Jump to content

Talk:University of the Nations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alumni section

[edit]

I'd like to add the following section about alumni. Is the consensus for or against?

Alumni

[edit]

--Shocka5 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be superflous if these people don't have their own pages.70.111.216.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I agree with 70.111.216.48. For example, what makes Douglas, a contractor, an important person to include on the wikipedia article page? There is no proof of notablility. Arbusto 04:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, unless sources are provided for the names above, it is strongly believed the names are made up and have no relation to U of the N. This was an attempt to astroturf this article so Shocka5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks less like a Jason Gastrich sock puppet. For further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence for details. Arbusto 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyce Seow seems to exist and is affilated with Joyce Seow, [1]. I couldn't find any evidence online that she had a degree from U of N, if so, it might be a service to INTESOL to let them know that their singapore director has a degree from a mill. Gerry McDaniel also seems to exist, and seems to possibly have some vague connection to the university: [2]Most of the others turn up nothing useful. JoshuaZ 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
INTERSOL shows Joyce Seow as having a U oN qual & also one from "The Australian Centre for Advanced Studies Inc." (not the ANU body) [3] Paul foord 09:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suprised McDaniel has a loose connection, but I am not suprised that a check user ofUser:Shocka5 confirmed it is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. (Noted in the history of Shocka5's user page.) Arbusto 19:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning and response copied from 82.33.116.35's talk page

[edit]

You edits are an attempt to mislead readers about the lack of accreditation at that school. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbusto 04:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on University of the Nations (U of N) accreditation. No I am not trying to mislead anybody about the school's accreditation, but rather trying to follow the normal paradigm for university entries. You have been stating that the U of N is unaccredited in the first descriptive line for the Wiki entry. If you continue to do this, it will continually be deleted. If you would like to comment on a university's accreditation, I suggest that you do this in the section titled "accreditation", following the example of countless university entries throughout Wikipedia.
Secondly, your statement that the U of N is not accredited in the United States is true. However, as it is an international university offering courses around the world (and as its international provost office is in Switzerland, its transcripts and records office is in the UK), a far more relevant statement would of an international nature. I have updated it with a full and internationalized explanation.
Lastly, I have once again added the link for U of N Kona as this is the most important branch of the U of N. Please stop removing it as it is highly relevant information. Thank you. 82.33.116.35
The normal practice for entries for unaccredited universities is to use the lead "X is an unaccredited university...". The usual practice is also for large numbers of anonymous and new users to try to remove this, generally wihtout success. HTH, HAND Just zis Guy you know? 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation 2 copied from Shocka5's talk page

[edit]

Hi Shocka5, I had a look at the above discussion and completely agree with you. Accreditation should not be stated in the first line of a university entry paragraph, especially if there is a section on accreditation within the article- otherwise it is redundancy. Additionally, every accredited (and unaccredited) university should have the same treatment, and they clearly do not. We need universality from Yale to the University of Singapore to the U of N. Arbusto and JzG and others who are doing this clearly have an agenda, and care only about redundantly sharing information. They have not added any new and relevant information to the U of N website other than accreditation info. I will continue to correct the problem on the U of N website (which I created last year). I hope you and others will also continue to fight this vandalism. Thanks and keep up the good work 82.33.116.35 04:05, 18 March 2006 (EST)

