run and operated. The programs that they have accredited are list here. For the time being I'm going to change the article to reflect this. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike. Wasn't seeing that they were approved and not accredited. I reverted my change. --AerobicFox

(talk) 07:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The IASHS is not a diploma mill,is it?

No, from what I gather the people running it have legit degrees. The requirements are fairly difficult, and many people do not get degrees.AerobicFox (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It borders on being a diploma mill. It does not go so far as to issue diplomas simply for payment of a fee, but it does engage in practices that are not accepted in accredited educational institutions, such as the granting of a "PhD" with no prior educational pre-requisites, and less than a year's worth of classes at the IASHS, plus a short "dissertation". This is why their degrees likely will never be accredited by mainstream accreditation bodies. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The IASHS focuses on training and educating people in sexology, and to this effect it is functioning just like any trade school which it has been approved as. A PhD from them is basically like getting a PhD from a private cooking school in cooking, or a PhD in a private religious school. Normally these schools are accredited outside of mainstream academic accrediters and are handled by specialist accrediters, dentist schools are accredited by a specific dental association for example and not handled by mainstream medical accreditors. There are no accrediting bodies for sexology though, and no other Universities offers degrees in sexology or in any sex field. Academic accrediters similarly have never accredited a sexology school and typically don't even handle specialist or trade schools. I don't know much more than that, but I've seen their degrees cited enough to believe they don't have any negative stigma attached to them, and I believe they are more strict than most trade schools.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite true: Academic accreditation agencies do handle specialist programs. The difference is that specialty programs are usually handled through a national organization, whereas general subjects are handled through regional organizations. As sexology is a field of psychology, the program would properly be accredited by an organization specializing in psychology programs, i.e., the American Psychological Association's Committee on Accreditation, if they didn't choose to meet WASC's requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexology, however, is a cross disciplinary study and not a branch of psychology. Areas commonly researched in sexology concerned with biology, medicine, sociology, criminology, etc, are out side of the scope of the American Psychological Association. If there was an American Sexologist association, or an association that has ever accredited a sexology degree granting program then they would be the appropriate ones to go to. There is the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine and the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges as well as hundreds of other associations for these types of specialty disciplines, but there are no accrediting associations in the area of sexology.AerobicFox (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation from a specialist group for a non-licensed purpose isn't actually required; you can use the regional agencies if you prefer. A cross-disciplinary program can choose accreditation from multiple agencies or from any one of them. The primary reason you'd pick the specialist group is that you needed it for some purpose, e.g., the state won't let you become a lawyer if you didn't graduate from a law school that the bar association accredited, or your churches won't ordain graduates from a school that they didn't approve. In the relevant case, the only reason you'd choose a specialist accrediting agency is if it would help your students get a license as a clinical psychologist. "Sexologist" is an unregulated term; anyone can call himself a sexologist.

There are accredited degree-granting programs in this area; to name one in IASHS's backyard, SFSU's MA Human Sexuality appears to be accredited by WASC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was able to find a NYT article from 1983 [1] (not cited here), which says "But no major American university awards a doctorate in sexology, says Dr. Haeberle. The only doctoral awards in this country are granted by the Institute for Advanced Study in San Francisco, which has been refused accreditation by the Western Association of Colleges but has just received accreditation by the less prestigious National Association of Private, Nontraditional Schools and Colleges." Perhaps something more recent can be found on the topic of sexology accreditation in USA? They are subject to accreditation in some European countries, like Ireland, based on a quick google search. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on this blog entry [2], the situation is still pretty confused in the US, with only Florida having state accreditation. Any experts on this? FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges is a non-recognized fake accreditation agency, which means that nothing accredited by them is actually accredited. In the US, anyone who wants to can start an "accreditation agency". All you need to do it sit down at your kitchen table and say, "I'm starting an accreditation agency today. I think I'll call it the 'WhatamIdoing Association of Schools'". You don't have to incorporate, register, get a license, or anything else.

I believe that IASHS quit paying NAPNSC shortly after they originally joined. (I'm not entirely sure that NAPNSC still exists.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of all accredited schools in the US is available here: [3]. The article currently says the school is accredited, and cites to: [4] . However, the California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education is not an accrediting institution and the source does not say that the school is accredited, it just lists directory information. Finally, the school's own website has an FAQ [5] that sidesteps the accreditation question in a misleading way. Given all this, especially the first link, I think the available sources indicate that the school in unaccredited. There's also this: [6] Fireplace (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're correct and I'm glad that you've taken this on, but I'm concerned about some of the language in the article:

Almost all of the faculty listed on the Institute's website obtained their most advanced degree from the Institute itself.

