http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/1...NQ20130617

What was it that Jonathan Swift said? When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

And in the case of Snowden we have quite a confederacy indeed. They range from Dianne Feinstein to Dick Chaney.

In the mean time, watch what you say on the phone. Somebody is listening!

Quote:"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him ... the better off we all are," Snowden said. Cheney was instrumental in the expansion of surveillance programs after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

NU Ways mission is to be the most preferred Distance Learning Education & Training Institute and evolve into a World Class Institution. We at Mindtrek offers distance education courses through Universities Approved by UGC & Accredited by NAAC
For More Information Please Vist: http://www.nuwaysptcollege.com/
Or call 9792534140,8957311395

From the St. Luke School of Medicine website:

Quote:GEORGE GOLLIN IS A RACIST LYING FRAUD With respect to St. Luke School of Medicine, George Gollin, Professor of Physics at the University of Illinois, Urbana, is a lying fraud.

George Gollin completely fabricated a 91-paged document, full of lies, fantasies and confabulations to defame SLSOM, its owners, its students and graduates. Virtually all of his articles he has posted on the Internet are lies and fabrications to which he has no proof or evidence.

Imagine, after posting hundreds of statements against SLSOM, and countless false statements in magazines and other media against SLSOM, he declares "immunity" in civil court. He didn't want to defend his statements in federal court. Gollin's only defense in United States Federal Court was "11th Amendment Immunity" of the United States Constitution. It states "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." This is proof enough for any thinking man that Gollin is a liar.

If Gollin's statements had any merit of truth, why didn't he defend it in court?

Because he knew all of his statements about SLSOM were lies and fabrications from the moment he wrote them: none of his statements would stand the scrutiny of a court action. So he, is his cowardly way, hid himself behind the broad shield of the 11th amendment, using the University of Illinois as his shield against a federal, like a roach hiding from light behind a wet, damp toilet.

Gollin must believe that he can lie about anyone or any institution because he has immunity in court from prosecution, according to the 11th amendment. How does anyone know is he is telling the truth or lying? He is lying if he won't defend his words. Believe us, there is more court action headed George Gollin's way. LIAR!

George Gollin loves attacking minorities and institutions that help minorities, especially small private institutions like SLSOM. Most recently he tried to get the state of California's Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education to close SLSOM. For your information, the BPPSE has no jurisdiction, SLSOM is a chartered Liberian educational institution. The BPPSE is not a Gollin-Goon, like Oregon's Office of Degree Authorization.

Ignorant, or stupid, Gollin supporters don't have the reasoning to wonder why SLSOM has won victories in Liberian or Ghanain courts against those governmental agencies that have tried to cancel SLSOM's accreditation? Why hasn't Gollin succeeded in closing down SLSOM? The answer is simple. Gollin is a lying fraud, and SLSOM is armed with the truth.

Gollin will not take SLSOM to court because he knows he will lose. He is a cowardly racist liar. He tried to make a career off of defaming SLSOM. Yet, he is too cowardly to take on SLSOM is court. .

Another one of Thomas "Chip" White's gay boy porn customers?  Remember, these are just the sort of activities you support when you post or advertise at degreeinfo.  "He preys on the most vulnerable children," says the FBI.

Quote:FBI names former USC professor to list of most wanted fugitives

Walter Lee Williams faces charges of sexual exploitation of children abroad, the agency says. He taught anthropology, gender studies and history.


Ex-USC Professor Becomes 500th Person To Be Added To FBI's '10 Most Wanted List'

By Richard Winton and Kate Mather, Los Angeles Times
June 17, 2013, 9:33 p.m.


A former [regionally accredited] USC professor was named Monday to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted fugitives list after he was indicted for sex crimes against children abroad, FBI officials said.

Walter Lee Williams, 64, became the 500th person named to the list, officials said. He faces charges of sexual exploitation of children, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places.

Bureau officials said they had identified at least 10 alleged victims between the ages of 9 and 17. Many live in Third World countries, officials said, adding that Williams has traveled extensively or lived across Southeast Asia and Polynesia, including the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.

