UoPeople degrees not accepted in Belgium

[ghostlypast]

I wonder what he'll say about WASC. 

He'll ignore the question and provide a list of countries where the university is not accredited.

https://www.selvaggialucarelli.blog/altr...reditation

If you want to have some real fun, ask him about the fake Panamanian consulate website that he set up to don himself as an honorary consulate, knight himself, and use in an effort to enshrine himself on Wikipedia.

No, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit...1129236892

Funny how that source now redirects to the Lucarelli website.

[question]

I wonder what he'll say about WASC. 

He'll ignore the question and provide a list of countries where the university is not accredited.

https://www.selvaggialucarelli.blog/altr...reditation

First of all, I did not provide any "list of countries". It is an objective fact that the University of the People is not accredited outside the United States. Being "accredited by WASC" is irrelevant and guarantees nothing: the degree is still rejected, because those universities simply do not care about the University of the People, regardless of its accreditation.

Claiming that "UoPeople offers accredited degrees to learners worldwide" is misleading: this online university is not "accredited worldwide". And in this specific case, WASC accreditation has not resulted in any improvement over DECT accreditation, as the school's reputation has remained unchanged: namely, very poor.

I also notice that instead of addressing the issue on its merits, you prefer to derail the conversation with rambling responses, personal attacks and by spamming links. In all these weeks, you haven't managed to refute even one of my arguments, and you keep grasping at straws without reaching any conclusion.

[question]

re: https://www.selvaggialucarelli.blog/altr...eviews-faq

UoPeople "fund[ing] the state of Israel"? That's rich.

I agree that the university is not actually run directly from Israel. In fact, administrative emails come either from India or from Africa, and they are often poorly written and full of grammatical errors. One can therefore assume that, although the headquarters are in Israel, very little staff is actually based there, since the majority are located in India and Africa. The choice of India or Africa appears to be driven by cost considerations, given that labor is much cheaper there.

What remains unclear is where the revenue actually ends up. Since the real headquarters are in Israel (and not in the US) it is plausible to assume that the funds may ultimately end up in Israel.

[ss20ts]

I wonder what he'll say about WASC. 

He'll ignore the question and provide a list of countries where the university is not accredited.

https://www.selvaggialucarelli.blog/altr...reditation

First of all, I did not provide any "list of countries". It is an objective fact that the University of the People is not accredited outside the United States. Being "accredited by WASC" is irrelevant and guarantees nothing: the degree is still rejected, because those universities simply do not care about the University of the People, regardless of its accreditation.

Claiming that "UoPeople offers accredited degrees to learners worldwide" is misleading: this online university is not "accredited worldwide". And in this specific case, WASC accreditation has not resulted in any improvement over DECT accreditation, as the school's reputation has remained unchanged: namely, very poor.

I also notice that instead of addressing the issue on its merits, you prefer to derail the conversation with rambling responses, personal attacks and by spamming links. In all these weeks, you haven't managed to refute even one of my arguments, and you keep grasping at straws without reaching any conclusion.

I'm genuinely confused. US RA is recognized and accepted around the world. U of the P has recently received their RA. It's possible that someone in Belgium is unaware of this. Or is Belgium not recognizing WASC? If that's the case then they wouldn't recognize Stanford, USC, Berkeley, etc. as they are all WASC. And this would be really weird.

[SteveFoerster]

First of all, I did not provide any "list of countries". It is an objective fact that the University of the People is not accredited outside the United States. Being "accredited by WASC" is irrelevant and guarantees nothing: the degree is still rejected, because those universities simply do not care about the University of the People, regardless of its accreditation.

Claiming that WASC accreditation is "irrelevant" says a lot more about you than it does about WASC or University of the People. 

Claiming that "UoPeople offers accredited degrees to learners worldwide" is misleading: this online university is not "accredited worldwide".

The degrees are accredited and the learners are worldwide, so the statement is true.

But this makes your later criticism of other people's use of English rather ironic.

And in this specific case, WASC accreditation has not resulted in any improvement over DECT accreditation, as the school's reputation has remained unchanged: namely, very poor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't seem to be widely shared. Out of curiosity I searched for their name and reputation and this was the first response:

https://www.top10.com/online-degrees/rev...the-people

And I'm not a big fan of rankings but Webometrics puts them about in the middle of the pack globally speaking, which is decent considering that they're a teaching institution with no research profile.

That doesn't seem "very poor" to me.

The bottom line is that if someone has the choice between University of the People and Harvard, sure, they should choose Harvard. But that's not what University of the People is trying to be: they mean to make no-frills higher education accessible to people on a modest budget. And since we're sharing opinions, in mine they actually do that pretty well.

I also notice that instead of addressing the issue on its merits, you prefer to derail the conversation with rambling responses, personal attacks and by spamming links. In all these weeks, you haven't managed to refute even one of my arguments, and you keep grasping at straws without reaching any conclusion.

Rightfully or wrongfully, people often decide how much weight to place on an argument based on the reputation of the one making it. If you engage in behavior that people see as extreme then that's your choice, but it doesn't help your case.

I agree that the university is not actually run directly from Israel. In fact, administrative emails come either from India or from Africa, and they are often poorly written and full of grammatical errors. One can therefore assume that, although the headquarters are in Israel, very little staff is actually based there, since the majority are located in India and Africa. The choice of India or Africa appears to be driven by cost considerations, given that labor is much cheaper there.

