Talk:European Graduate School: Difference between revisions
Claudioalv (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 641: | Line 641: | ||
:::When the Rfc above would be over? It has been a while since it was opened and it appear other users are not interested in posting their contributions. However, the outcome is very clear. [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::When the Rfc above would be over? It has been a while since it was opened and it appear other users are not interested in posting their contributions. However, the outcome is very clear. [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Read [[WP:RFC]] [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::Read [[WP:RFC]] [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::To me the consensus is obvious to the participants. Only a SPA partially disagrees. Do we have to wait other 30 days for that? [[User:Claudioalv|Claudioalv]] ([[User talk:Claudioalv|talk]]) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::The IP's suggested text sounds like [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesis]]. We need to go with what the published sources say, and phone calls don't qualify as reliable sources. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
::The IP's suggested text sounds like [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesis]]. We need to go with what the published sources say, and phone calls don't qualify as reliable sources. [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 21 May 2016
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Graduate School article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Faculty
This list is very problematic and the references seem to consist of casual mentions that don't prove that professor X or Y actually was a member of the faculty. For instance, Philippe Beck seems to have given a lecture there--but that website (NOT reliable printed source discussing the subject in any depth) does not say he was a faculty member. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- He is on the schools faculty listing though, but I'm not sure that's a reliable source in this case. Also, Carl Mitcham is listed, with the school as source, but that link is gone. And Jean Baudrillard is dead, since 2007. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly is not: their definition of "faculty" as far as I can tell includes people who give very occasional guest lectures (this based on following through some of the earlier links and discussions here). I don't think we should take the school's word at face value for anything. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- If this was unprotected, it could, I think, be gutted to just a couple of sentences. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean the whole article could be "gutted", or just the faculty section? DrChrissy (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well; if not 'gutted' as such, if the self-reliant sourcing (e.g.), promo-sourcing (e.g.), non-existant-sourcing (e.g.) and misleading sources (e.g.) were removed, it would be far slender than in it's present condition. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean the whole article could be "gutted", or just the faculty section? DrChrissy (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- If this was unprotected, it could, I think, be gutted to just a couple of sentences. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly is not: their definition of "faculty" as far as I can tell includes people who give very occasional guest lectures (this based on following through some of the earlier links and discussions here). I don't think we should take the school's word at face value for anything. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think we could easily form a consensus to remove those identified by Fortuna above, since this is a bog standard sourcing issue. Guy (Help!) 04:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is it worth sticking an {{Edit protected}} request up? (Re. my suggestion above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 March 2016
- Yes, the only question is whether to remove all and then request re-insertion by consensus on an individual basis, or whether to remove a list agreed here. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Protected edit request
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion above: Remove the section titled Faculty pending individual review of entries and sourcing, due to serious verifiability issues as noted. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Accreditation section - current version, critique, and draft new section
You can jump to the bottom for my draft if you like. I walk though how i get there first..
- current version
The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[1] As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States. The State of Texas currently includes the university on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to "obtain employment" within the state.[1] The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills."[2] The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."[3]
References
- ^ a b "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
- ^ "List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools - E". Maine Department of Education. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
- ^ "Colleges and Universities not Accredited by CHEA" (PDF). Michigan Civil Service Commission. 9 February 2009. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Comments on this sentence by sentence:
- The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[1]
- The source doesn't support this statement. The only authority mentioned by the Texas source, is the "Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board" and it doesn't mention the CHEA.
- As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States.
- This is unsupported and needs to go
- The State of Texas currently includes the university on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to "obtain employment" within the state.[1]
- This is fine and can stay
- The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills."[2]
- OK this source is weird. If you jump up a menu in Maine website you arrive here: http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html They have taken down the link to the detailed list, and instead refer to... the list at Wikipedia! List of unaccredited institutions of higher education! More on this in a bit. But given that they have given this up, we need to as well. This needs to go.
- The State of Michigan Civil Service Commission states that degrees from the EGS "will not be accepted...to satisfy educational requirements indicated on job specifications."[3]
- This source is published at some strange university in the UK and I have not found this at any state of Michigan site (I looked), so we should ditch this unless we can find it at the State of Michigan site.
References
- ^ a b "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
- ^ "List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools - E". Maine Department of Education. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
- ^ "Colleges and Universities not Accredited by CHEA" (PDF). Michigan Civil Service Commission. 9 February 2009. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Above I mentioned our article, List of unaccredited institutions of higher education - there is an entry for EGS there:
- European Graduate School, Saas-Fee, Switzerland. The school is not accredited by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[1] It is accredited[citation needed] by a school council ("Hochschulrat") in which the Canton of Valais is represented with at least one member. However, it is accredited in Malta.[2]
References
- ^ "swissuniversities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ^ "Universities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
There is some useful stuff there.
So...
We should include content on the Swiss and Malta situations, so I would suggest the following content and header (trying to be careful with "license", "recognized", "accredited" as they are used in these sources). Trying to stick as closely to the sources as possible and to give this whole section as little WEIGHT as possible as we have no great secondary sources to provide context.
- Licenses and recognition
EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[1] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[2] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[3] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4]
References
- ^ "List of Licensed Institutions and Accredited Courses > Universities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ^ Canton du Valais Formation et recherche universitaires Page accessed April 7, 2016
- ^ "swissuniversities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ^ "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Maltese accreditation is for the Maltese branch campus in Valetta, and should not be construed as approval of the Swiss operation. An email to the Swiss NARIC (see [[6]]) about EGS is not likely to result in an answer that they are approved. 142.232.98.47 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
discussion
I disagree re Maine, we can use a Wayback Machine link because the policy has not changed and neither has the status, as Texas shows. Otherwise this is fine. We also need to address the issues with the "faculty" as noted above. The stuff about being unaccredited is a template boilerplate, I do not know if we even use that any more, it was discussed years ago in a round of debates around degree mills that wanted to pretend they were not degree mills (mainly creationist bible colleges, actually). Guy (Help!) 09:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great! But the former content about Maine ("The State of Maine includes the EGS on its list of "Non-Accredited Colleges and Degree Mills.") is no longer true as they no longer maintain that list but instead point to WP which we cannot use. So what is the content you would propose about Maine? Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jtzdog for your complete analysis. Maine does not list any "no accredited school", so the policy did change (before there was a list and now not). The following is their official statement: http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html. Texas still includes EGS in the list, but the full info is that list is currently under review per European Graduate School's request because Maltese License was not on their record: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB . About the Maltese License, I would suggest to list the Malta Qualification Framework level 7 and 8 Qualifications (i.e. Master and Phd) conferred by EGS (I have written in the above Rfc). Thoughts?. Claudioalv (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, your proposal about the Maltese stuff is WP:UNDUE as is the detail about Texas; it is on the Texas list until it is off the list. Claudioalv since you do not understand how Wikipedia works your participation in this thread is going to add a lot of noise and clutter, and I suggest you do not participate, but rather watch and try to learn. You can do whatever you want, of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guy please do reply on what you propose about Maine so we can resolve this and all think about other things. In my view (unsurprisingly) my proposed content is somewhat ugly but good enough and completely supportable.... I do agree on the faculty btw, but one thing at a time. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just leave the Maine text as-is and replace the link with an archive link. And Claudioalv? Every time you make a comment or suggestion, you make it less likely that you will get what you want, because we are absolutely sick of your special pleading and blatant promotion. Your best bet is to simply go away from this article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Guy you wrote me above: "You will know the courses and the actual date, since you have contacts there, so you propose it. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". I did it, but now you are asking to go away from this article. I will follow the Jytdog advise, because his approach was not blocking or banning me but explaining better how this world works. If I am still here is because rather than addressing the issue two months ago you have blocked me. And also part of Community said your modus operandi was not fair. I am not going to reply you further here.Claudioalv (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Guy; I can't accept that because the current content is no longer true - Maine no longer maintains a list, as discussed above, so "includes the EGS on its list" is not true anymore. We don't agree here, so we can wait for others to weigh in, and see what consensus develops. I will of course yield if consensus develops around your position on this and I reckon you will do the same. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Then use past tense. It is clear that there is no substantive change in policy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable going much past the sources at all, where they are primary and we have no high quality secondary sources to interpret them. Seems like nobody really cares about this issue much; not getting many other voices here. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jztdog, when your proposed content will be reflected in the article?. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't know Claudilav. It takes time to develop consensus. There is WP:NODEADLINE here. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jztdog, when your proposed content will be reflected in the article?. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not comfortable going much past the sources at all, where they are primary and we have no high quality secondary sources to interpret them. Seems like nobody really cares about this issue much; not getting many other voices here. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Then use past tense. It is clear that there is no substantive change in policy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just leave the Maine text as-is and replace the link with an archive link. And Claudioalv? Every time you make a comment or suggestion, you make it less likely that you will get what you want, because we are absolutely sick of your special pleading and blatant promotion. Your best bet is to simply go away from this article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jtzdog for your complete analysis. Maine does not list any "no accredited school", so the policy did change (before there was a list and now not). The following is their official statement: http://www.maine.gov/doe/highered/nonaccredited/index.html. Texas still includes EGS in the list, but the full info is that list is currently under review per European Graduate School's request because Maltese License was not on their record: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB . About the Maltese License, I would suggest to list the Malta Qualification Framework level 7 and 8 Qualifications (i.e. Master and Phd) conferred by EGS (I have written in the above Rfc). Thoughts?. Claudioalv (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Above, in the #RfC section, I posted a simple question,
Should we add the information about the Malta accreditation to the article?