"Because of his status he has the means and access to children, and that's what makes him dangerous," FBI Special Agent Jeff Yesensky said in a video released by the agency. "He preys on the most vulnerable children."

A four-count federal indictment filed April 30 outlines alleged crimes involving two 14-year-old boys authorities say Williams met online in 2010. He allegedly "engaged in sexual activity via Internet webcam sessions with these boys and expressed a desire to visit them in the Philippines to have sex," the FBI said in a statement.

Williams went to the Philippines in January 2011, where he allegedly engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" with the boys, took photos of the encounters and brought the photos back to Los Angeles County, the indictment said. He fled Los Angeles after agents questioned him, FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller said.

Eimiller said investigators had not ruled out additional charges.

Williams taught anthropology, gender studies and history at [regionally accredited] USC, according to a university Web page that's since been taken down. The author and Fulbright Award winner received several accolades for his work, including the USC General Education Outstanding Teacher Award in 2006. He was also recognized for his work with the gay and lesbian community.

According to another website describing Williams' work, "his other main research focus is on sexuality in the Southeast Asia/Pacific region."

Williams is described as 5 feet 9 inches tall and 180 pounds, with grayish-brown hair and brown eyes. He was affiliated with a Los Angeles-based group known as the Buddhist Universal Assn., the FBI said, and may travel to Mexico or Peru.

The FBI has offered a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading directly to his arrest.

Of the 500 people named to the list over its 63 years, 469 have been apprehended or located, the FBI said.

Is the accreditation Catch-22 about to end? Makes too much sense, so probably not.

Quote:Accreditation Fast Track?
June 7, 2013
By Libby A. Nelson

WASHINGTON -- A proposal is circulating quietly on Capitol Hill to ask accreditors to create a new, more flexible form of approval for new and nontraditional providers of higher education.

The measure, a slight 37 words, contains few details about the new system it envisions. Its odds are long; so far, no lawmakers have volunteered to sponsor it. And its backers are few, albeit potentially influential: Bob Kerrey, the former New School president and Nebraska senator and governor, and Ben Nelson, the founder of the Minerva Project, the for-profit, startup online university with Ivy League-level ambitions. (Kerrey is executive chairman of the Minerva Institute for Research and Scholarship, a fledgling nonprofit established by the Minerva Project.)

Still, the proposal represents a shot across the bow at the traditional system of higher education accreditation, which has been under increasing pressure since the second half of the Bush administration. Margaret Spellings, the former education secretary, tried to take on the system through tighter scrutiny and new regulations, but met opposition in Congress.

Since then, the pressure has only grown. The issue even rose to the State of the Union address in February, when President Obama endorsed an alternative accreditation system based on "performance and results." Accreditation is expected to be a major focus when Congress begins rewriting the Higher Education Act, the law governing federal financial aid programs; last year, the federal panel reviewing accreditors offered its suggestions as to what lawmakers might do.

But Nelson and Kerrey hope Congress will act even sooner to urge accreditors to embrace innovation -- aiming to attach their proposal as an amendment to whatever legislation Congress votes on to resolve the student loan interest rate issue before July 1.

The measure would direct accreditors "to develop an expedited process by which new and innovative institutions that agree to enhanced oversight can earn accreditation prior to enrolling their first students." That approval, as the measure’s proponents imagine it, would not grant access to federal financial aid as full-blown accreditation does, but it would give a stamp of authority to providers before they enroll a single student.

To gain full accreditation, colleges must first be in existence for several years to undergo the rigorous, peer-reviewed process. Accreditors argue that this is necessary so that they can judge not only a college’s plan to educate its students but the effectiveness of that plan in action. But nontraditional providers say the time involved -- as well as what they describe as the clubby nature of accreditation, where already-existing colleges and universities decide who gets to join them -- raises too many barriers to entry. Accreditation, they argue, relies on an “if you build it, they will come” mentality. But without accreditation, they say, many students won’t.

