Quote of the Day

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Glenn Beck Commentary

Apparently Glenn Beck plugged A Thomas Jefferson Education and George Wythe University during his radio program this morning at 11:00 AM Eastern (thanks RC).

Beck said that he likes the no textbook rule ("Classics, Not Textbooks"), and he said that George Wythe University is today what Harvard and Yale were in the 17th Century.



Disappointing comments coming from Beck -- he clearly has not done his homework here. For example, while GWU may claim to be a liberal arts school as Harvard was in the 1600s (and still is), Harvard was not granting degrees ranging from musicology to international business with no faculty knowledgeable in those fields. And Yale? It didn't even exist in the 1600s. It wasn't founded until 1701. Even if it had, I have a hard time coming up with even one substantive similarity between GWU and these two Ivy League schools.

A cursory examination by me of GWU's record after my relative blew through her college savings there (see my profile) revealed slipshod scholarship done by academically inbred professors. To date, of the four presidents in the school's history (see current president Andrew Groft in a light saber duel to the right), not one has an accredited doctorate. Not one has made a dissertation available for review. Instead, every doctorate comes from either GWU itself, or its mother institution, the now-defunct Coral Ridge Baptist University (no affiliation with the famous Coral Ridge Ministries).

Moreover, I am sure 17th Century Harvard did not hand out doctorates for life experience, like GWU did to a student in the 1990s, who took her Ph.D. in Psychology and used it to serve as an expert witness around the country, including for the defense in a child rape trial in Arkansas (David Eric WOOD v. STATE of Arkansas, see here and here). Luckily in that case her testimony was later thrown out by the state board of appeals.

I hope Beck continues to plug the school ahead of his Saturday appearance at a fundraising event. The school desperately needs the scrutiny that will follow.

41 comments:

James F. said...

I want to just throw something out here just to make sure we cover all the bases. What if Glenn Beck actually did do his homework on this one, and yet after reviewing the facts decided like the hundreds of GWU students and thousands of TJEDers to support the University anyway? Ya know, just a possibility.

I think after all is said and done here, you are going to finally realize that Glenn Beck is just as crazy as the GWU crowd--which makes them a pretty good match.

The Real George Wythe said...

James,

The fact that Yale didn't even exist in the 17th century tells me he did not, in fact, do his homework.

James F. said...

Hum...Yale was founded in 1701? So if it had been 2 years earlier then Glenn technically would have been correct in saying 17th century. What's two years between friends?

But its good to be completely honest. Yale wasn't 17th century. Beck was wrong. So in this spirit of being honest, how about we don't just list the ways that GWU isn't like Yale and Harvard originally were --but perhaps a few of the ways that they are the same. A strong emphasis on the study of classics, rooted in a belief in God, focused on liberty and freedom, etc.

Oh...and Yale and Harvard weren't accredited. Another commonality with GWU. ;)

R.C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James F. said...

Hum...you might have something there with the idea that DeMille is Kingon...but we'll wait until TRGW actually comes out and says it in the next blog post. I mean Andrew Groft is apparently a Jedi-Knight. Who would have known?

And you really do have something there with the idea that the GWU crowd acts like they live in another time. They really do! And honest to goodness in that time in which they live accreditation really isn't that important. In all seriousness you folks are much more anxious about them becoming accredited then anyone I know at GWU. You obviously think there is something wrong with that, but in 1650 they've got other things to worry about.

So a "The Well-Trained Mind"--are you really a supporter of this system or are you just using it for your argument? I mean it looks good to me and I certainly wouldn't be against reading it. If you really are a supporter--what do you like about this system?

R.C. said...

"Well Educated Mind" was authored by a real PhD (Susan Wise Bauer, College of William and Mary) and published by a real press (W.W. Norton). It passed editorial review.

There is nothing new in TJED. There are many things incorrect in TJED.

DeMille's stages of child development are ridiculous. The thought that somebody is bound at a certain age to do certain things (i.e. scholar phase, depth phase, etc.) is so silly. It simply flies in the face of 100 years of scientific research.

James F. said...

A real PhD? Wow. That is impressive. And it passed an editorial review. Well they're in luck--now nobody can argue about their system. That's fine, without having read the book, I'm sure its good and I am going to try to read it some time soon.

