Diploma mills?

[Daniel]

What are we to think of diploma mills? Are they sinful, since they are kind of similar to fraud and academic dishonesty? Or are they non-sinful, since college is a joke anyway? If I have already attained membership in an honor society which was probably a diploma mill, would I be committing some sort of sin by listing it on my résumé?

[Gardener]

A diploma means nothing more than a person met the onus of graduation at that institution. If it was regionally or nationally accredited, then other "respectable" schools within that system MUST share in the status of the "mill" -- good and bad, if accreditation is to be meaningful in any sense. College, by and large, is worthless. The only respectable degrees these days are STEM.

Almost all of Academia, so called, is a massive joke.

What's the diploma mill of which you speak?

[Daniel]

If it was regionally or nationally accredited

My understanding is that diploma mills are in cahoots with accreditation mills. Most diploma mills are accredited, but not by the same accrediting organizations as legitimate colleges, so I'm not sure they're really comparable.

What's the diploma mill of which you speak?

What I am speaking of in particular was an honor society called the "National Scholars Honor Society" (which no longer exists) which may or may not have been a legitimate honor society. I joined it several years ago, but I now did a Google search and I see that some people back in the day thought that it was a diploma mill (well, not exactly a "diploma mill" since there was no diploma involved, but something along those lines). The idea was, you paid a small fee in order to become a member in their honor society. Once you became a member then they sent you some stuff in the mail (a certificate, a pin, and a study tips CD) and then they listed your name on their (now defunct) web site. It was suspected that this honor society allowed people to join even without having good grades, and it was also suspected that this honor society may have just been a way for them to "sell" the CD. And these suspicions sound reasonable, though there really isn't any proof.
But since I am a member, I was wondering whether I could tack this onto my résumé or not? Some people seem to think it's a bad idea because it could backfire, but I am just wondering whether there's anything inherently wrong with doing this on the moral level?

And from that, I began wondering about diploma mills in general. Because I know that other sorts of academic dishonesty are sinful. Yet at the same time, there's little practical difference between paying for tuition at a legitimate college and paying for a degree at a diploma mill.

[Gardener]

Just from a content point of view, I wouldn't put something which is defunct on my résumé unless it was a college or business itself and pertinent to your CV.

In general, no one cares what extra-curricular style things you did/do unless they share that interest. Something current and for sure nationally/internationally recognized might be fine. For example, I no longer put FullBridge's Business bootcamp/Colorado Community Colleges Fellowship on my résumé because no one really knows what it is and I've forgotten all the info I learned (except that working with women generally sucks -- not a bullet point I'll advertise ).

Accreditation is largely a scam, but we pretend it isn't.

If you want academic honesty, you'll need to stick with Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math(s). But even then, the credibility of peer reviewed work is becoming more and more suspect.

[dolores]

I don't think it is sinful.  You met the graduation requirements of the institution in question.  If the institution truly is a "diploma mill," then it likely won't be valued much by potential employers.

To me it's a similar situation to a person applying for a job in a tech filed, and he puts on his CV that he interned with Joe Schmo Computing.  He isn't lying, the internship really happened, it just isn't worth the same compared to someone who interned with NASA.

[Daniel]

Gardener - Is "STEM" the same thing as regular old science, technology, engineering, and math? I just started hearing that word "STEM" this year, and people are throwing it around a lot. My impression was that it's just some trendy new thing fated to die out in a few years. But if it's essentially the same as it's always been then maybe it's worth looking into...

[Gardener]

Gardener - Is "STEM" the same thing as regular old science, technology, engineering, and math? I just started hearing that word "STEM" this year, and people are throwing it around a lot. My impression was that it's just some trendy new thing fated to die out in a few years. But if it's essentially the same as it's always been then maybe it's worth looking into...

Yes, S(cience),T(echnology),E(ngineering),M(ath).

The big thing right now is Data Science, which is a much more mathematical approach to IT Database Administration and analysis than we have seen before. It's more of a math meets IT thing than IT dabbling in math (which it always has).

Tech itself is evolving (well, regressing in a sense) towards more of a generalist w/ focus mindset. In the early days it was all about being mathematical, logical, and applying that. Then it morphed into specialization. For example, one was either a programmer or a networking engineer. Never did the two meet. Now, the network engineers who can also program (typically something like Python) are in hot demand.

DevOps (Development Ops) has probably contributed to this. Infrastructure as Code concepts have boomed.