You also posted a simple answer:no
. Now, you propose a new wording for the accreditation section, which reads "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta.
" I'm puzzled. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi V. A lot of the tension in this article has been about the word "accredited" or "accreditation". If you haven't, please do read what DGG said about "accreditation" (linked in my "no" !vote above). My proposal above is an effort to thread the needle and find consensus; we don't have to use that word - we can use the words actually found in the primary sources - "licensed" and "registered"; in fact in my view we should avoid interpreting them as we have no really high quality sources that discuss "accreditation" per se. Please note that I am also proposing to change the name of that section. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I agree obviously. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for being dense, but are you saying you agree with the question you originally asked (you want the article to talk about "accreditation") or you agree with the approach in my draft above that avoids that word? again sorry that i don't understand/ Also just to save your time, if you are supporting this version that avoids it, would you please comment on the "Maine" issue, where Guy and I are deadlocked? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposal. I have no opinion on the Maine issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It would be superhelpful if you would form an opinion :) as right now the only independent editors who have comment are Guy and me. Claudioalv unsurprisingly wants it out. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is it ok to open a Rfc about Maine? You are correct about Maine because is what the source shows. I have also their official statements I e-mailed. I think that Guy is not independent because he wrote in the ANI he does not like the School (he was clear about that, and other administrator, i.e. softlavander, wrote he should not look over the article). Your decision should be reflected in the article because is what the source does say. Of course this is my opinion and you can do whatever you want, of course, but I spent two months posting contribution here and even with you above complete syntethis of the issue (I tried to raise) the article has not changed yet. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't. Let other folks comment; they will come. And we don't know what the admin will do with the as-yet-unclosed RfC. It is bad form to start another one already and take up the community's time with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog I do not understand why we have to wait for other folks comment. You have been clear in this section about the changes. I proposed some on these changes more than two months ago (February 10). Other editors wrote in the talk page and in the related issues pages (see Damotclese, Softlavander, Vanjagenije, Hobit, DrChrissy) and they clearly stated that the current article does not reflect the real world. To be honest with you I appreciate your time and your efforts here, but I can see that is not enough. It seems to me that a different administrator is more effective, because he full protected the article and now no one is able to change info no longer true. The point is that administrator is not independent because he stated he does not like the school more than once, so he is not open to listen to what other editos say (see Softlavander comment below and see her comment in the ANI report when I he tried to ban me). Other editors are not spending more time here. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- As I and others have told you many times, there is no deadline here. I understand that you are anxious for your client to be happy, but your client's needs are irrelevant to the process here in WP. As I have told you, WP:CONSENSUS is our bedrock policy for making decisions here. It takes time to develop consensus. When there is strongly contested content like this, it takes yet more time. The "not enough" thing is ... dangerously irrelevant, as are your specific comments about other editors. No one here has forgotten your legal threats, even though you have asked us to strike them. Calm down and wait. We are just hung up on the Maine thing, and as soon as that is resolved we will be able to request that this be added to the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be sure that EGS is not my client and I have stated my relationship on my talk page. You posted your comment about Maine, I do agree with you, but an other administrator does not (2 v. 1, but it not consensus yet). His explanation is that the policy has not changed yet. This is not true because Maine does say something diffrent with reference to degree mill (they say they do not publish any list). Other editors do not care about. As I told you I would not be happy if someone define my business "mill" or "substandard" and it is not supported by any source. But this is my personal opinion and I have to follow Wiki policy. Thanks for replying me. Let's wait. Claudioalv (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are stating things that are obvious and repeating yourself and ignoring what I am saying. Consensus is not one person + a declared COI editor on one side and someone else on another. That is not how it works. I am almost out of patience with you. When I run out of patience, I will just start to WP:SHUN you. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be sure that EGS is not my client and I have stated my relationship on my talk page. You posted your comment about Maine, I do agree with you, but an other administrator does not (2 v. 1, but it not consensus yet). His explanation is that the policy has not changed yet. This is not true because Maine does say something diffrent with reference to degree mill (they say they do not publish any list). Other editors do not care about. As I told you I would not be happy if someone define my business "mill" or "substandard" and it is not supported by any source. But this is my personal opinion and I have to follow Wiki policy. Thanks for replying me. Let's wait. Claudioalv (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- As I and others have told you many times, there is no deadline here. I understand that you are anxious for your client to be happy, but your client's needs are irrelevant to the process here in WP. As I have told you, WP:CONSENSUS is our bedrock policy for making decisions here. It takes time to develop consensus. When there is strongly contested content like this, it takes yet more time. The "not enough" thing is ... dangerously irrelevant, as are your specific comments about other editors. No one here has forgotten your legal threats, even though you have asked us to strike them. Calm down and wait. We are just hung up on the Maine thing, and as soon as that is resolved we will be able to request that this be added to the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog I do not understand why we have to wait for other folks comment. You have been clear in this section about the changes. I proposed some on these changes more than two months ago (February 10). Other editors wrote in the talk page and in the related issues pages (see Damotclese, Softlavander, Vanjagenije, Hobit, DrChrissy) and they clearly stated that the current article does not reflect the real world. To be honest with you I appreciate your time and your efforts here, but I can see that is not enough. It seems to me that a different administrator is more effective, because he full protected the article and now no one is able to change info no longer true. The point is that administrator is not independent because he stated he does not like the school more than once, so he is not open to listen to what other editos say (see Softlavander comment below and see her comment in the ANI report when I he tried to ban me). Other editors are not spending more time here. Thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't. Let other folks comment; they will come. And we don't know what the admin will do with the as-yet-unclosed RfC. It is bad form to start another one already and take up the community's time with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is it ok to open a Rfc about Maine? You are correct about Maine because is what the source shows. I have also their official statements I e-mailed. I think that Guy is not independent because he wrote in the ANI he does not like the School (he was clear about that, and other administrator, i.e. softlavander, wrote he should not look over the article). Your decision should be reflected in the article because is what the source does say. Of course this is my opinion and you can do whatever you want, of course, but I spent two months posting contribution here and even with you above complete syntethis of the issue (I tried to raise) the article has not changed yet. thanks. Claudioalv (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It would be superhelpful if you would form an opinion :) as right now the only independent editors who have comment are Guy and me. Claudioalv unsurprisingly wants it out. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your proposal. I have no opinion on the Maine issue. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for being dense, but are you saying you agree with the question you originally asked (you want the article to talk about "accreditation") or you agree with the approach in my draft above that avoids that word? again sorry that i don't understand/ Also just to save your time, if you are supporting this version that avoids it, would you please comment on the "Maine" issue, where Guy and I are deadlocked? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I agree obviously. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi V. A lot of the tension in this article has been about the word "accredited" or "accreditation". If you haven't, please do read what DGG said about "accreditation" (linked in my "no" !vote above). My proposal above is an effort to thread the needle and find consensus; we don't have to use that word - we can use the words actually found in the primary sources - "licensed" and "registered"; in fact in my view we should avoid interpreting them as we have no really high quality sources that discuss "accreditation" per se. Please note that I am also proposing to change the name of that section. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay so I'm not that experienced at editing, so forgive me if I've put this is in the wrong place. I've ended up going down a rabbit hole of research after coming across the school's page and then reading this talk page. Firstly I support Jytdog's position to get rid of the sentence on Maine, for the same reasons Jytdog has listed. As well as this, on the issue of the term 'accreditation' (discussed in a number of places on the talk page) I've had a look further into the sources from NCFHE, and they actually have a register on their website of 'List of Accredited Courses Offered by Licensed Institutions' available here or direct link to spreadsheet here. It's pretty clear that these programmes are considered accredited by the NCFHE. The accredited programmes listed under the European Graduate School are:
- Master of Arts, Philosophy and Social Thought
- Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Therapy with a Minor in Psychology
- Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Coaching and Consulting
- Master of Arts in Literary, Musical and Visual Thought
- Master of Arts in Expressive Arts Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding
- PhD in Expressive Arts
- PhD in Philosophy, Art and Social Thought
- PhD in Literary, Musical and Visual Thought.
- These are the only MA and PhD programmes the school offers [7][8][9], so it would seem to make sense, rather than saying "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta", to say "EGS is licensed as a university and its MA and PhD programmes are accredited in Malta". In this context the bit that Jytdog has, saying "but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland", gives the impression that the Maltese licensing and accreditation is not recognised in Switzerland, which is not what the source says. As the programmes are all accredited through the NCFHE rather than through Switzerland it seems that that sentence is irrelevant and should be deleted, otherwise it just ends up being confusing or misleading.