As someone who does business in West Africa I take a dim view of your implication that Africans and Indians are inherently worse at English—and your own misuse of it above doesn't help.

But otherwise, yes, hiring staff in low income countries is a good strategy to keep costs low, and there's nothing wrong with that.

What remains unclear is where the revenue actually ends up. Since the real headquarters are in Israel (and not in the US) it is plausible to assume that the funds may ultimately end up in Israel.

Fortunately, there's no need to assume anything. It's a US-based 501©(3) non-profit organization, which means if you really care about where the money goes you can review their public filings to find out:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofi.../264078735

Mostly it seems to go to salaries, which is understandable, and by the standards for an institution of their size their executive level compensation is quite modest.

So if you were looking to imply this is some sort of nefarious Israeli slush fund or whatever, I guess you'll just have to be disappointed.

[wow]

re: https://www.selvaggialucarelli.blog/altr...eviews-faq

UoPeople "fund[ing] the state of Israel"? That's rich.

What remains unclear is where the revenue actually ends up. Since the real headquarters are in Israel (and not in the US) it is plausible to assume that the funds may ultimately end up in Israel.

Money ending up in Israel is not the same as funding the state of Israel, just like buying a Matryoshka doll from a Russian artisan is not the same as funding the Kremlin. The original claim is unhinged. There is no defending it.

---

[quote pid='449791' dateline='1769199978']
I'm genuinely confused. US RA is recognized and accepted around the world. U of the P has recently received their RA. It's possible that someone in Belgium is unaware of this. Or is Belgium not recognizing WASC? If that's the case then they wouldn't recognize Stanford, USC, Berkeley, etc. as they are all WASC. And this would be really weird.

[/quote]

So, the very first statement in this thread is copypasta from reddit. If you go to the actual thread, you will get a lot more context and some sane perspectives. Basically, it looks like the University needs to update its database now than UoPeople has WASC accreditation. People on the Reddit thread walked the OP, who had been rejected by Antwerp, through how to contest Antwerp's decision by providing documentation of UoPeople's accreditation.

Antwerp's decision does not represent all of Belgium, and the decision could change on appeal.

[ghostlypast]

So, the very first statement in this thread is copypasta from reddit.

You sly sleuth, you. Correct. It is copypasta.

Take the next step. I'll give you a tip. The person behind the Selvaggia Lucarelli Blog site posted a comment in that Reddit thread.

[question]

"Claiming that WASC accreditation is "irrelevant" says a lot more about you than it does about WASC or University of the People."

I confirm: WASC is completely irrelevant here. Any country in the world can ignore WASC, and that letter is the proof. "Being accredited by WASC" guarantees nothing: if the school is ridiculous, nobody cares about "WASC".

"The degrees are accredited and the learners are worldwide, so the statement is true."

No, because it's not accredited worldwide.

"As someone who does business in West Africa I take a dim view of your implication that Africans and Indians are inherently worse at English"

It's not an "implication", it's a fact: those emails (from the University of the People) are full of mistakes.
It doesn't mean that "Africans and Indians are inherently worse at English": I know people in South Africa who could win the Nobel Prize in literature. But evidently, the University of the People prefers to underpay the illiterate.

"Money ending up in Israel is not the same as funding the state of Israel"

When did I say that it's the same as funding the state of Israel or its wars?
Actually, this deserves a deeper look.
In fact, I find the fact that the funds are being directed to Israel quite worrying.

"So, the very first statement in this thread is copypasta from reddit. If you go to the actual thread, you will get a lot more context"

Your "context" is completely useless: the letter is a legitimate refusal to recognize a University of People degree. The rest is just empty talk from characters like you, who are desperate for any excuse to cling to.

"Antwerp's decision does not represent all of Belgium, and the decision could change on appeal."

Sure, dream on
You University of People fanboys are becoming a laughingstock. Faced with deeply concerning facts, you're simply grasping at straws.

[ghostlypast]

I confirm: WASC is completely irrelevant here. Any country in the world can ignore WASC, and that letter is the proof. "Being accredited by WASC" guarantees nothing: if the school is ridiculous, nobody cares about "WASC".

Sure, if UoPeople is ridiculous, we can discredit its accreditation. I am with you there.

But how do we determine the school is ridiculous? Might I suggest the outcomes for its graduates? If we follow that path, the evidence is clear that UoPeople is leading to better lives and jobs for its graduates.

[wow]

LOL question could truly benefit from taking some information literacy and philosophy/logic courses at UoPeople, which they do in deed offer and are quite good. When question has lost an argument, they simply claim the argument wasn't about that.

The discussion about Israel literally started with reference to the statement on the SelvaggiaLucarelli.blog that "the Israeli University of the People ... is based in Israel, leading the Palestinians themselves to unknowingly fund the state of Israel." Now question wants to pretend that my objection had nothing to do with the crazy idea that attending a private university in a country is the same as funding the state where it resides (leaving aside the incorrect claim that UoPeople is an Israeli university).

Question thinks Israel is nefarious, therefore argues Shai Reshef must be nefarious, and thus that UoPeople must also be nefarious. That might go over well with people who have a predisposition to hating Israel and stop thinking when they see its name, but for the rest of us, it just looks desperate and a wee bit ... you know.