But what's interesting is how we went from a mainframe mentality to a server room w/ hosts doing a lot, and now with the cloud we are moving back to a sort of mainframe mentality. This has caught a lot of folks off guard since they are so so stuck in the early 2000's methods. Back in the day, the software devs (Dev portion of DevOps) would have an idea and contact the Operations (Infrastructure) guys to build up a specific server array[hardware, software/OS, settings, etc.], who would build it out, give it to them, the Devs would break the crap out of it (since code writing is more about engineering failure out, rather than preventing) and yadda yadda until they were done. Now, the Ops guys have coding experience and spin up things rapidly in a virtual environment, often in the cloud, and work closely with the Dev guys to tweak it, deliver, etc.

It's more of a concept for work flow rather than a specific thing. It requires a general understanding of many things.

Now this concept is morphing w/ Cisco's approach to software defined networking which requires Python coding ability.

Similar to the DevOps mentality of standing up environments in a rapid and custom fashion, it allows innovations to take place without the rigmarole of standing up a traditional network with its cabling, devices, etc. It's something which allows a programmatic, scalable approach to application and service delivery.

Here's Cisco's overview: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/software-defined-networking/overview.html

All of these things combined point toward a future in IT which is much more advanced for the average Analyst, Engineer, and Architect than seen before.

A small example of the expectations of an IT worker:

The original CCNA guide was 500 pages. Today, it's over 1600 pages. This means the CCENT (ICND1 -- half the CCNA) is 300 pages larger than the original CCNA. That's... insane. The IT market is easy to penetrate at the lowest entry levels, but it's becoming increasingly harder for guys to move up. More is simply expected. Gone are the days of "You have a pulse? You know how to plug an ethernet cable in? You're hired! We'll teach you everything else in OJT" It's become much, much more complex. Degrees aren't as important, but certs are. The reason is that certs measure actual knowledge on the subject whereas a degree says you didn't fail to come to class. A degree is nothing more than cert knowledge wrapped in a gen ed package. The actual engineering world (EE, ME, etc.) scoff at the idea of calling IT Engineers as such. Many engineers in the pure engineering world are multidisciplinary. They can code because they have to code in order to do computer sim tests of their designs and theories. They often run their own basic networks. They often self-build their own machines on which to run these design tests. They see it like calling an oil changer a mechanic.

But that's early to mid 2000's in its mentality. The original group of IT engineers were literally math majors, engineering majors, and the IT world evolved out of their need. The Engineering Engineers never designed, implemented, and supported enterprise, international networks and services which require high levels of skill and knowledge. Not only knowledge on the tech, but everything in its environment. And gone are the days of a "Transmission guy". They're still called that, but they darn well better know Engine Rebuilding at a theoretical level too. We've moved from concrete to abstract in so many ways.

I'm sorry Liberal Arts majors, but the equality of outcome argument doesn't hold in light of STEM reality. Explaining Aristotle's Metaphysics doesn't hold a candle to the reality of having to understand such tech and then sensibly explaining it to MBAs who are lucky not to electrocute themselves when setting up their own home internet. IT, like all STEM, doesn't get to rest on the laurels of a good theoretical argument. It has to prove it, daily. It's an erector set for adults. It's an evolving puzzle. It's doing all that while also defending against real enemies whose entire daily existence is wrecking your puzzle and you have to continue building it while it evolves and they continue to wreck it, and while it sometimes wrecks itself.

But as exciting as all this is, and as futuristic and neat as it sounds, it's all completely terrifying at the societal level. The more STEM advances, the more potential mankind has, and yet, looking at fallen man, the reality shall be a regression at a spiritual level.

As such, I recommend people get into IT and STEM in general not only to hedge bets against the success potential in it, but also to have a guerrilla awareness of the future enemy of man (elites utilizing high levels of tech for command and control) and knowledge of his weapons against the common man. My foray into tech is short term about providing for my family. Long term, I am hedging my ability to dodge and weave as necessary. With the increase of the surveillance state and advancements in AI, predictive analysis (hence, Data Science), etc., there will only be two options for survival if it all goes bad:

1) stay just enough ahead of the curve to not get caught up by Orwell and Huxley's wildest nightmares.
2) take a cue from terrorists and go so low tech you aren't even on the radar of the All-Seeing-Eye; this is effectively a nomadic, impoverished existence.

If I were a betting man, I'd say #2 is the most likely outcome.

[Jacob]

Just to add on to Gardener's excellent post, STEM as a term has been around at least 20 years.  It first came to my attention when I started college in '99.  Certain floors of one of the dorms were given over to female STEM majors so that they could live together and do their thing.

[Chestertonian]

The more STEM advances, the more potential mankind has, and yet, looking at fallen man, the reality shall be a regression at a spiritual level.

if anything,this suggests that we need the humanities more than ever.