- I also looked at the Texas reference here and noticed that it currently says "No accreditation from a CB recognized accreditor. Holds Swiss canton approval, which is not recognized as a legitimizing factor by Swiss universities. Status under review per European Graduate School's request." Presumably they are reviewing as a result of the NCFHE licensing/accreditation, so perhaps it is worth changing the sentence on Texas to: The State of Texas in the US currently includes the European Graduate School on its published list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas", and it notes that that this status is "under review per European Graduate School's request".
- So my proposed version would be:
- Licensing, accreditation, and recognition
- The EGS is licensed as a university and its MA and PhD programmes are accredited in Malta,[1][2] it is also recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates.[3] The State of Texas in the US currently includes the European Graduate School on its published list of "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas", and it notes that this status is "under review per European Graduate School's request".[4]
References
- ^ "List of Licensed Institutions and Accredited Courses > Universities". Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- ^ "Register (Courses offered by Licensed Institutions)". Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- ^ Canton du Valais Formation et recherche universitaires Page accessed April 18, 2016.
- ^ http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help); Text "title:Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas" ignored (help)
- Thoughts? Spaceleague (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The heart of my version is to move away from the word "accreditation" because it is a complex topic and there are no high quality sources that discuss it. Also to reduce the WEIGHT on this topic as much as possible. You do the opposite. The line about Switzerland says nothing about any other country. In short, your version is tendentious and is exactly what EGS would want and ignores the many concerns raise here. I do not support this. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only reason I was suggesting adding the bit on accreditation was because DGG above had justified not including anything about accreditation because there were no quality sources saying which if any of the courses at the school are accredited, but then through looking I came across the list I linked to above on the NCFHE website which does list all the courses accredited at EGS. Not sure what is tendentious about that? But if you think that list on the NCFHE website is not quality enough for some reason (which I don't really understand) then sure keep it the version you have. Spaceleague (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- The heart of my version is to move away from the word "accreditation" because it is a complex topic and there are no high quality sources that discuss it. Also to reduce the WEIGHT on this topic as much as possible. You do the opposite. The line about Switzerland says nothing about any other country. In short, your version is tendentious and is exactly what EGS would want and ignores the many concerns raise here. I do not support this. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thoughts? Spaceleague (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have attended the European Graduate School. I know that it is a real university and that the claims it makes about itself on its website are true. The claims are as follows: it is accredited by the Government of Malta and a Swiss Canton, the former without question making it a part of the Bologna Process. The university attracts many of the top names in continental philosophy (e.g. Zizek, Butler, Badiou) to teach courses there in intense three week sessions(these are often videoed and posted on Youtube, and I have attended these courses myself, and I am not a liar). The university is English speaking and its students come from all over the world to attend (when I was there the student makeup was about one-third US, one-third western Europe, and one-third everywhere else). Student PhD theses are published by Atropos Press. I know all this. I cannot explain why Texas State (which has *nothing* to do with Malta or Switzerland) would have it listed as unaccredited. I actually contacted Texas about this and they said they were working on it with representatives from the European Graduate School. I have tried to contact Wikipedia about these issues but I get automatic responses telling me to become a "contributor". The problem is that I will just be dismissed now as an unreliable source. This is all very, very unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murtagh1585 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Murtaugh1585 - we are aware that EGS is recruiting its alum via facebook and email to come here and push its perspective. Please see the the "recruiting" tag at the very top of this page. That effort is not helpful, and what you write here is not helpful, as is it not based on Wikipedia's polcies and guidelines for content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Put simply, Jytdog's wording has it exactly right. From this, any reasonable person would realize the situation is ambiguous. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks DGG. Guy now we have another independent editor weighing in on the Maine issue. Would you please yield on that so we can request an admin to replace the current section with this? I know you are away/busy but hopefully you will pop in and see this. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- In light of this we won't be hearing from Guy for a couple of months. In Guy's absence I think its best to wait to get more support before moving to have this added. Can wait another week or so and see what develops. I don't believe in asking for a "protected edit request" unless I know there is actually good strong consensus. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So. Let's recap. EGS IS ACCREDITED AND LICENSED IN MALTA AND THE SWISS CANTON OF VALIAS. This makes it an EU university. The State of Texas is not a member of the EU so it has no say in this and no credibility in accessing or monitoring overseas universities. The views of a regional government within the US (just like the views of a regional government within China or Russia or anywhere else outside Malta and Switzerland) is of no relevance. Including it in the page on Wikipedia suggests a gratuitous attack on EGS, in other words, people going out of their way to find negative things to say. Furthermore, the Texas State link actually says that it is under review in cooperation with EGS. This, in a fair world, would at least signal caution and the benefit of the doubt before charging in with damaging allegations against EGS. Here is the *Government* of Malta website link: http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_universities.aspx 113.40.156.146 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only reason to care about Texas is because it keeps or kept a list of flaky institutions and for whatever reason EGS ended up on it (probably because it was assembled before the Maltese approval). Cantonal recognition is irrelevant: recognition/accreditation happens at the Swiss federal level, and EGS has either never been able to get that or never wanted to. There is a branch campus with an address in Malta. THAT operation is accredited, NOT the Swiss operation. Obviously Malta has zero say over what's going on in Switzerland. My own prejudice is to say that branch campuses of operations that can't get accredited in their home country are suspicious. It's a common game for diploma mills to shop for countries that will legitimize them. These last sentences, though, are my own prejudices (and inferences) and not really content for the main article.142.232.98.47 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
So I propose that this section on US accreditation be removed because:
1. IT IS SIMPLY NOT CORRECT. The US Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta Here's the link. http://www.cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c95
No matter what you may think of EGS, you cannot ignore this.
2. None of it is relevant anyway to an EU based university.
3. It is worded in a way that maximizes damage to EGS which is gratuitous and unfair.
4. Comments by other editors here suggest that keeping this section is a way of punishing EGS for supposed past Wikipedia transgressions. This is vengeful and unfair.
5. It ignores that real presence EGS has in the US, i.e. official connections with actual state US universities, famous US academics involved in EGS, and US students attending EGS (with US student loans to boot) Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Murtagh1585 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So what happens next. Can I delete this section now. The information is false (The US Council for Higher Education Accreditation DOES recognize the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta) and has obviously been placed there for malicious intent. I'll wait a day or two but this really needs to be deleted. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would not suggest to delete this section. Jztdog spent time to post it and I agree with his proposal (except for Texas). The article is not representing the real world because it appears EGS is not accredited and it confers substandard degrees. The source to state such a false information need to be deleted (Maine and Michigan) and if the Community wants to keep Texas it is fine. But at least by deleting Maine and Michigan the WIki community could show its good faith. The huge problem was the administrator who built the article, rather than reading my contributions two months ago, decided to block me and engage a personal fight against me and the School. Moreover, even if in the above Rfc there were comments to support the fact EGS is accredited (or licensed) in Malta (Damoclese, Softlavander), an other administrator said we need to wait for an uninvolved administrator who close the Rfc and the result will be reflected in the article. This should have happened more than 3 weeks ago and it seems to me no uninvolved administrator does take care of it. I find all of those Wiki rules unfair (because in the meantime they still allow misleading information in the article content), but we have to deal with them.Claudioalv (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello - The Council on Higher Education Accreditation maintains an online database of the institutions it recognizes as accredited.[10] There is no record of the European Graduate School in their database. You may also search by country. There is no record of the European Graduate School under Switzerland. Most state and federal governments in the United States evaluate the legal status of accreditation based on CHEA. The article should reflect the EGS' absence from the CHEA database as that is the tool that most states use to determine accreditation.
Several of the EGS commenters seem to be playing fast and loose with wikipedia's citation standards in order to purge or expunge the simple reality that they do not possess any normal, reasonable recognized form of accreditation that is recognized in the United States. Notice how they are quick to use broken links, for example, to demand the purging of Michigan as if a link going bad "proves" they possess accreditation that would be recognized in Michigan. This is fundamentally deceptive. Michigan simply changed their website to where they no longer maintain their own list. Instead they say to use the CHEA database...and if you go to the CHEA database, the EGS simply IS NOT THERE.