This claim cites the IASHS's website as a source. It may be true but it constitutes synthesis of original research contrary to Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research. If the web site does not say "almost all of the faculty listed here obtained their most advanced degree from the Institute," but that is a conclusion that can only be drawn by reviewing the list of faculty and their degrees, it amounts to original research.

However, the BPPE is not an accrediting agency; the agency's main focus is on identifying diploma mills. According to Accredibase Limited, a company that monitors diploma mills, "California has very weak oversight procedures as far as allowing an institution to operate within its borders. An institution within California can obtain a license very easily."

There's no citation for the claim that the BPPE's main focus is identifying diploma mills. It would help a lot to have a very clear citation that says explicitly that the BPPE is not an accrediting agency, in order to refute the original claim. I wasn't able to find one with a quick search. The quote from Accredibase is not directly relevant to the IASHS at all and should not be included. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the statement of fact about the faculty is an example of WP:NOTOR. You're allowed to summarize information from a source, so long as any normal/non-expert reader would be able to look at the same source and easily come to the same conclusion.

Additionally, to qualify as SYNTH, the material must be taken from multiple sources, which it isn't, and it must also be pushing some point ("advance a new position"), which IMO this simple sentence also doesn't do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement implies strongly that most of the faculty have not received advanced degrees from institutions other than IASHS, which we definitely can not conclude from the faculty listing. It's over the line. —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that it implies anything of the sort. It says their most advanced degrees, i.e., their terminal degrees. It is typical for someone to get a bachelor's, master's, and doctorate from three different schools. Saying that most of them received their doctorates (or whatever their most advanced degree happens to be) from IASHS does not say or imply anything at all about all of their advanced degrees.

Additionally, you seem to assume that this is somehow a disparaging statement, which IMO it isn't. It is no more disparaging of IASHS to say that they hire their own graduates than to say that Oxford hires its own graduates. In fact, I went through a list of faculty emeriti at Oxford University just now, and every single one of them (for which any educational background was given) holds at least one degree from Oxford. Slightly more than half the current faculty appear to hold degrees from Oxford. But I suspect that you'd not be the least bit concerned about a statement like "Most of the philosophy faculty at Oxford University are graduates of Oxford". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not so much, but then again, that statement would be unlikely to be accompanied in the lede by "Oxford University is an unaccredited, for-profit degree-granting institution." Placing this statement in the lede of the article, next to those statements, has the effect of casting aspersions on the qualifications of the faculty. —Tim Pierce (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that it has that effect, but are you aware that in some US states, it is actually illegal (as in, "go to court for fraud" illegal) for most of the faculty there to claim that they hold valid PhDs, MPHs, etc? Given that, I think that it would not actually be unreasonable for us to be "casting aspersions" on the faculty's qualifications.

But I honestly don't think it has that effect. We're not saying "It's unaccredited and the faculty's degrees are worthless." That section says, "they grant degrees, and they eat their own dog food"—a point that's particularly relevant, because at one point, IASHS was practically the only degree-granting institution that issued degrees in some of these subjects. Having an IASHS degree in some cases means that these faculty members have some of the oldest degrees in sexology specialties in the world. You see this fact as an insult; I see it as a fact they can rationally be proud of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then it belongs at least in the "Academics" section, where it's less likely to carry that implication. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The location of the statement doesn't matter much to me, but the ==Academics== section seems to be about what degrees they award, rather than about the faculty, so I'm not sure that it's an obvious fit for that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you -- I probably went too far with some of my edits. My (entirely unsourced) impression when I first came across this organization was that, while not a diploma mill, they seem to be selling expensive graduate degrees for fairly little work, with very little residency requirements, and they may be effectively "selling" professorships as part of the package -- the number of faculty they list far exceeds the number of courses offered, and many of the "faculty" don't even live in California. While admittedly entirely unsourced, this is a fairly common phenomenon with "questionable schools", which is why I thought it relevant to include the statement on the number of faculty whose most-advanced degrees come from the school. I think a lot of inferences could be drawn from this fact though -- the inference I drew, the inference that the quality of education is suspect, or even the positive inference that the school is the best "sexology" school out there so of course they hire their own students. In any case, it seems like a relevant and interesting fact about the school, and I think WhatamIdoing is right that it falls under WP:NOTOR. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so maybe including it in academics and the lead is appropriate.

The quote from Accredibase probably went too far -- the school makes much of the fact that they are "fully approved" by the BPPE, so I thought the context that BPPE listing is extremely easy and unrigorous in California was relevant. But, you're probably right, a source should mention the school specifically.