New institutions can already get approval from states to grant degrees and become candidates for accreditation much more quickly than they can get accredited. But the candidacy process varies from accreditor to accreditor, and sets a college on the path to gain access to federal financial aid programs. In some cases, colleges must already have students enrolled to get candidate status. Kerrey and Nelson envision a more flexible system that can take more risks because it doesn't serve as a gatekeeper to federal dollars. "Anybody with a credible plan should effectively get accreditation," Nelson says. And that accreditation should be separate from access to financial aid, which he said could come "years down the road," after an educational program has proven effective.

Some accreditors have warned that their peers move too slowly in a fast-changing environment. Six months ago, Ralph Wolff, president of the senior college commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, argued that the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the federal panel that recommends whether the Education Department should recognize accreditors, paid too little attention to whether accreditors are trying out new and more flexible approaches, even as many in Silicon Valley question the value of a college credential at all.

Uphill Climb

The proposal seems to face long odds. Members of Congress have seemed receptive, Kerrey says, but none have stepped up to sponsor it, and he admits that the immediate challenge of student loan interest rates has overwhelmed other higher education issues. Even if it makes its way into law, Congress can suggest that accreditors create a new form of accreditation, but there's no guarantee that accreditors will listen. (Congress could create another pathway to federal financial aid, bypassing peer-reviewed accreditation entirely, but many expect that would be both a practical and a political challenge.)

But the measure's proponents say it still sends a powerful signal that Congress is paying attention to accreditation. “I think they just need statutory encouragement; I don’t think they need to be beaten over the head and shoulders,” Kerrey says. Regional accreditors, he says, “tend to know more about what’s going on in higher ed than anybody out there because they’re constantly doing the reviews of the incumbents.”

Accreditors have traditionally fiercely resisted federal encroachment into their affairs. Some might be open to creating a provisional status for new programs, but that would be an entirely different process from accreditation, says Judith Eaton, president of the Council on Higher Education Accreditation.

“If you’re going to attempt to, in some way, sanction in a positive sense, legitimate an institution before it’s operating, which is what this says to me, it’s very, very different from accreditation as we know it,” Eaton says.

Those in favor of the measure say it would give accreditors permission to experiment without putting taxpayer money at risk through financial aid programs. And since many institutions choose to seek accreditation without using it as a gateway to federal financial aid, it proves that accreditors’ approval has other value as a signifier.

“The accrediting community and institutions are paying attention to signals,” says Amy Laitinen, deputy director of higher education at the New America Foundation. “If you have both the president talking about accreditation and Congress talking about accreditation, that sends a pretty clear message that folks aren’t necessarily satisfied with the state of affairs today.”

Another lingering question: Even if Congress passes the measure and accreditors fall in line, who might take advantage of the sort-of-but-not-really accreditation status it would create? Plenty of critics of traditional accreditation — Kerrey and Nelson among them — still add that they found the process valuable for their own colleges. Minerva plans to get its accreditation the old-fashioned way, partnering with an existing college.

Nelson is confident it will encounter few hurdles beyond the usual. “If you're Minerva, frankly, it doesn’t matter,” he says. “We're going to get our accreditation in whatever the pathway the regional accreditors would like. But there are not a lot of companies with our resources, with our standards.”

Despite the hurdles presented by accreditation, Minerva still sees its value, Nelson says. And he’s vague on who might use the new system he envisions if his own provider does not. He mentioned everything from Udacity, the provider of massive open online courses, to CodeAcademy, which offers interactive computer programming lessons.

But Nelson sees no less than the fate of American higher education in the balance. If accreditors can’t adapt and approve new ideas, drawing them into the establishment and the current system, he warns, they risk becoming irrelevant. He points to the chorus in some corners of Silicon Valley, promulgated mostly famously by the PayPal founder Peter Thiel, that a college degree is no longer necessary.