Also, Maine still very clearly lists EGS as a non-accredited school. See here [11]. Kizezs (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notes. We cannot report a negative search result of CHEA in Wikipedia as that is WP:OR. (and by the way, if you search it for "Oxford" or "Cambridge" (as in the UK one) or "Sorbonne" you don't get any hits either; i don't know what a negative search of that database through that interface actually means). The Maine link that you cite is discussed above between Guy and me. Michigan is discussed up there as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
talk We did not miss Guy's comment here, so please if you are here because this school does not like you, provide at least your post with sources, primary or secondary. The Michigan has already discussed and the Maine link you cite is not longer valid as Maine does rely on Wikipedia list to find "no accredited school" and EGS in not in that list. Claudioalv (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- CLaudioalv - the only reason the EGS is no longer on the Wikipedia list is because you and the other EGS-bots sanitized it from that list as well. [12]. Kizezs (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reason is that official documents reflected in primary sources and confirmed by secondary sources were not addressed by Wiki community in the past. Before attacking the school which you do not know, I would suggest to look carefully the sources. Your opinion like mine is worthless according to Wiki rules.Claudioalv (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Oregon accreditation
I am posting this here as an additional source to inform the discussion. The state of Oregon designated the EGS as a "Diploma Mill" on its list of unaccredited institutions. It appears this list is no longer actively maintained but it is archived here for reference.[13] It is also widely relied upon on other Wikipedia articles pertaining to diploma mills. Kizezs (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The Council on Higher Education Accreditation also specifically links to the Texas, Maine, and Oregon lists as credible sources of information about unaccredited institutions on their website. [14] Kizezs (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- This Oregon list dates back to 2/17/2005, more than 11 years ago. You are still refusing to look at the Maltese February 2016 license. Do you think that it does reflect the real world?Claudioalv (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Your Maltese license covers a "course" taught in Malta. Nobody is disputing that. I see absolutely no evidence though that the EGS is accredited anywhere in the United States, and quite a bit that directly says it isn't. Since this is an English-language article on a website that gets a large readership from the U.S., it is pertinent information to note that they do not possess accreditation that the U.S. recognizes. And no, simply saying that Malta gets them the EU which then gets them the US is not a valid or sourced claim. The states of Texas, Maine, and Oregon are however. Kizezs (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Maine accreditation
According to this link, the Maine list is still very much live. [15]
"List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools - The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution."
The directory for "E" includes the EGS. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizezs (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes the link is there, but it is not accessible through their main page, which points users elsewhere and says that they no longer maintain a list. I already pointed you to this exact discussion above. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see no text on the Maine website that explicitly says they "no longer maintain a list." The link you give only states "By its very nature this list will never be complete or all-encompassing since existing non-accredited colleges and degree mills disappear, and new ones are created, at a rapid rate--especially on the Internet" and links to Wikipedia.[17] It requires an awfully tendentious reading to get from that simple statement to a conclusion that their own list, which is still very much live and publicly available on their site, is no longer valid. Kizezs (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Further research reveals that the Maine list is actually is specifically required to be published by statute. The Maine Department of Education does not have the authority to "change its policy" and simply link to Wikipedia in place of the list. It must publish a consumer protection list of diploma mills and this list "must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education."[18] (Maine Statutes, Title 20-A: EDUCATION Part 5: POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION Chapter 410: FALSE ACADEMIC DEGREES OR CERTIFICATES HEADING: PL 2005, C. 429, §1). This statute also places the Maine list on the same legal ground as the Texas list. It should therefore be included. Kizezs (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Swiss accreditation
In reading the Swiss Canton website [19] I'd call attention to the following text:
EGS is listed as one of "three recognized by the Canton of Valais international private schools at tertiary level offer in the hotel industry, Media and Communication Sciences and Arts, Health and Society, Bachelor and Master courses."
This suggests that the Canton approval (1) only applies to a specific degree program (EGS offers a degree in Media and Communication Sciences) and (2) only allows them to offer Bachelor's and Master's courses.
Since the EGS offers degrees in (1) Philosophy and (2) PhDs, it would appear to be exceeding its accreditation at the Swiss Canton level as stated on their website. Could we clarify this issue before asserting in the article that they possess full accreditation from the Canton when it actually appears to be a much more narrow form of approval? Kizezs (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Applying Occam's Razor
tldr and WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello - I don't mean to imply that we should include a link to a negative search result through CHEA - only to show for purposes of internal discussion that CHEA does not recognize them, and note that many states defer to CHEA when making their accreditation decisions. But battling it out over what is not on the CHEA website or any other is also getting this discussion lost in the weeds. If the EGS is indeed accredited for use in the United States as they keep insinuating, that should actually be very easy for them to prove. They should be able to point directly to the accrediting agency that approved them for the U.S. and show documentation that their accreditor is recognize by the Department of Education. Instead whenever this very simple and direct question comes up, they dance around it. Instead of accreditation proof, they provide a reference number that shows they filled out a form to be included in a Department of Ed database that carries ZERO accrediting value. And instead of a US accreditor, they point us to an unverifiable accreditation claim in the tiny Republic of Malta that seems to only apply to one single class. Then they argue the Malta accreditation is recognized by EU accreditation which somehow, by the transitive property of three indirect accreditation claims through different levels and countries, acquires US accreditation for them. Sorry, but that's simply not how accreditation works. It doesn't pass the smell test and it explains why Maine, Texas and other states list them as a phony degree mill. A side comment that I'll only offer to further inform this discussion, but I think it needs to be said: if you look around the internet you will quickly find that the EGS has a long and established pattern of bullying its way onto forums to suppress negative information about its - frankly - sketchy degree programs and lack of accreditation. The pattern is the exact same everywhere they go. Somebody will post an honest question on a message board, on reddit, on a wiki etc. about whether the EGS is legitimate, people point out that it is a degree mill with shady accreditation tactics, and then all of a sudden the board will be flooded with people claiming to be EGS "graduates," all of them repeating the exact same talking points - about Malta, about the "star" faculty they have, about how "rigorous" the degree is, and an almost conspiratorial claim about how Texas or Maine or Wikipedia or whoever else lists them as unaccredited is somehow spreading malicious lies about them. The object is always to bully the unflattering but truthful information about the school into being removed, or bury it so it goes away. They now seem to be trying the very same tactic here and they even announced that they are doing so on their website and on their facebook page, where they've called for this article to be flooded. In truth, every piece of evidence I can gather on this place from simply searching the web says its a substandard degree program if not an outright scam. It appears to basically be run as a 2 or 3 week long summer camp at a resort in the Alps. The "students" pay gigantic sums of money well into 5 figures to attend, where they listen to "star" faculty whose main institutional affiliation is always at some other university. The reason they can get those "star" faculty is that they use the fees they collect to pay them gigantic sums of money (plus a vacation in switzerland) to come in and give a few lectures, but not really do any of the regular work that a full time year round faculty member would do. Then they hand the students a "degree" after they've attended enough successive years at the resort camp. I don't know about anyone else here, but NOTHING about that model passes the smell test of a regular university. At a regular university you have to attend classes for 9 months out of the year and where the faculty are in permanent residence as their full time jobs. This just looks like an overpriced philosophy version of one of those weekend "business leadership" seminars they advertise on the radio. And I seriously doubt that an actual American accreditor would EVER give such a substandard degree program its stamp of approval. So use [Occam's Razor] on this one. The EGS is very good at kicking up sand to obscure its defects, but the simplest explanation here is likely true - EGS is a money making summer program that's masquerading as a legitimate degree-granting university, and it NEVER seems to have a clear or convincing answer when you ask the simple question about things like accreditation or recognition from CHEA and the US department of education. Sorry if this rubs a few of the EGS types the wrong way, but given the circumstances I believe that Wikipedia at least owes it to the public to present a truthful account when people search for information on this place. They need to know that it is not accredited through any of the normal recognized means of accreditation in the United States. They need to know that its "degrees" are NOT the equivalent of what you get when you earn a masters or a PhD from the University of Michigan, or from Cal Tech. And they need to know that its "curriculum" is not like any normal university program where you take classes for 9 months out of the year to accumulate credits and then a degree - it's more like a vacation camp where you pay fees to hear a bunch of famous philosophers that they fly in from other universities over the summer break. Maybe that product has value to some people. But I'll wager it's not what most people think of as a university. And if we obscure information about this place that shows it doesn't pass the smell test for a real university, we only end up doing readers disservice. |
Kizezs (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- None of what you write is relevant to how we make decisions in Wikipedia. Please read WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Associated Professors
Below a list of sources which does show up the organization's notability.
long list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Claudioalv (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing this. Not clear how it goes to the notability of the school, but it provides a basis for adding back the faculty list.
- If you clean up the formatting of the links and refs, you can make an edit request to have this added to the article. (for example, refs go before punctuation, not after. Also, please don't separate the refs from each other with {{,}}).
- really importantly, the "associated" thing is pretty loosey-goosey, and make this seem somewhat.. prestige shopping. Are some of these people full time at EGS, some part time, some just passed through at one time or another? It would be much more useful if these distinctions were made.
- Other folks may have thoughts about the length of this list or the way it is organized, so you even after you clean it up, please don't ask it to be added until some other folks weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I chose the word "Associated", not "Associate" Faculty, to include faculty that frequently taught at EGS but are now deceased, as well as regular and current faculty who come every year - as well as some past faculty members who have retired from teaching anywhere, even retired from their "home" universities (Alain Badiou is an example). Alain Badiou still talks about The EGS (I included references in that list) so this is why he should be kept in that list of "Associated" faculty members.Claudioalv (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- One of the reasons the old faculty list was deleted is that the affiliations of the people in it were not clear. It is unlikely this undifferentiated list will be accepted. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Below is the list of Faculty, now differentiated between the following categories: Current, Emeritus, Former, and Deceased:
- One of the reasons the old faculty list was deleted is that the affiliations of the people in it were not clear. It is unlikely this undifferentiated list will be accepted. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I chose the word "Associated", not "Associate" Faculty, to include faculty that frequently taught at EGS but are now deceased, as well as regular and current faculty who come every year - as well as some past faculty members who have retired from teaching anywhere, even retired from their "home" universities (Alain Badiou is an example). Alain Badiou still talks about The EGS (I included references in that list) so this is why he should be kept in that list of "Associated" faculty members.Claudioalv (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It would be useful to know which of these faculty are permanent full time employees at the EGS, as opposed to people who have their primary academic appointment at another institution and simply teach at the EGS summer seminars for a fee. Faculty are usually designated by their primary institutional affiliation when they publish, go to conferences, speak to the press, and represent themselves before the public. I suspect that many of the persons on this list have primary affiliations elsewhere and only interact with the EGS for a couple weeks a year, though there may be a few exceptions. In any case that knowledge would help to determine to what extent they establish notability for this school. Kizezs (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Organized faculty lists
Claudioalv has sorted out the big list they presented above; the sorted list is below Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Current University Professors
- Giorgio Agamben[1] · [2] · [3], Italian philosopher.