Finally, there are these edits: [7] (reverted by WhatamIdoing [8]), [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. My inclination is that for the non-biographical articles, it's less relevant to mention that the school is non-accredited. But, for biographical articles, I think the fact that the person obtained their graduate degree from a non-accredited school is relevant to an objective biographical description. Sorry for raising this point here when it relates to other articles, I'm doing it in the interest of having a single discussion. Fireplace (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to identify the accreditation status whenever someone is claiming to hold such a degree, just like you would always properly differentiate between an honorary degree (which is not the same thing as an honours degree) and an earned degree. You would, for example, say that George W Bush had received an honorary LLD from Yale; you would not merely say that he had received an LLD from Yale. The need to distinguish between them is essentially the same in both cases: the degree received is not considered valid for certain purposes (e.g., applying for a professional license). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your good humor and thoughtful response. I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about whitewashing the school's degrees and am really glad that you noticed the accreditation claims and followed up on them. With respect to the accreditation status, I agree that a degree from a non-accredited institution is of course not valid for many professional licensures. I also am pretty sure that establishing legitimacy for professional licensure is not one of the five pillars of Wikipedia!

Let me turn this around for a moment. I think that it would seem very odd for the article on Charles Allen Moser to say he received his undergraduate degree from "the accredited State University of New York at Stony Brook". I think it's extremely unusual for a biographical article to use that sort of wording. I think to do so would rightly be seen as a kind of puffery, and Wikipedia should tread carefully around it. If we would not normally refer to a school as "the accredited university so-and-so," then neither should we refer to it as "the non-accredited university." Anyone who is curious or skeptical about Charles Allen Moser's degree can click through to the article about the Institute to see that it is non-accredited, and judge for themselves. It's not necessary or appropriate to plant extra doubt before they even get there. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted an edit by IP 75.84.253.118 having to do with removing information. --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BPPE vs BPPVE

There's a small problem with the BPPE claim: the IASHS website says that it's approved by the BPPVE, the agency that closed five years ago, not its successor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Where? The FAQ page says, "The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality is fully approved for graduate education in Sexology by the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education of the State of California."

Bizarrely, the school seems to have two (inconsistent) live versions of its website: [19] [20]. Fireplace (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at http://www.iashs.edu/faqs.html, which seems far more likely to be the real website than the "create a free website at Wix.com" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Their site is a mess. The "last modified" date on http://www.iashs.edu/faqs.html is in May 2010, but http://www.wix.com/ysilva/iashs#!faqs says "Copyright 2011". I have to say that hosting their web site on a "free website builder" hosting service does little to make them seem more credible as an educational institution. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111111815/http://www.sexandculture.org/mission to http://www.sexandculture.org/mission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Was"?

The first statement of the article states "The Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (est. 1976) was an unaccredited,[1] for-profit, degree-granting institution and resource center in the field of sexology located in San Francisco, California.[2] Degree and certificate programs focus on public health, sex therapy, and sexological research", which suggests it no longer exists. However, there are other passages that suggest it still exists.

If it still exists, the "was" in the first statement should be changed to "is". If it no longer exists, shouldn't this be made clearer, including a date, or approximate year, when it ceased to exist?

Rainjar (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct the school closed in 2018. I and working on updating this page and will include that. Thank you. Anyadee23 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Article contains extreme bias which is misleading

I went in to make a few edits which were changed back. The current article reads as extremely one sided and biased and more like an advertisement against the school. Please advise me on how to make edits that will stick and not be changed back? For instance, this was a private university that was at one time accredited so to state unaccredited is not historically accurate. The school is now closed and went through many transitions before the president died. Those can be cited in the article itself but it should read private university. There are a few more items that should be changed to reflect a less biased version of this school. How to proceed. Thanks. Anyadee23 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that part of the problem is that you were removing cited material along with the citations. As to why this is a problem, please read the WP:VNT essay, which states: Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

It is probably best to either include contravening citations from reliable sources to balance views, or to discuss material here on the talk page. If consensus is reached that a source is biased & thus unreliable, then it can be removed. One can also consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Sources that are identified as unreliable there can generally be boldly removed. Peaceray (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that assertions that information in the article is missing or incomplete need to be accompanied by sources. For example, what evidence is there that the institution was ever accredited? The information that is currently in the article - supported by decent sources - indicate that the institution was never accredited and was never interesting in being accredited. It's a very uncommon stance for an institution to take but it's not unheard of nor is it necessarily one that indicates that it's a low quality institution (although many people make that assumption - which is indeed true in many cases although not all of them). ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. From my understanding the school was at one time accredited and I will look to find those sources and then add to the page to round it out. The page in general has a lot of flaws and I’d love to improve those. I will see if I can work with my Wikipedia mentor to help and follow the guidelines. Thanks! Anyadee23 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)