I'm assuming R.C. that you don't support Darwinism/Evolutionism? Well you have heard of course that evolution has passed the "editorial review", right? Here is the argument, that there is a "consensus" among scientists. If you don't support evolution, you are just ignoring the facts. People with real PhDs say that evolution is a fact. Global warming too. So how do you counter that R.C.? How do you counter this ever growing conventional wisdom?

You don't have to stretch too far to see the parallel I'm trying to draw here. There are people with real PhDs that support GWU. Here is one: Shane Schulthies, one of GWU's mentors and Board of Trustees member. He has a real doctorate degree from BYU. My point isn't that just because he has a "real" doctorate that GWU is legit. My point is that it doesn't matter that he has a "real" doctorate. There are plenty of people with "real" doctorates that you don't agree with. There are people with "real" doctorates that didn't really earn them. There are people with "real" doctorates that lie and mislead others all while toting the "Dr." in front of their name. When it comes down to it, DeMille's doctorate could be more "real" than his contemporaries. But honestly we don't know--he might not really have earned it. But there is no absolute guarantee that even those with "real" doctorates earned it. So what gives?

Your description of DeMille's so called "stages of child development" is simply not correct. You are arguing that DeMille's stages are ridged categorizations of what a person will do at specific ages. It is quite to the contrary. At a seminar I attended, DeMille described (as he does in his book) that these age ranges are general and that each child is different and that these stages can come at any time. DeMille's own son couldn't read until I believe it was age 11 or 12. He was way out of this range that you think is so ridged. DeMille didn't push the matter because he was waiting for his son to enter the next stage and come to him only when he wanted to learn how to read. Extreme to the contrary of your argument, don't you think?

R.C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It seems likely that Beck simply made the mistake of thinking that 1700's = 17th century. Awesome.

Anonymous said...

R.C., you are demonstrating your ignorance about DeMille when you attribute to him a "rigid" approach to the stages of child development. I have 8 children, all of whom have been home schooled. I have a B.A. in music and a J.D., both from accredited schools. I have heard DeMille speak on the issue of education and child development. His views appear to me to be correct and in line with my experience as a student and a father. You have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read his books, then attack his views, if you can. Until then, you are just making yourself look silly.

The Real George Wythe said...

Anonymous from June 3, 2009 6:50 AM -

A better forum for discussing DeMille's view of child development can be found at http://whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com
in the section "Reason #3: The Learning Phases are from Modern Child Development Theory"

R.C. said...

Tell me oh wise Juris Doctor what He means when He (the Master Mentor, AKA Oliver DeMille) says that the following ages are related to the following stages of development (straight from his book):

0-8 Core
8-12 Love of Learning
12-16 Scholar
16-22 Depth

Since you have a B.A. in Music, you know that Mozart was composing music performmed in the courts of austria-hungarian empire as a child. What stage of development was Mozart? Was he in his core phase?

What about Joseph Smith, was he a scholar when he saw God?

Am I still making a fool of myself?

My child is a smart 3 year old. Could she go to the scholar seminars since she is a scholar?

Tell me oh wise Juris Doctor which current research on child development Oliver DeMille cites? Why, oh wise one, is it important to cite current research? If it isn't please tell me why!

I have read the free portion of DeMille's goofy book. I would not waste my time or money on that pathetic garbage.

R.C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R.C. said...

Correction, Mozart didn't perform in the courts of the austria-hungary. That empire didn't exist.

Andrew said...

Dude, who cares about those facts?? not like it really matters in the big picture anyway. George Wythe University isn't seeking to destroy-only seeking to create new leaders. What's so wrong with that, that would make it bad for Glenn to contribute?

I mean, come on!

R.C. said...

Andrew - Your post is a little off topic here, but I will respond anyway. Nobody said that the school is trying to destroy anything. It is Glenn Beck's choice to donate $25K to GWU. I have no problems with that.

My problems are the following:

1) the administration at the school actively promotes their programs on the internet and in public, yet they are not accredited. Therefore, anyone who attends the school before accreditation will not have an accredited degree, which is vital in this economy. Moreover, anyone who gets a graduate degree from there will never have an accredited degree - the AALE does not give accreditation to graduate programs.

2) the ideology at GWU is far right wing (if you don't believe me, just listen to the GWU hour podcasts on the GWU website). Unfortunately, many professors at other schools are far left wing. I dislike any extreme ideology in the college classroom. I think it distorts reality and filters accurate information.