- Pierre Alferi[4] · [5] · [6] · [7], French writer and filmmaker.
- Philippe Beck[8] · [9] · [10] · [11], French poet.
- Victor Burgin[12], British artist and writer.
- Judith Butler[13] · [14] · [15], American philosopher.
- Hélène Cixous[18], French writer.
- Simon Critchley[19] · [20] · [21], American philosopher.
- Alessandro De Francesco[22], Italian poet and writer.
- Anne Dufourmantelle[23], French philosopher and psychoanalyst.
- Elie During[24], French philosopher.
- Mike Figgis[25], American filmmaker.
- Christopher Fynsk[26], American philosopher
- Heiner Goebbels[27] · [28], German composer and director.
- Michael Hardt[29] · [30] · [31], Amercian philosopher.
- Martin Hielscher[32], German editor and writer.
- Chris Kraus[33] · [34], American writer.
- Sylvère Lotringer[35] · [36], French philosopher.
- Catherine Malabou[37] · [38] · [39], French philosopher.
- Carl Mitcham[40], American philosopher.
- François Noudelmann[41], French philosopher.
- Laurence Rickels[42] · [43] · [44] · [45], American media theorist.
- Hubertus von Amelunxen[52] · [53] · [54], German theorist, curator and artist.
- Slavoj Žižek[55] · [56] · [57] · [58] · [59] · [60] · [61] · [62] · [63] · [64] · [65] · [66], Slovenian philosopher and essayist.
- Alenka Zupančič[67] · [68] · [69], Slovenian philosopher.
- University Professors Emeriti
- Peter Greenaway[77] · [78], British Filmmaker.
- Jean-Luc Nancy[79] · [80], French philosopher.
- Former University Professors
- Manuel De Landa[81], Mexican/American philosopher.
- Margarethe von Trotta[82], German filmmaker.
- Deceased University Professors
- Jean Baudrillard[83], French philosopher.
reflist |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
Claudioalv (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
break for discussion to save scrolling
Claudioalv thanks for sorting the list. What is a "university professor" at EGS? It might be helpful to include some content preceding this list to explain that. Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- These Professors include The EGS among the Universities where they teach as a University Professor - when they give their biography to publishers or at conferences (Stanford University Press, Verso Books, etc.). Therefore according to them, and as well as according to the sources in that list -- they are a "University Professor" at The EGS. None of the sources specify anything other than "University Professor".
- None of the references given state that these people are only instructors or teachers. They explicitly all list these academics as "Professors". This is precisely the point of that list of references - to show that those - 83 good quality sources - all refer to them as "Professors". Claudioalv (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my question Claudioalv. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is the Wiki standard to say that someone is a University professor? Or what is the content you are looking for? Can you provide an example. Thanks Claudioalv (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- What I asked, exactly, was 'What is a "university professor" at EGS?' There are kinds of professors. Associate professors, assistant professors. The only use of the term "university professor" i am familiar with is at University of California, which has many campuses, and it is one of the highest ranks of professors there and means you can teach at any of the campuses you want. it is a big deal. see University Professorship (University of California). I also spotchecked the sources you provided and i didn't find any that used the term "university professor". So again, what does it mean? Or maybe you just made a mistake, which would be fine; everybody makes them including me. What I wrote under your original list, is that the reason that people objected to the original list is that it mashed together people who were visiting lecturers with people who had appointments of various kinds, and it wasn't clear what those various appointments were. You have done some sorting into "current" "former" "emeritus" and "dead" but it is still not clear what actual appointments any of these people have or have had... I think people are trying to get their head around what it means to be a professor in a place that holds sessions for one month a summer, and then decentralizes from there, and it appearss that most hardcore academics have fulltime appointments elsewhere. This section should communicate this ... strangeness. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have, btw, been looking for good sources about EGS. this one is interesting and maybe gives the most flavor about it. it is a blog so not sure how useful it would be here but was useful to me. Makes me think a section on alum would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the term "university professor" has two meanings. In one sense (largely colloquial), it means the same thing as "professor"; the word "university" is just used to make clearer what one is talking about. (In systems where there is a distinction between "universities" and "colleges", with both having professors, it might also imply that the institution where the person having a professor is a university rather than a college.) In a more technical sense, it refers to a specific rank of professor, a very high rank of professor, which however only exists at a small number of universities – as well as in the University of California system which Jytdog has mentioned, there is a similar rank at Columbia. I'm pretty sure Claudioalv means the term in the colloquial rather than technical sense. (Obviously, the colloquial sense is not suitable terminology for a Wikipedia article.) SJK (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- SJK I am not familiar with the specific ranks at University of California or Columbia. However, I do think that professor means what the dictionary say: a)a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education; b)a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school; c) one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill. In other words, University professor at the EGS are the professor who teach at that Univerity. Sorry if it is too simple but is what each reader will understand by saying that Giorgio Agamben is a University Professor at EGS. It means he has not special rank of professor which exists in few University (Columbia and UCA), but he has been teaching as a professor in a school licensed as University in Malta for some courses. English is not my first language so I am not sure if English dictionary does not allow or allows to use the title of "University professor" to someone who teaches at University. I can tell you that in Italy you have to pass a public examination to be a professor and to use the title of professor (and by and large professors are people who teach at University, we do not have college, even if you can say professors also for people who teach at high school)Claudioalv (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the term "university professor" has two meanings. In one sense (largely colloquial), it means the same thing as "professor"; the word "university" is just used to make clearer what one is talking about. (In systems where there is a distinction between "universities" and "colleges", with both having professors, it might also imply that the institution where the person having a professor is a university rather than a college.) In a more technical sense, it refers to a specific rank of professor, a very high rank of professor, which however only exists at a small number of universities – as well as in the University of California system which Jytdog has mentioned, there is a similar rank at Columbia. I'm pretty sure Claudioalv means the term in the colloquial rather than technical sense. (Obviously, the colloquial sense is not suitable terminology for a Wikipedia article.) SJK (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is the Wiki standard to say that someone is a University professor? Or what is the content you are looking for? Can you provide an example. Thanks Claudioalv (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my question Claudioalv. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
bottom line here is that for a new section on faculty to be accepted it is going to have to be more clear about relationships and about what it means to be a "professor" at EGS. As I said above it appears that actual academics generally have full appointments elsewhere and have part time EGS appointments; there also appear to many artist-y folks (artists, poets, film makers, etc) who do their art full time and have an EGS appointment as a side-gig. I don't know (i really don't) if anybody on the EGS is faculty there in the way we usually think about it, and if they are, if they have any special title that shows that. Also there have been lots of guest lecturers/visiting faculty and it would be useful to distinguish them. Use of "university professor" is not helpful and should be abandoned; it is not going to get consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. In English-speaking countries, "professor" is only ever used in relation to university staff, so the "university" in "university professor" is redundant and sounds odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
offtopic. WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As an European university the EGS has the right to appoint professors and they do have a nomination committee installed for this. But it has been the very idea of the EGS since the beginning not to have contracts for full time professors. Those listed here are Professors (not Visiting Professors, nor Guests; they hold the top rank of Professor at EGS). Those listed here can and do supervise Doctoral students year-round as well as sit as committee members for PhD defenses - with the exception of Mike Figgis and Chris Kraus, who do not Supervise PhD students (or Peter Greenaway who did not Supervise but only taught seminars for a number of years at EGS) - as well as Alain Badiou who previously Supervised PhD students and sat on committees but has since retired (2015). Guests/visiting lecturers have not been included in this list thus far (for example: Michel Houellebecq, Jacques Roubaud, Morgan Fischer, Colum McCann, Pierre Aubenque, and many more - again, they are not included at all in this list - at least not yet). I hope this clarifies this discussion; we can replace the colloquial University Professors for the technical: Professors. They have close ties to EGS having taught for many years, and some are also Chairs.Claudioalv (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
For example?Claudioalv (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|
- Claudioalv, at the risk of repeating myself. The original list was removed from the article because it drew no distinctions between the kinds of appointments that people had or have. Your draft content above has the same problem, and has no chance, whatsoever, of being used in the article. No chance. Wrangling over the "title" that you made up - "university professor" - is a complete waste of time. If you want this content to actually go into the article you need to a) define what kinds of appointments EGS makes at the start of the section and b) sort the people in the list by those kinds of appointments. As I and others have pointed out, if somebody has a fulltime job or appointment doing something else (a professor somewhere else, or a "real job" as a film maker or whatever), it would be good to note that too. I am hatting the forum-like discussion over "professor". Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll add here that in my view one of things that makes EGS what is is, is the kinds of people they bring in as faculty and give appointments to, as well as well as the way they structure the work that these faculty do. It allows them to bring in people they otherwise couldn't get and that other schools can't make room for.Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- talkWikipedia pages for Colleges and Universities do NOT list this the kind of information that you say is required on EGS article. Professors are appointed as "Professors" at The EGS - and, whether or not they teach, as many academics do, at various universities is entirely their business. These are not instructors who have "real jobs". Their "real job" is being a scholar, an academic, a Professor (aside from Greenaway and Figgis - for whom we can easily write "Filmmaker" beside their name). For the others, they are Professors at EGS -- as all the 80+ references I gave -- demonstrate! If you want me to categorize their specific area of interest, I can do that by including what they are known for. Example: "Slavoj Zizek, Philosopher"