See above. Use of the word unaccredited in the lead is normal for entries on unaccredited schools, irrespective of how many new and anonymous users with no edit history outside the article might disapprove. Just zis Guy you know? 10:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think some may be missing the point. Yes, unaccredited schools may usually lead with a statement on their lack of accreditation, but accredited schools do not. Until accredited schools have equal treatment we should keep accreditation info in a separate section. This is reasonable for three reasons. One, it applies the rule of universality to all university articles. Secondly, it is not redundant (at the moment "unaccredited" is repeated four times on the University of the Nations page!). Thirdly, the article clearly explains the lack of accreditation under "accreditation". Let’s strive to be succinct and reasonable on wiki. If someone can convince me otherwise I will desist from removing it from the article. I welcome your comments 82.33.116.35 18 March 2006 06:20 (EST)
The statement on accreditation is appropriate in the introduction, it is then expanded upon in the discussion of "Accreditation", It is also appropriate in the template. However it is redundant in the intro sentence on UoN Kona - thus 3 times necessary. -- Paul foord 11:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Yes, a bit over the top. I removed that one :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon. users and suspected sock puppets wanting to remove important information regarding school accreditation. A check user confirmed User:Shocka5 is User:Jason Gastrich. This is really getting old seeing the accreditation white washes. Arbusto 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with IP man up there 82.33.116.35- accreditation should be listed for both accredited and unaccredited schools for universality’s sake. Anyway, I will not remove it, but what about this issue of legality under U of N's accreditation? The external link doesn’t work, and it is irrelevant to the issue of U of N's students and credits being accepted by other institutions. Let’s keep that off. Geldi
You should pick your friends with care. Shocka5, source of that edit, is a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, now bloacked for one year by ArbCom for exactly that kind of whitewashing. Just zis Guy you know? 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is not my friend- I just agree with the point. Plus, I don't know that the IP address above is Shocka5.
I appreciate what you are doing JzG. Could we have a discussion about the "legality" issue on accreditation? Here is how I see it. Those are general accreditation details that should fall under the Wiki entry on unaccredited universities. Similarly, we do not talk generally on universities or about Christianity on the U of N entry- both of those topics are found under the entries "university" and "Christianity". If someone wants to find out more about legality issues concerning accreditation they should go to the Unaccredited institutions entry on wiki. Additionally, I have no verifiable source that they are "illegal". The link which had been provided didn't even work. Unaccredited (unless its a true diploma mill which the U of N is clearly not) means that they do not meet a generally agreed upon standard and may or may not be accepted by employers or other institutions- it does not equate to illegal.
As per my comment on your Talk page, accreditaiton is a legal status whose implications may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader, so a single boilerplate sentence on accreditation, stating that the degrees may not be recognised by eompoyers and other institutions, and that in some jurisdictions it may be illegal to use degree titles, is warranted. I think we should agree a form of words and possibly make a template. This statement will need to be expanded in the case of institutions for which there is credible evidence of operation as a degree mill, which I do not think applies here, or where it is necessary to discuss questionable or outright bogus claims to accreditation. Just zis Guy you know? 10:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A template would be good. Paul foord 10:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there recognised accredited universities that state that they accept U o N qualifications (with citable sources), my impression is that credit for U o N study is assessed on a case by case basis. This is not the same as accreditation -- Paul foord 10:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let’s make a template. Or perhaps just an internal link that takes the reader to Wiki's entry on unaccredited degrees for them to read more, but I don't think putting detailed info down on individual US states accreditation law is necessary in this case.
As for other accredited universities that state they take U of N credit and students: yes it is a case by case basis (although there are a few universities which will take U of N credits and students as a matter of policy; these aare usually Christian schools). Over 100 accredited universities- Christian and non-Christian have taken U of N students into graduate programs or taken transfer credit (I know of one such university from personal experience). Finding a reliable source for that could be difficult, but I will look.
Issue of diploma mill- The U of N is not a diploma mill- it is a Christian university with many quality courses. Unfortunately, because of its international structure, its decentralized makeup and the design of its degree program- a modular and international program- it has yet to apply for accreditation. I for one hope this changes in the near future, but that’s a different topic….. Geldi 12:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Wikipedia discourages people with a personal invovlment to edit. 2) No one said it was a diploma mill. Yet, claiming a degree when you don't have one (ie one that is accredited) is not only incorrect, but some states have criminal penalities. Thus, a warning should be left on the page about such. Arbusto 00:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Mims known for? ==

While he is known for his electronics books, I think he is most well known for being a creationism advocate. The man is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Certainly both of those are more notable than his award. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 14:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know that he has written for the DI? Maybe we could just give him the title
'electronics author and DI fellow'. Geldi 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I would like to see U of N accredited, there are a few reasons that it is quite unlikely to happen in the near future. The international nature of the University is one that has been mentioned. I attended an accredited ATS Seminary in Canada that had an international program in India. In order to complete accreditation, a team of examiners needed to travel to the site in India and re-evaluate them on-site, presumably at the Seminary's expense. U of N has over 300 sites in 110 countries where courses are offered - imagine the challenge of an accreditation body to verify and keep up with this! FYI, There are internal standards that are also applied, some courses offered in some sites are not eligible for U of N credit. Another major factor is the association of U of N with its parent body - YWAM (Youth With A Mission). A value and principle of YWAM is that they do not pay salaries to full-time workers. Workers with YWAM are funded by friends, family and supporters who give voluntarily to the cause. Because of this, many "YWAM-ers" are content to live in simple conditions without a large salary. The accreditation associations that I'm familiar with all require that the professors have a salary, that the librarian have a salary on par with the professors and other such requirements. Accreditation agencies are not familiar with this kind of setup. 

   U of N is not a "diploma mill" as has been implied.  Students attend courses on location at one of the many campuses. "Diploma Mill" implies that degrees are given for a certain sum of money without doing course work, and often for life experience.
   There is nothing illegal about unaccredited schools.  In fact, all schools start out as unaccredited institutions, and then if they so desire, they apply for accreditation, a process which many take a number of years and and varying level or status of applicants.  Students desiring to study at the U of N are also eligibible for grants and loans in the U.S. and Canada.  I don't know about other countries.
   Some content that we might want to add - U of N has approximately 20,000 students.  U of N specializes in "modular" type of education where a single course is offered over a period of weeks or months.  Hands-on learning is a hallmark of U of N courses - frequently after the theoretical education portion, there is a practicum of between several weeks to several months, often to a 3rd world country in order to apply concepts learned in class.  Credits are awarded on a "full-learning week" concept, where in one week, students are involved in a minimum of 50 hours of learning activities, including 12 - 16 hours of lectures per week.

Later, Jacques

File:UofN.JPG may be deleted

[edit]

I have tagged File:UofN.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_the_Nations&oldid=1205846267"