3) it is deceptive to use "Dr." before one's name when the person using that title holds an unaccredited degree. Few faculty at GWU have accredited doctoral degrees. I find that problematic because when somebody uses "Dr." or attaches "PhD" after their name, it lends credibility to ones arguments. Otherwise, people wouldn't do that. When the newspaper goes out to interview an expert on something, they go for somebody who has credible titles. No doubt that is not a 100% accurate method of finding experts, but like I said, having a real PhD gives credibility, and notability I may add. It is completely dishonest to pretend to be something that one is not. Sorry, studying with a mentor for a year is not the same as obtaining a PhD in an accredited political science or education program. To learn political science, one must study not only constitutions and founding documents, but also research methods, statistics, political theory, and more. In addition, most political science PhDs have to pass foreign language proficiency in more than 1 language. After all of that, they must go before a committee of about 5 members to propose and defend a dissertation.

I could say more, but I haven't any time for that!

James F. said...

R.C. Your post is a little off topic, but I guess I'll respond too. ;)

So here are my problems with your problems:
Once again, it is well known that GWU isn't accredited. The students know that. Potential students can see on the GWU website that their programs are not accredited. So if a student knowing that the school isn't accredited chooses to go anyway, why is that a problem?

Should we really require a rubber stamp on everything before we allow anyone to choose to participate?

Here is a fun little case study:
Education is important--but so is religion. How about we have an accreditation process for churches too? You know there are some bad ones out there, accreditation could weed these out. We could make sure that the Sunday School manuals have been thoroughly vetted by Christian scholars (you know the ones that have degrees from accredited universities) before allowing a particular church to use them. In fact in my church we have Sunday School teachers that have no special background that necessarily qualifies them to teach such an important subject. Yet we blindly accept them as our teachers and accept lesson manuals as our curriculum.

My church also grants titles such as "Bishop", and "President". Having titles like this lends credibility--but none of them have necessarily received any additional doctrinal education to merit such a title. And yet without fail, the opinions of people with these titles gives their words more credibility during our non-accredited Sunday School lessons.

This really should all be changed. And an accreditation process for Churches would be a good first step. "Degrees" could be created and we could ensure that so called "Bishops" and "Presidents" actually had gone through a standardized program ensuring their doctrinal and leadership knowledge. We could ensure that all churches used only approved curriculum. Curriculum that accredited University scholars had compiled--otherwise we might not really be getting the truth.


So, does this sound like a good idea? Should we have an accreditation process for religion? If not, why? Why not for religion, but yes to education? Is education more important? Is it less subjective than religion? Is it less of a personal choice than religion?

R.C. said...

James F.,

"So if a student knowing that the school isn't accredited chooses to go anyway, why is that a problem?"

Do you have any problem with a person promoting a drug that has not been approved by the FDA? Why can't I just make a wonder drug in my house and sell it to everyone - I could even make up a fake Dr. as my title and claim that I researched the drug. In the end, if the drug does damage, who cares? I may lose some business. The people that took the drug knew it wasn't approved by the FDA. That's their problem that they died. They knew my degree was phony. They could read it on wikipedia.

"Education is important--but so is religion. How about we have an accreditation process for churches too?"

No! Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. Separation of church and state is a principle of democracy. In some ways various fundamentalist christians have accreditation for their churches and their pastors have accredited degrees and certificates.

""Degrees" could be created and we could ensure that so called "Bishops" and "Presidents" actually had gone through a standardized program ensuring their doctrinal and leadership knowledge. We could ensure that all churches used only approved curriculum."

Assuming that you are LDS like me, this is an easy one. Bishops are given a certificate so they can perform weddings and other ministries. The church "handbook of instructions" ensures that everyone is on the same page with procedures and some doctrines within the church. Church leadership go to satellite broadcasts and meetings with general authorities to ensure that the message is the same. Within the church the curriculum is the same for relief society and priesthood. All young men and women have the little values pamphlet. So in a way, within the church things are regulated and accredited. Why else would the church weed out apostates? On what basis could somebody be an apostate?

"So, does this sound like a good idea? Should we have an accreditation process for religion? If not, why?"

Religion is different than commerce (until they have DOE accreditation, GWU is a business).