Here is a tiny example of Wiki pages that do not list appointments:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_School_people#FacultyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_8_University#AcademicsCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCAD_University#Notable_faculty_membersCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Sorbonne_University#FacultyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Toronto_facultyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University#Notable_alumni_and_facultyCite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Claudioalv (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, don't do it. This will never come into the article if someone doesn't. EGS is a different kind of school, and everyone knows that. Why you and other EGS advocates keep arguing instead of listening and learning, I do not understand. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit request
withdrawn too much static for most admins to accept; need to go a different way Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please replace the current "accreditation" section with the following:
EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[1] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[2] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[3] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4] References
Support comes from DGG here who said "exactly right". JzG/Guy was OK with this except that he wanted to include Maine per this. A few single purpose accounts advocating for EGS have commented (for example Claudioav here said they are 95% OK but wants this to explicitly say "accredited") and others of them want a lot more detail. I think the community is pretty sick of this, and this a good faith effort to thread the needle here. Please implement. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
1. The language should reflect that the EGS is still present on Maine's published list of degree mills as well. The case presented above that the Maine list is no longer valid is less than airtight. The list clearly remains on a publicly available government website, and there is no text on that site saying that the list is no longer valid. I'd propose adding "The State of Maine includes the EGS on a "List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools" that is available on the website of the state Department of Education"[20] 2. The Swiss Canton of Valais website warrants a closer look. The claimed level of accreditation does not actually seem to be supported by its text. See [21]. The language on this site indicates that the EGS is one of "three recognized by the Canton of Valais international private schools at tertiary level offer in the hotel industry, Media and Communication Sciences and Arts, Health and Society, Bachelor and Master courses." This is significant because it suggests the EGS' Canton level accreditation is specific to only a certain program (Media and Communication) and only at the Bachelor and Masters level. The EGS purports to issue PhDs in Philosophy though - a subject and a degree level that it does not appear to be approved for on the Canton's website. Perhaps instead it should read: "The EGS is recognized to offer Bachelor's and Master's level instruction in Media and Communication Sciences and Arts, Health and Society by the Swiss Canton of Valais" Kizezs (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Alternative I'd like to propose the alternative below, which more accurately reflects what the source links say and which includes a neutral representation of the still-active Maine website.
The European Graduate School possesses a 5 year license to operate as a university in Malta, expiring in 2021[1]. It is recognized as an "accredited school at the tertiary level" by the Swiss canton of Valais, which authorizes it to provide classes in "Media and Communication Sciences and Arts, Health and Society" at the Bachelor's and Master's level.[2] The EGS is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[3] In the United States, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4] The EGS appears on a "List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools" published by the Maine state Department of Education. [5] References
- Kizezs (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@SJK: - This section of Maine's statutes gives them the legal authority to publish such their list and in fact requires them to do so: 10804. Consumer protection The department shall provide, via publicly accessible sites on the Internet, information to protect students, businesses and others from persons, institutions or entities that issue, manufacture or use false academic degrees. This information must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education. [23] Kizezs (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC) @SJK: I also located additional information about their legal status in Malta. The Maltese approval did NOT contain approval to issue degrees. Rather it is a 5 year license to offer 8 specific graduate courses in Malta. Their description, operational dates, and expiration dates are all listed at this link [24] and their policy of accrediting specific courses from foreign universities is explained in detail here [25]. This is more than sufficient information from a reliable source to warrant specific information clarifying its Maltese accreditation status beyond what Jytdog's proposed edit contains. Kizezs (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
However, I am fine with Jztdog proposal. When we hear back from Texas I am updating it here. Claudioalv (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Claudioalv - Maine is required to maintain and publish a list of known unaccredited institutions on its website by statute. You may view that statute here. [26] Self-reported and unverifiable email correspondence with an administrator does not qualify as a Wikipedia:Reliable Source. Your reported conversation also appears to refer to their link to the Wikipedia list, not the separate list that they maintain on their own website. If using an EGS degree to get a U.S. job is so unlikely, then why such hostility to noting the sourced fact that it is illegal to use an EGS degree in several states? Maine also has a similar statute to Texas that makes doing so illegal [27] and the definitions of that statute govern the aforementioned list. Kizezs (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Proposed Version 3I rewrote a proposed revision to reflect (1) a more specific description of the Swiss canton accreditation quoting directly from their website, (2) a more accurate description of the Maltese course-level accreditation, sourced to the government of Malta's published list specifying what this entails, and (3) the Maine list, updated with a reference to its establishment by statute and the legal status of institutions so designated. This version reflects greater precision on its Swiss and Maltese accreditations and licenses actually say, sourced to the most reliable information we have on the subject. It also satisfies the objection above about whether Maine's list has legal status similar to Texas (it does per the cited statutes).
The European Graduate School is recognized as an "accredited school at the tertiary level" by the Swiss canton of Valais.[1] The EGS is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[2] In 2015 the EGS obtained a five-year license to offer eight Master's and PhD level classes in Malta, subject to consideration for renewal in 2021 by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education.[3] In the United States, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4] Maine similarly includes the EGS on a statutory "List of Non-Accredited Post-Secondary Schools," making it illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment in the state. [5] References
|
RFC to update accreditation section
![]() |
|
Shall we update the accreditation section (including the header) with the following? If we fail to reach consensus, the outcome should be removal of the section since we cannot agree on anything to say; if you disagree with that please say so.
- Licenses and recognition
EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[1] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[2] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[3] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4]
References
- ^ "List of Licensed Institutions and Accredited Courses > Universities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ^ Canton du Valais Formation et recherche universitaires Page accessed April 7, 2016
- ^ "swissuniversities". Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ^ "Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas". Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved 18 February 2016.
- Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
!votes
- I'll note here that I had posted this a draft above and then as an edit request, the latter of which I withdrew as dissent arose as I note below.
- DGG already supported this here who said "exactly right".
- JzG was OK with this except that he wanted to include Maine per this.
Claudioalv supported here(has separately !voted now Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC))- SJK supported here
- Kizezs opposed see comments above at Talk:European_Graduate_School#Edit_request. -- Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kizezs: Your rationale for this unorthodox decision on your part has been removed. Can you give it to us again.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Murtagh1585 it wasn't removed; it is in the hatted edit request above -- all you have to do is click "show" to read what they wrote. fwiw that editor is as committed to their perspective that EGS is a degree mill as you are to your perspective that it is a totally valid institution, and arguing is going to get neither you nor this discussion any where, and most importantly (and please hear this) will just introduce a bunch of tedious head-butting that will make even fewer people interested in paying attention to this article. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Kizezs: Your rationale for this unorthodox decision on your part has been removed. Can you give it to us again.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I already agreed to this proposal above in the #Accreditation section - current version, critique, and draft new section section. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- sorry for missing that V. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also Damotclese and Softlavander agreed to include the Malta accreditation/license. However I am not able to find the Rfc Vanjagenije opened. Claudioalv (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- They were agreeing to something different. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also Damotclese and Softlavander agreed to include the Malta accreditation/license. However I am not able to find the Rfc Vanjagenije opened. Claudioalv (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- sorry for missing that V. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support this interpretation, and happy with the suggested rewrite. Also, I'm impressed that Legobot decided to pick me again for this damn article.--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - this seems like a reasonable summary of the situation to me. The status of the Maine document remains unclear, so I think it's best to not include that. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support this interpretation, and happy with the suggested rewrite, I don't see a problem with 'Maine', so long as the present tense is not used. Very impressed with the careful 'source-scouring' above. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC) … … I thought that the 'Malta' accreditation was a settled matter based on what others wrote above, Kizezs' comments below call that into question. Please ping if there are any significant developments. Pincrete (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: EGS is licensed and accredited by the Maltese Government. This is settled. It is a fact. Kizez's comments are confused.Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you were attempting to ping Pincrete, Murtagh1585, then it doesn't work by writing their name with an @ before it. Please see Wikipedia:Notifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support this interpratation. The result is 7 to 1? Can we see it reflected in the article?Claudioalv (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support although the Texas rubbish will need to be removed at some point. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
So, how long more does the untrue, unfair, and damaging information about the European Graduate School have to remain on this page before justice is done and the Maltese and Swiss accreditations are shown. Murtagh1585 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Protected edit request
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per discussion above: update the accreditation section (including the header) with the above proposal, due to issues as noted. Claudioalv (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I tried an edit request already and that was derailed by opposition; you need a really strong and clear consensus to do an edit request on a fully protected article in Wikipedia. I started an RfC to get a stronger consensus - RfCs actually pull in people who don't have the article on their Watchlists - it is a key tool for exactly this purpose. Please be patient and don't be disruptive by trying to cut off the process.