“For the sake of the longevity of the American higher education system, we think they just need to aggressively embrace innovation and innovators, and divorce the barrier to taxpayer funding from the barrier of oversight and accreditation,” Nelson says.

The question is whether Congress will agree. Kerrey, who retired from the Senate in 2000, says he knew little about accreditation until he became president of the New School. Many of his former colleagues in the Senate still aren’t familiar with the process, he says, and he’s had trouble gaining interest in his proposal. “Baseline enthusiasm is still relatively low,” he says.

But the fact that Minerva itself might not struggle to get accreditation, as its supporters assert, isn’t an endorsement of the current system, he says.

“From the standpoint of Minerva, it’s not in their interest to change it,” Kerrey says. “We’re working the process and should get regional accreditation, mostly because of the investments being made. We’re not going to have any difficulty finding a partner. But even that signals there’s something here that isn’t quite right.”

MOOC or MAAN (Much Ado About Nothing)?

Quote:Coursera Jumps the Shark

Posted on May 31, 2013 by Alex Usher


Remember when Coursera – the world’s largest purveyor of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) – was going to disrupt higher education, and put hundreds if not thousands of public institutions out of business? I know it’s hard to cast your mind back all of eighteen months, but try.

Actually don’t. Because it’s all over. Yesterday, Coursera did a weird strategy about-face by announcing that, rather than competing with public colleges, it’s going to start competing with Blackboard instead.

We’ve been heading this way for awhile. Last summer, the all-conquering Coursera, armed with $22M or so in venture capital (VC) money, and getting free content from major educational institutions around the world (including McGill and University of Toronto), was seemingly poised to dominate education everywhere, forever, because… well… OK, this part was never clear. There seemed to be some idea that if you stuck “great professors” (i.e. big research names at big research universities) in front of a camera, eyeballs would follow. This was always preposterous – if it weren’t, University of the Air would be prime time. But, of course, nobody ever got rich telling people that the revolution wasn’t coming.

Coursera has simply never had a coherent plan to generate revenue. Oh sure, it had a bunch of ideas about how to do it, which were outlined in this leaked MOU with the University of Michigan, but few seem to have panned out. The only thing we’ve heard from Coursera is that their idea for charging people for certificates of completion netted $220,000 in Q1 of this year. Given that Coursera’s annual burn rate seems to be in the neighbourhood of $10M (that’s on top of their partners spending $50K/course to place it on the Coursera platform), this is peanuts. Allegedly, they were going to try to make money on a bunch of other things, like being scouts for businesses on the lookout for bright young talent, but there have been no announcements of revenue from these sources. Given how the tech news industry works, it’s a safe bet that means the figure is close to zero.

So now, with no money coming in, and no new round of venture financing announced since last year (attention education journalists: go interview some Coursera investors – they’re key to this story), it announced this week that it would be working with partners like the University of West Virginia and the University of New Mexico – places which Coursera swore in writing to its AAU/U-15/Russell Group partners that it would never allow to offer MOOCS, because it would taint the brand. Together with these institutions, Coursera will be developing something called “campus-based MOOCs”, which, upon closer inspection, is completely indistinguishable from what we’ve called “blended learning” for roughly a decade now.

And so the revolution ends with a whimper, not with a roar.

In May 2013 Warnborough College (UK) was inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI), the agency approved by the United Kingdom Home Office to carry out Educational Oversight inspections of Private Further Education Colleges in England and Wales. ‘It is designed to improve the quality of education on offer to international students through Tier 4 of the points based system for student visas’.

Warnborough again passed the inspection in three required areas. It met expectations in: (1) The quality of the curriculum and teaching and learners’ achievement. (2) The students’ welfare including Health and Safety. (3) The effectiveness of governance, leadership and management.

The inspectors held discussions with management, staff and teachers, and conducted formal interviews with students, and examined samples of students’ work. Regulatory documentation was examined by the inspectors. In sum, ‘The college has improved the good standards found at the last inspection’.

The ISI report is in the public domain: http://www.educationaloversight.co.uk/schools/8341/