If acreditation is not important for GWU, then why are they spending thousands of dollars trying to get it?

There is an obvious weakness with my argument regarding people attending accredited schools: personally, I don't care where people go. I just dislike shameless promotion of a school and use of important titles. If Oliver DeMille, Andrew Groft, and Shanon Brooks didn't use "Dr." as their title, I probably wouldn't care as much. However, in the world of education, credentials are very important. My education license has all of my degrees listed on it. Every time I write up a behavior consultation report I have to put my credentials on there. Many of the journals where I submit my work require my credentials be disclosed. This is all part of my APA ethics.

None of this would even be an issue with other people had it not been for Oliver DeMille's numerous questionable degrees. Why else would he have to reply on his TJED forum and explain his degrees to people?

Let me ask you some questions so I can understand where you are coming from:

1) Does an accredited PhD mean anything to you?

2) What is the difference between a PhD and an MD? If you had a medical crisis, would you want your doctor to have an accredited degree? How is a person's education any different?

3) Is accreditation important for universities? Why or why not?

James F. said...

Do I have a problem with a person promoting a drug that hasn't been approved by the FDA? No, I actually don't have a problem with that. The FDA itself has a terrible track record. Why we let the government monopolize such an important watchdog organization is beyond me. Just take a look at a book like Death By Prescription to get an idea of just a few of the problems within the FDA and the way they regulate the industries that fall within their jurisdiction. (It's even written by someone with a real "M.D" behind his name, so it must all be true.)

Someone may face adverse and even detrimental effects in taking a drug that hasn't or even has been approved by the FDA. The FDA offers no real guarantee and even if an approved drug ends up hurting thousands of people, the FDA will never get hit as a result. They won't get fired, they won't be put out of business. We've given them a monopoly and most people will continue to trust "FDA Approved" until the day they die--perhaps even as a result of approved medication.

"Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution. Separation of church and state is a principle of democracy." But apparently freedom of education isn't guaranteed by the constitution? What is the difference? With the constitution as our guide, we are allowed freedom of religion, but the way we choose to educate ourselves and our children gets to be dictated by the government partnered with elite accreditation organizations? And that power is delegated where in the constitution?

1) Does an accredited PhD mean anything to you?
Yes, but standing all alone it doesn't mean much. The PhD means that they went through a standardized system, were tested on their knowledge and completed the program according to guidelines approved by an accreditation organization. When you really think about it, that doesn't necessarily guarantee much.

2) What is the difference between a PhD and an MD? If you had a medical crisis, would you want your doctor to have an accredited degree? How is a person's education any different?

I of course would want my doctor to have real authentic knowledge and experience. However depending on what ailed me, I would also seriously consider alternative medicine administered by someone without an accredited degree that nonetheless still had authentic knowledge and experience. I would be influenced by the recommendations of others that had perhaps suffered the same malady, and by my own personal feelings and inspiration.

3) Is accreditation important for universities? Why or why not?
In a world full of fraud and various scams, of course a system of determining authenticity is important. Accreditation is one such system in which most people place their trust. However accreditation is a fairly new system. It used to be based almost entirely on a University's reputation. That isn't a bad system either.

Accreditation would undoubtably help GWU move forward more quickly, and I think that is why they are seeking it. However they don't depend on it. They have a growing reputation among like minded individuals that see the value in what they provide. When people trust GWU, they also trust the system within GWU. They trust that Dr. DeMille, Dr. Brooks, and Dr. Groft have really earned that title whether it is recognized by an accreditation organization or not.

R.C. said...

James:
Thanks for your honesty.

Here are some responses:

"Do I have a problem with a person promoting a drug that hasn't been approved by the FDA? No, I actually don't have a problem with that."

Apparently we won't agree on this. I trust rigorous research-based medicine. Has it always been correct? No. But neither have the natural medicine folks.

"It's even written by someone with a real "M.D" behind his name, so it must all be true"

C'mon, if you are implying that I said that a degree makes one infallible, then you should read my other posts! You can do better than that!

"But apparently freedom of education isn't guaranteed by the constitution? What is the difference?"

The difference is that religion is guaranteed in the constitution, but education is handled by individual states (at least is should be handled by the states, but that is even going by the wayside).

"With the constitution as our guide, we are allowed freedom of religion, but the way we choose to educate ourselves and our children gets to be dictated by the government partnered with elite accreditation organizations? And that power is delegated where in the constitution?"