- And by the way, you entered this "protected edit request" incorrectly, as though it were already answered, so it is not going to get a response in any case.
- If you want to move the page along you could improve your proposed faculty listing along the lines suggested above. That is going to take a lot of work! Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think other user will vote. I want to move the accreditation section along because people were quite clear about your proposal. Also there was an other Rfc opended more than three months ago (I am still waiting for someone to close it) before you getting involved and also there people agreed to include the Maltese accreditation/license which is also part of your proposal. I do not understand why such an outdated article should not be edited (because an administrator who was involved and now is not involved anymore) even if 7 different users (between them some administrators) pointed out clearly that they support your edit. By reading the current article, for example it still shows up Michigan list even if Michigan does not publish any list as the day is long (sic!). I do not think this is fair. If there is a SPA who oppose something and other reliable users (such as you and other administrators) who support it, why that SPA has to prevail? I understand that is not about winning or loosing cuz Wiki is a clueocracy, but at a certain point (it has been more than 3 months) someone should take a decision based on the sources and the proposals made. Claudioalv (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
discussion
- I still think the Maine source should not be included. Firstly, I think Jytdog's argument that the Maine DOE intended to unpublish it by removing access to it from their site navigation deserves serious consideration; even if Jytdog's argument is ultimately wrong, the doubt raised is sufficient that I don't think we should use it until that doubt can be resolved. Secondly, even though Kizeks has found Maine legislation referring to a duty for the Maine DOE to maintain such a list, we don't have a reliable source saying that the list on the Maine DOE website is actually the list referred to in the legislation. This is because, while the Texas website explicitly refers to the relevant section of legislation at the start of the list, the Maine site never actually says that–the Maine list never identifies itself as the list referred to in Maine legislation, it never even mentions the fact that that section of Maine legislation exists. I think a plausible reading of the situation is (1) responding to the legislative directive, the Maine DOE compiled such a list and published it on their website (2) the Maine DOE has for whatever reason decided not to maintain it any more (maybe keeping it up to date is too much of a drain on their resources?) (3) they've concluded that linking to Wikipedia's List of unaccredited institutions of higher education is sufficient to discharge that legal responsibility of theirs (whether or not that's a correct legal judgement by them is a matter upon which I'm not qualified to comment) (4) they've intended to replace the list on their website with a link to Wikipedia, and they actually did replace the start page of their list (5) but they've accidentally omitted to remove the other pages of the list. Now, while I said that's a plausible reading of the situation, it's not the only possible reading; I know Kizezs' reading is quite different from mine. But, in the absence of a reliable source which tells us what is really going on here, we don't have any way (acceptable to Wikipedia policy) to resolve these doubts, or to resolve the dispute over whose reading of the situation is correct. That is why I'd say we can't use the Maine source, because there are too many valid doubts about its current status, and we have no reliable source sufficient to resolve those doubts. (It is interesting to consider the possibility that the list referred to in Maine legislation is actually now a Wikipedia article – the idea of a Wikipedia article which anyone can edit being enshrined with official legal status is rather amusing.) Finally, I do agree with Jytdog that if we can't reach consensus on what this section should say, the best default course of action is to remove it entirely. SJK (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the Texas reference being included. The European Graduate School does not operate in the USA. The reference is irrelevant. The Texas list itself is confused as it makes no mention of Maltese accreditation. Murtagh1585 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably students from the US do attend EGS? Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- And some EGS graduates, American or otherwise, no doubt apply for jobs or further study in the US, in which case its recognition there is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Students from all over the world attend EU based EGS. So why the americo-centricism. Also, as I have said, the list is confused. It says that EGS is based in New York which is not true. It also fails to mention Maltese licensing and accreditation. In short it is not a reliable list. So inclusion is unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It lists Malta as one of the EGS's locations, and interestingly also states "Status under review per European Graduate School's request". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Texas in the "only"state in the U.S. which currently includes EGS in such a list. Texas is wrong and moreover in bad faith. The say: "Fraudulent or substandard degree" means a degree conferred outside the United States by an institution that the Coordinating Board determines is not the equivalent of an accredited or authorized degree. (Texas Educational Code, Chapter 61, Section 61.302). Now EGS was conferred a status of University for some courses in February 2016 by Maltese National Commission for Higher Education based on its Maltese domestic law. I personally wrote to Texas in March, so they changed the stauts "under review per European Graduate School". A student wrote to Texas in February (but they did not change their status that time) and Texas asked 5,000 dollars to review the status. " 7.12, the Board may charge the person or institution petitioning for official review a fee of $5,000 US dollars or the actual cost of conducting the review, including travel expenses and cost of consultant fees".This is what happened. Do you think is correct to rely on such State? Can we say that they "sell review"? I do think we should not rely on Texas, but it is my personal opinion. I also wrote recently to them asking to remove EGS from that list and their best answer was not addressing the issue and be indifferent. Is this good faith? I do understand that education is a big business in the U.S. and probably what I wrote does show up it. My letter, the student letter and my further request of course are not public, so I can not link them, but I would be happy to send them to Wiki administrators by e-mail if they want to check them. Claudioalv (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It lists Malta as one of the EGS's locations, and interestingly also states "Status under review per European Graduate School's request". Cordless Larry (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Students from all over the world attend EU based EGS. So why the americo-centricism. Also, as I have said, the list is confused. It says that EGS is based in New York which is not true. It also fails to mention Maltese licensing and accreditation. In short it is not a reliable list. So inclusion is unfair. Murtagh1585 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- And some EGS graduates, American or otherwise, no doubt apply for jobs or further study in the US, in which case its recognition there is important. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Presumably students from the US do attend EGS? Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Two Comments:
1. Since the status of the Maine list is again being discussed, I'd call your attention to this statute which very clearly establishes the legal validity of the published list:
"The department shall provide, via publicly accessible sites on the Internet, information to protect students, businesses and others from persons, institutions or entities that issue, manufacture or use false academic degrees. This information must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education." [28]
There is no indication that this law has been changed, so Jytdog's inferences about the website stated above do not appear to be a sound reason to discredit this source. Someone else above mentioned a possible compromise of referring to Maine in the past tense. I'd be fine with this, e.g. language stating "As of 2014, the EGS was included on a list of unaccredited institutions by the state of Maine." Similar language should also probably be included for Oregon (on their published list as of 2008 per archive.org).
2. There are still several outstanding issues with the way the Malta accreditation is being portrayed. The Maltese government's website actually shows that the EGS is ″NOT″ approved to issue degrees in Malta. Rather it is approved for a renewable 5 year license to offer a short list of specific classes in Malta.[29] The text that is adopted should be crafted with greater precision to reflect exactly what the "license" is. Right now it is too vague and could give the misleading impression that they possess a more permanent or more comprehensive license than they actually have. Kizezs (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC) No. There are no outstanding issues with Malta. You are going out of your way to find fault with EGS. The list you link to does not say "we don't accredit or license EGS here". You are reading proof of a negative into the document. This is silly. The links to Maltese websites and the Maltese media have been put here umpteen times. Please! Murtagh1585 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Re Maine, as long as the Maine Department of Education website has decided to remove that page from their website navigation structure, I think there is too much doubt about it to safely use it – none of your points are enough to conclusive prove Jytdog's original argument wrong. Furthermore, as I've argued above, we don't know whether the list referred to by the Maine legislation is (as of today) actually the list on their website (which they no longer link to), or actually the list on Wikipedia (which they do link to). Given the doubts about the current official status of this source, I don't think we can safely use it. Furthermore, that poses a challenge for a past tense sourcing – if we can't conclude reliably whether the source is valid today, citing it as valid in the past implies could be read as implying it is no longer valid today, when that's a matter subject to serious and reasonable doubts. Given all of this, I think it is best not to mention the Maine source at all.