While I have utmost respect for scientists and their contributions to the world, we can't find the answers to all of life's questions in the sciences.  it can help us develop chemical and biological weapons and show us if it's possible to make human-animal chimeras and clone humans.  It doesn't tell us whether this is good or bad, or how these technology should be used (if they should be used at all). 

i've always thought it's unfortunate that most of the institutions that traditional catholics would consider orthodox and authentically Catholic (TAC, Christendom, Thomas More) don't have robust programs in the sciences.  The same could be said for most classical Catholic secondary institutions and homeschool programs.  Most seem very heavy on the literature and history, lite on the sciences. which only furthers the either/or mentality

as for the accreditation process, what alternatives would you suggest?

[Daniel]

as for the accreditation process, what alternatives would you suggest?

I know that this wasn't directed at me, but what I would suggest is that accreditation be done away with altogether. Employers should simply stop being so obsessed with looking only for people with degrees. Two options:
1. Make each applicant prove his knowledge and his skills, regardless of whether or not he has a degree.
2. Make each applicant prove only his aptitude, regardless of whether or not he has the knowledge and skills. Once his aptitude is established then he can work for the company (unpaid) as sort of an apprentice, and acquire the knowledge and skills on the job.

[Kaesekopf]

I'm two days into a bachelor of arts program and it's all absolute bullshit.

Maybe in the realm of theory it's a good idea, but the practical implementation is liberal propaganda and cuck bullshit.

Waste of time, really. 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[Gardener]

The more STEM advances, the more potential mankind has, and yet, looking at fallen man, the reality shall be a regression at a spiritual level.

if anything,this suggests that we need the humanities more than ever.

While I have utmost respect for scientists and their contributions to the world, we can't find the answers to all of life's questions in the sciences.  it can help us develop chemical and biological weapons and show us if it's possible to make human-animal chimeras and clone humans.  It doesn't tell us whether this is good or bad, or how these technology should be used (if they should be used at all). 

i've always thought it's unfortunate that most of the institutions that traditional catholics would consider orthodox and authentically Catholic (TAC, Christendom, Thomas More) don't have robust programs in the sciences.  The same could be said for most classical Catholic secondary institutions and homeschool programs.  Most seem very heavy on the literature and history, lite on the sciences. which only furthers the either/or mentality

as for the accreditation process, what alternatives would you suggest?

Needing humanities is like saying we need more Brawndo, cus it's got electrolytes and that's what plants crave. We need water... "like, from the toilet?" The humanities of today is NOT what we need, because if anything it's more aptly called the inhumanities.

We need that like we need a hole in the forehead.

Look at this 8th grade exam from 1912:
https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/BULLITTcschoolexam1912sm-1.jpg

We have people in Masters programs who would fail that exam in a hard fashion.

For crying out loud, we are a nation of idiots compared to the 8th graders who were my great grandparents.

Why? Because we forsook foundational education in lieu of social engineering the next generation of automaton radicals. THAT has to be fixed first, not at a college level but at a level of elementary, middle, and high school.

But the fact remains that STEM is a solid career path and the Liberal Arts are decidedly not.

[Christina_S]

I'm two days into a bachelor of arts program and it's all absolute bullshit.

Maybe in the realm of theory it's a good idea, but the practical implementation is liberal propaganda and cuck bullshit.

Waste of time, really. 

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

I'm a year into a BA program and yep, you're pretty much right. A good deal of brainwashing goes on. There is the rare professor who goes against the grain (and often is subsequently fired), but other than that, the whole thing is rigged.

[Tales]

Daniel,

This does not seem sinful but it sounds like a terrible thing to list on a resume.  What will you say if someone asks you about it?  That is not a low probability event.

By the way, getting a decent job or raise is generally about who you know, not who you are or what you've done.  Networking in person (not on social websites) is critical.  Get to know people, keep contact via Christmas cards, lunches / coffees and stay in touch with all friends / college buddies - this is a lifetime task but networking is how to stay well employed.

[Daniel]

I'm two days into a bachelor of arts program and it's all absolute bullshit.

I'm a year into a BA program and yep, you're pretty much right.

I think we can all agree that the humanities of today are poison. Still, that's just the humanities of today. It doesn't mean that the humanities and the liberal arts themselves are not worthy of study. Just throw away the modern junk and bring back the Shakespeare, the Dante, the Aristotle, et al.: problem solved. (But make sure the teacher is authentically Catholic...)

Apart from the fact that non-Catholic B.A. curricula are poison, my biggest problem is that they're more or less pointless. If you want to attain practical skills then why spend four years taking a ton of irrelevant classes? You could much more efficiently master the material by actually focusing on it and practicing the skills.
It used to be that you studied the humanities in order to better understand the world in respect to God. But these days you're just studying the humanities for the sake of wasting time.
Yet if you want a job, you really have no choice.