I never said it was. There is a huge difference though (see comments above).

"The PhD means that they went through a standardized system, were tested on their knowledge and completed the program according to guidelines approved by an accreditation organization. When you really think about it, that doesn't necessarily guarantee much. "

That is totally incorrect. I don't know of a PhD that is "standardized" to the degree that you assume. For example, every PhD requires coursework outside of the department or area of focus. In addition, and most importantly, a PhD requires a dissertation that is based on original research. Go to your local PhD granting university and browse the library for dissertations from a single department. You will see many different, non-standardized topics. For example, I have a friend in an APA accredited program (Clinical Psychology). Sure he has to take the standard APA required courses so that he can demonstrate proficiency in ethics, law, therapy, research, etc. but he also has had to take a bunch of courses outside of these. I understand that J.D. and M.D. programs are totally different.

"In a world full of fraud and various scams, of course a system of determining authenticity is important....It used to be based almost entirely on a University's reputation. "

What is GWU's reputation? If we are to go on that totally alone, what is their reputation? Have they actually produced a statesman? Who are their graduates? The only information we have comes from their newsletters that feature the successful graduates only. We have no data regarding the whereabouts of their other graduates. Look at any reputable graduate program: they are totally honest about their numbers. We know which sectors of the economy their graduates work. When we know this information from GWU, then we can talk reputation. Is that fair?

While they are at it, could the PLEASE provide titles and abstracts of dissertations and theses?

Anonymous said...

I am a huge supporter of GWU and I just want to thank you for this blog. Right now I am building a K-12 school and I have found it difficult to find unguarded and detailed critisizm to aid my learning curve and to speed up the growth process. I can't believe the time and research that you have donated to George Wythe University as a valuable advisor, doing painstaking research to coach their efforts, so they can improve. Usually you have to pay or beg someone to invest what you have in the project. (Though a similar critique of your own work would be helpful, so we could judge if you are a worthy critic.)

Who knows, when all is said and done, this may be your biggest contribution to humanity.

The Real George Wythe said...

Anon at 9:49 AM -

My little finger contributes more to humanity than this blog. Thanks for another example of the bitter sarcasm coming from most of the GWU supporters I encounter. Classy.

Here's some advice for your K-12 school: Dump DeMille's writings for the garbage it is and build your foundation on a rock, so to speak.

James F. said...

"Here's some advice for your K-12 school: Dump DeMille's writings for the garbage it is and build your foundation on a rock, so to speak."

Hehehee, and you called them bitter.

marry said...

Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
_____________________________

Dissertation Samples

Rachel said...

I stumbled upon your blog when I was searching for some information on GWU. I am very saddened by your vicious personal attacks on Dr. DeMille and the university he has worked to establish. The fact the the university is not accredited is no secret to those who attend there. I took a distance learning class there, and I enjoyed it tremendously. The mentor and the other students were very well educated and interesting people. I have a bachelor's from BYU, and I can honestly say none of my classes there worked as much on my heart and mind as my one class at GWU did.

I suppose you will want to attack me too for being such a simpleton. That is fine. But perhaps you could lay off Oliver and the others associated with GWU. Our country has plenty of accredited, state run institutions of higher learning that people can attend if that is what they choose. How about giving a break to a fledgling little private university that is trying to do things a little differently?

If you are really looking out for the interests of innocent people who might unknowingly blow all their college money at GWU, I think you have said enough to convince them to think twice about it. Your rants seem hateful and in violation of your own blog rules not to say anything that could be construed as being defamatory. I sincerely ask you to stop this tirade. You are hurting people who have a sincere desire to further the cause of liberty, at a time when our country so desperately needs people who understand the principles upon which that liberty depends.

The Real George Wythe said...

Rachel,

Please name one personal attack I have made against Mr. DeMille.

Regards,

TRGW

James F. said...

Name one personal attack? RGW, you really don't think that you have made any personal attacks at DeMille?

Sheeesh, if you don't think you've personally attacked DeMille, I'd hate to see what a personal attack from you does look like.

The Real George Wythe said...

Name one.

Rachel said...

RGW, I looked back through your blog for specific examples of what I was referring to as vicious personal attacks on OD. I was surprised to see that your in your subtlety you did manage to avoid direct personal attacks on OD. However, the whole tone of your blog, and the (negative) attention you give to all things GWU to me implies that you would love to see GWU go under so you could say "I told you so". (I can't imagine why you would want that, but that is what I gather from reading your blog.)

Although the school and its directors may have made some mistakes and even some misrepresentations of the facts, I don't think that is a reason for you to devote an entire blog to discrediting them and seeking to speed their demise. You really have said enough to make your case against the school, and the ideas of OD.

Maybe now you could put your considerable intelligence into building up something good instead of tearing down something good.

If GWU does go under, then perhaps your relatives college years and college fund will truly be a waste as you already seem to think they are. By the way, does your relative agree with your assessment that he/she wasted his or her money there? Shouldn't that be the concern of those that choose to attend there?

By the way, from what I understand OD is very ill, and I'm sure that having you constantly calling him out on your your blog, is not doing much to relieve his stress level. Please show some mercy and move on to something else.

Gregory said...

Before I begin, I'd like to introduce myself. I am the very politically, religiously, artistically, and emotionally passionate son of Rachel. I am 17 years old, I drive a minivan, and aspire to be a seminary teacher. And last, but certainly not least, I am disgusted with creator of this blog.

I will not waste time attacking specific details and trying to fight facts with facts. Because in my mind, facts are not what is important here. It is the principles of the matter that disgust me.

You, Mr. RGW, are one of millions of victims of the academic plague. You are a lawyer. Therefore, one would gather that you did exceptionally well in school. The "accredited" system has smiled upon you time after time and awarded you for your abilities and gotten you to a place in Life that you are very happy with, one would think. However. That system has done you a great disservice in leading you to believe that their way is the best way and the correct way and that anything that they do not approve is wrong, bears no relevance or significance, is not worthwhile, and you should not waste your time with such things if you wish to be successful. THAT is blatant foolishness. As is everything pertaining to the public education system, in any form. Accreditation is a closed-minded statute that quite honestly ought to be abolished. Who gave them the power to say that one school is better than another? The Government? Well in case you haven't been paying attention, that government is completely full of communists and crackheads. So basically what I'm trying to say is that your accredited degree, doesn't mean crap. All the accredited schooling in the world will not teach you what really matters in Life. Being smart means nothing if you are not wise. Which you are most certainly not, if you can not find anything better to do with the Life God gave you than tear down an innocent man who has created an establishment devoted to true education and understanding. He sees the joke that the Government's schools are and has offered a beautiful alternative, which I believe the REAL George Wyth would be proud of and probably attend himself. All in all, what you have demonstrated by creating this blog is nothing more than that you are an expert at wasting your Life and destroying the good work of others with your God given talent to speak, write, and research well.. I do think I am justified in saying that the REAL George Wyth would be ashamed of you, as would anyone with a moral center and a realistic perspective on Life.

RGW, you are silly, foolish, and wasting your time. I am a peaceful and compassionate person and have not ever had the desire to spitefully hurt another person in any way, but you have crossed a line that you should not have and need to be put in your place. It would look better for me to put on a dignity and diplomacy mask and be kinder to you than you deserve, but some people (like yourself) just simply don't get it. I hope I have helped you to "get it" a little better, in some regard.

Sincerely,
Gregory Lawrence Benson

Gregory said...

Oh and I've just noticed that Comment Moderation is enabled. Nice. That makes you a coward, as well. And I noticed that you avoid addressing many contentions which prove you wrong. Wow.

Please do the world a favor and get over yourself.

Gregory said...

One last thing. Really.

If you're so talented with words, and have so many opinions about education, why don't you use those things to start your own university or write your own book? You won't gain anything from tearing GW down. Nothing. So stop wasting your time and start making the world a better place. Please. It has enough evil in it.

This applies loosely, but you should consider it nonetheless:

"Those who say something can't be done, should shut up and get out of the way of those who are doing it"

The Real George Wythe said...

Gregory,

You have demonstrated Key #7 beautifully -- attack the person, not the issue.

I'm not much older than you. As a 17-year-old, you have your whole life ahead of you.

This blog occupies a sliver of my time; if you knew the good I do from day to day both in my occupation and through volunteer service (church/community), you would be stunned.

I encourage you to look hard at the assumptions underlying your post, and question whether your worldview is accurate.

All the best,

TRGW

The Real George Wythe said...

Rachel,

I hope you're right that I have said enough about the school to cause potential students to think twice about attending.

I certainly have no problem with someone going there WITH THEIR EYES OPEN.

Thank you for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that I have not made any personal attacks against Mr. DeMille.

GWU was doomed to collapse under its own weight whether my blog existed or not. (The Monticello thing will, I believe, prove to be the organization's undoing.)

I don't think I've had any influence on the school failing; but if I have helped anyone question their motives for attending, then great.

Thank you for commenting!

TRGW

R.C. said...

If GWU fails, then it will not be due to an anonymous blogger like TRGW. Besides, if the information here is true, then there should be nothing to hide.

You know, people compare critics of GWU to anti-mormons. I used to deny that comparison on several grounds. However, anti-mormons haven't destroyed the LDS church. As far as I know it is one of the fastest growing religions in the USA (besides our incredible birth rate).

If GWU fails it will be due to poor decisions, in particular, attempting to expand too rapidly.

-They exanded to offer PhDs before they had an accredited program. Doing so invited the criticism that "life experience" allowed people to obtain the title "Dr." which many of the GWU graduates have abused (Ann Blake Tracy and others).

-Monticello was a bad decision. No airport, no convention center, no population, and too much money to purchase. It is unfortunate that GWU tried to open more campuses (campi, or whatever the plural is) when they didn't have a stable Cedar City base to begin with.

-Accreditation. Let that one speak for itself. It is funny how GWU devotees like Gregory talk about how meaningless accreditation is, yet GWU has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the effort to become accredited. I want you to ask yourself, if accreditation is not important, then why would GWU want it?

The question I have now is GWU even salvageable? Time will tell.

The Real George Wythe said...

Gregory,

Comment moderation is enabled for posts older than 10 days. That helps me control spam. But I always approve comments that (1) aren't spam and (2) don't contain profanity or vile/disgusting language (we had a problem with this from a GWU supporter).

Thanks,

TRGW

Janet said...

Although I live in SLC, I first heard about GWU just yesterday. I spent an hour or so reading the online course information and then found my way to TRGW. What an entertaining blog!!! The discussion here clearly reveals that GWU is a religious institution, not an academic institution. If GWU wants to give out diplomas that's fine with me. It simply should be clear that it is a diploma in religion, not in statesmanship. Although I sympathize with those who are trying to reason with the true believers, the effort is futile. One does not reason when it comes to deeply held religious beliefs. Such beliefs are not subject to peer review, nor should they be. But as with many people with deeply held conviction, the GWU folks want to present their beliefs as uncontested reality. No wonder then that they butt heads with those who learn truth through the scientific method. Great entertainment, guys. And to TRGW, keep up the good work.

James F. said...

You had a vile/disgusting language problem from a GWU supporter? Don't end there RGW. You have an opportunity to blame all the spam on GWU supporters too.

The Real George Wythe said...

James -

You don't remember the guy I'm talking about? The one who seemed to be obsessed with (1) coffee, and (2) humming throughout his comments? You'll find the milder comments (which I did not delete) sprinkled throughout the blog. I deleted the ones I deemed too profane. This is a family blog after all.

TRGW

James F. said...

Yes, RGW I rememeber--but I do think it is a cheap shot to group him so liberally as a "GWU supporter". He was obviously a nut case and he never did explain what connection he had (if any) to GWU. He was mostly concerned about Skousen...and his coffee.

A good comparison, since this post is about Glenn Beck--is how Beck can talk about how much he disapproves of the Republican party today, and yet he continues to be labeled as a Republican hack by most reports. It is either Republican or Democrat--nothing in between. So either GWU supporter or not--nothing in between? Mr. Coffee dude never had much of anything to say about GWU. He was a nut. Label him as such. There are enough REAL supporters that say stupid things on here to make your case--you don't need to group the crazies too.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for an entertaining evening. I stumbled upon your site after reading about GWU, after reading about Mr Glenn Kimber.

That because the sister of a friend of my wife's INSISTS that Mr Kimber's "school" is the Best Thing Ever (oh and Public Schools are Satan's Plan. The General Authorities of the LDS church have said so.)

So I wondered who would pay for classes from such an organization as GWU, but the comments from the pro-GWU people have solved that one for me.

Thanks again!
Will D