- Re Malta, I think Jytdog's suggested text "EGS is licensed as a university in Malta" is an extremely obvious and straightforward reading of what the Maltese government website clearly says. I think your attempt to dig into greater detail about what that actually means is enterring into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH territory. Rather than engaging in detailed exegesis of sources ourselves, we should look for WP:RS to do that for us; in the absence of any WP:RS telling us what the Maltese government website really means, we should avoid trying to work that out for ourselves, and just stick to the most bland high-level summary – which Jytdog's proposed text does very well. SJK (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- SJK - You yourself previously argued[30] that the Maine list differed from the Texas list because it has "no legal status, it is not specifically established under the law of Maine, it has no legal consequences." I researched this issue and provided direct evidence that Maine has a statute that in fact closely parallels Texas' statute, requiring the state Department of Education to publish an online list of specific known diploma mills (hence "must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education"). In other words, you now appear to be moving the goalpost of your own previous demand for what constitutes a valid source. It is interesting though that you bring up WP:OR because Jytdog's reason for excluding Maine - his own personal *inference* that they enacted an unstated policy change by simply altering the link on their website - would seem to be its own act of original research. By contrast, a direct interest exists for the readers of this article to know exactly *what type* of license the EGS holds in Malta since the Maltese government plainly issues a wide array of educational licenses and since the EGS' past accreditation claims have been credibly disputed. Fortunately that information is published on their own public website and is easily accessed through the link I provided. It requires no "original research" to simply check that link, which plainly shows they have a specific license to offer a certain list of classes and only for a 5 year period. In fact, by implying that they possess something more in the current proposed language, Jytdog's version would appear to be making a claim that exceeds that which is supported by the evidence on his cited source. Kizezs (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- No what I am doing is applying basic research skills to internet-based sources, using an understanding of how websites operate that pretty much any literate person should have an understanding of. People who run websites change them all the time; when they make major changes to de-link content they often don't actually remove that content from areas of their servers open to the internet, and so those pages are findable with browser searches. It is not rocket science. They don't maintain their own list anymore and they don't lead the public to their old list - they lead the public to the Wikipedia list. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia' blacklist itself is "proof" of EGS's blacklisting. This gets crazier and crazier.Murtagh1585 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- No. No one has said that. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia' blacklist itself is "proof" of EGS's blacklisting. This gets crazier and crazier.Murtagh1585 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- No what I am doing is applying basic research skills to internet-based sources, using an understanding of how websites operate that pretty much any literate person should have an understanding of. People who run websites change them all the time; when they make major changes to de-link content they often don't actually remove that content from areas of their servers open to the internet, and so those pages are findable with browser searches. It is not rocket science. They don't maintain their own list anymore and they don't lead the public to their old list - they lead the public to the Wikipedia list. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- SJK - You yourself previously argued[30] that the Maine list differed from the Texas list because it has "no legal status, it is not specifically established under the law of Maine, it has no legal consequences." I researched this issue and provided direct evidence that Maine has a statute that in fact closely parallels Texas' statute, requiring the state Department of Education to publish an online list of specific known diploma mills (hence "must include the names of known state, national and international diploma mills, degree mills, accreditation mills and substandard schools or institutions of higher education"). In other words, you now appear to be moving the goalpost of your own previous demand for what constitutes a valid source. It is interesting though that you bring up WP:OR because Jytdog's reason for excluding Maine - his own personal *inference* that they enacted an unstated policy change by simply altering the link on their website - would seem to be its own act of original research. By contrast, a direct interest exists for the readers of this article to know exactly *what type* of license the EGS holds in Malta since the Maltese government plainly issues a wide array of educational licenses and since the EGS' past accreditation claims have been credibly disputed. Fortunately that information is published on their own public website and is easily accessed through the link I provided. It requires no "original research" to simply check that link, which plainly shows they have a specific license to offer a certain list of classes and only for a 5 year period. In fact, by implying that they possess something more in the current proposed language, Jytdog's version would appear to be making a claim that exceeds that which is supported by the evidence on his cited source. Kizezs (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Selling EU accreditation for ‘colleges’ that can’t get it elsewhere
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[31] "...lowering accreditation standards and allowing all kinds of odd commercial colleges which can’t get accreditation anywhere else in the European Union to come to Malta and get accreditation here, which they can then use as a selling-point." Is this the name of the game? Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- before making this baseless assumptions, you should provide them by sources. Moreover EGS has the status of University and not college.Claudioalv (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- They were talking about the last paragraph of that source, claudioalv. I have seen that too; it is a blog so not high quality and I wouldn't bring it or use it. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen that, I do agree with you that a blog can not be a rialiable source. I do think that EGS does not merit a status of a school which confers diploma mill, just because Texas says that or sells degrees. EGS was implicated in very notable projects, also mentioned on Wiki, like Occupy Wall Street. In fact, Occupy Wall Street was one of the projects started by EGS students during the course of their study Cite error: There are
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://medium.com/the-workshop/the-school-for-social-hackers-b3797caf3a7b#.yrymb2mxdCite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Also a recent and notable EGS student was Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podemos_(Spanish_political_party)Cite error: There are<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). who has been at the forefront of the anti-austerity movement in Spain and across Europe. These are just two examples which should be enough to say that this is serious school, a school that based on its location (Malta) should not be discriminated. Of course this my opinion and everyone is welcome to say his/her opinion, but it is unfair to cite a couple of line in a unknown blog to assume that the school does sell degree. This is not the real world. Claudioalv (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)- My apologies, I thought it was from the Times Of Malta. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen that, I do agree with you that a blog can not be a rialiable source. I do think that EGS does not merit a status of a school which confers diploma mill, just because Texas says that or sells degrees. EGS was implicated in very notable projects, also mentioned on Wiki, like Occupy Wall Street. In fact, Occupy Wall Street was one of the projects started by EGS students during the course of their study Cite error: There are
- They were talking about the last paragraph of that source, claudioalv. I have seen that too; it is a blog so not high quality and I wouldn't bring it or use it. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- before making this baseless assumptions, you should provide them by sources. Moreover EGS has the status of University and not college.Claudioalv (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
EGS Accreditation
I did considerable research on the EGS while considering graduate schools... so I think I can offer some impartial feedback on this debate. Having read the Wikipedia page statement on EGS's accreditation and wondering if it could be true, I contacted both the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (by telephone) and the National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta (NCFHE) (by email) to check on how this generally works with universities outside the U.S.
What I learned is that EGS is *newly* accredited (February 2016) by NCFHE (Malta). The newness factor is why some US states do not yet know about accreditation and still retain lists saying that EGS is not accredited. It takes time for these lists to be updates. However, EGS *is* now accredited by the NCFHE (Malta). When I contacted the CHEA (US) and NCFHE (Malta), along with seeing it directly on the the CHEA (US) website, they both let me know that the NCFHE (Malta) is the formal Quality Assurance Body international partner agency for the CHEA (US). As a member state of the EU, Malta's National Commission for Further and Higher Education of Malta (NCFHE) is the official body to determine that EGS does meet the requirements for EU criteria, which is the European Qualification Framework (EQF). Whether the NCFHE is the proper body is not debatable... whether people like it or not, this is the educational body in Malta that decides on accreditation for Malta as an EU member state. I include all the citations below in a friendly edit suggestion.
This means that at this point, the following statement (currently still on the EGS Wikipedia page) is fully and absolutely incorrect: "The EGS lacks academic accreditation from an accrediting agency that is recognized by the U.S. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.[12] As a result, degrees from the EGS are not currently recognized by many state education authorities in the United States."
Thus, I offer this friendly edit to the Accreditation section (links spelled out below):
"EGS Accreditation
The European Graduate School is accredited to offer the MA and PhD degrees through the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of the European Union member nation of Malta. http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/list_universities.aspx http://ncfhe.gov.mt/en/register/Pages/register.aspx (See List of Accredited Courses in right blue box link.)
The National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta adheres to the European Qualification Framework (EQF) allowing transportability of higher education degrees within European Union nations. https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page
Within the United States, the Council of Higher Education Accreditation -- which is the standard bearer for the transportability of international higher education degrees to institutions of higher education in the US -- formally recognizes the National Commission for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE) of Malta as their Quality Assurance Body international partner agency. http://www.cheainternational.org/intdb/display1.asp?ID=c95
Thus European Graduate School MA and PhD degrees meet all accreditation and quality assurance standards for institutions of higher education within the United States, as standardized by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation."
--87.162.76.122 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC) apk
- I ignored your discussion of your phone calls. They are not useful in Wikipedia.
- The first sentence is not supported by its source. The second sentence is not supported by its source. The third sentence is OK but without the promotional and unsourced content between the hyphens. The last sentence is unsourced.
- Once the current RfC above is over and we have a new starting point we can do an edit request to add the modified third paragraph.
- Right now the page is locked due to too much advocacy editing so changes go very, very slow and need to gather consensus carefully. This is what happens in Wikipedia when articles come under attack from advocates. Things become glacial. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- When the Rfc above would be over? It has been a while since it was opened and it appear other users are not interested in posting their contributions. However, the outcome is very clear. Claudioalv (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Read WP:RFC Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- To me the consensus is obvious to the participants. Only a SPA partially disagrees. Do we have to wait other 30 days for that? Claudioalv (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Read WP:RFC Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- When the Rfc above would be over? It has been a while since it was opened and it appear other users are not interested in posting their contributions. However, the outcome is very clear. Claudioalv (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The IP's suggested text sounds like synthesis. We need to go with what the published sources say, and phone calls don't qualify as reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Start-Class Higher education articles
- WikiProject Higher education articles
- C-Class Switzerland articles
- Low-importance Switzerland articles
- All WikiProject Switzerland pages
- C-Class Malta articles
- Low-importance Malta articles
- WikiProject Malta articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment