posted 08-28-2006 04:45 PM            

To me, "bona fide" in this question means accredited; and as best I can determine this could mean a degree from an institution recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. The institution must meet certain standards to receive accreditation. As we know, as in many other fields, not all aspire to or meet the higher standards required for accreditation.

What is the answer, if anyone knows? Was the PhD received from an accredited institution?

END.....

posted 08-28-2006 07:34 PM            

Neither he nor Jim Matte has a PhD from an institution that is accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the US Department of Education or the CHEA, either of which is necessary (with few exceptions) to make their degrees "bona fide" in the eyes of US academia. In some states such "degrees" are illegal.

The organization Jim graduated from was "approved" by the State of California, but was later forced to shut down. Such approval was never equal to accredited schools. Because the State "approved" the degrees, they had to later accept them. Other states (e.g., Oregon) saw through the political dilemma, and call the degrees substandard (and therefore, illegal).

We all picked on Humble(?) (the CVSA guy with the non-accredited doctorate), so we have to ask ourselves if we have a double standard.

posted 08-29-2006 09:21 AM            

Academic snobbery can lead people to take shortcuts to attach a few letters behind their names for the purpose of getting people to listen to what they have to share. When people take these shortcuts, some are doing it to commit fraud, some are doing it in an ill conceved attempt to achieve the acceptance in their field, that absent academic snobbery, would be theirs by virtue of their contributions.

Either way when they are caught, the profession they represent suffers damage.

One big misconception is that the letters "Dr." or "PHD" somehow separate the genius from the fool. I suspect this common misconception is promoted more by educated idiots than under-educated geniuses.

The truly sad thing about this whole issue regarding Ed Gelb and James Matte is that the issue over the legitimacy of their degrees tends to overshadow their contributions to polygraph.

I don't know Ed Gelb. I don't think his TV show is doing us any good, but people I respect, respect him. Until I reach my own conclusion, that's good enough. In these recent claims, no one questions his knowledge, ability, or contributions, just his degree.

I met James Matte once, more importantly, I've read his book. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I have no doubt in my mind he is a very intelligent person who has made a significant contribution to polygraph. In that context,I DON'T CARE what letters he attaches to his name.

This rant is concluded, but I reserve the right to revise and extend my comments.

posted 08-29-2006 10:58 AM            

The problem is, such tactics work. When you don't have a case, try the police. Why? Just ask OJ.

posted 08-29-2006 02:35 PM            

With my posting, I was trying to illuminate my opinion that academia fosters this type of behavior by placing too much emphasis on the degree and too little emphasis on knowledge and ability. I called it academic snobbery.

To a some extent, and I have pointed this out before, APA plays this game by their position on membership applications. A polygraph examiner wishing to join APA who has 20 years experience and hundreds of hours of continuing education is treated differently than an examiner recently out of Polygraph school who has completed the bare minimum number of examinations who holds a batchelors degree in graphic arts.

The more experienced, better trained, examiner must accept associate membership or face further testing and the expense of attending a national conference. The newly trained examiner with 200 examinations under his belt and no continuing education is welcomed with open arms as a full member.

If an associate member obtains a BA or BS in landscaping or basket weaving, the APA will then "Miracle" him to full member with out any of the testing they would formerly require for the upgrade.

I have never read any commentary that even tries to explain why a person who has a BA or BS in an unrelated field is a better candidate for full membership than someone with significantly more field related training and experience.

This begs the question. Why do we care where, how, or from whom a degree is obtained if it doesn't matter what they learned?

posted 08-29-2006 02:46 PM            

Is there any entity other than APA that determines the difference? Regarding a polygraph school (only), are we simply dealing with semantics when it is reported a polygraph school is "approved" or "accredited?"

What is the general opinion of an examiner that did not attend any school, or an examiner that attended a school (that may be out there) not "approved" or "accredited?"

posted 08-29-2006 03:15 PM            

The APA "accredits" schools. The AAPP "approves" schools. Since the APA is not recognized by the US Dept. of Ed., such accreditation is not at all meaningful (in the academic world). It is a term we shouldn't be using. It's much like using the term "control" when we mean "comparison" in regard to question types. The word "control" has meaning to the relevant scientific community, but we poured a foreign meaning into it. We've done the same with the word "accredited."

The only legit accreditors in the US are those recognized by the US DoEd or the CHEA (most accreditors are approved by both). DoDPI is accredited by one such organization. HACC is too. I think there were some others out there that could boast "accreditation," but I'm not sure off the top of my head.

The credits one earns at DoDPI can be transferred to any institution willing to accept them because they are regionally accredited - the APA accreditation does nothing in the academic world - where the term "accredited" has a real and important meaning. For example, the credits I earned at HACC I transferred into another (regionally accredited) college. They transferred because HACC is regionally accredited (and my school was willing to accept them). You won't be able to transfer credits (you don't earn any, I realize) from a non-accredited school(and APA "accreditation" doesn't count).

posted 08-30-2006 09:54 AM            

You asked "How many examiner reports have you read in which you wondered if the guy made it past sixth grade spelling and grammar?
In response, all I can say is that I have read some poorly written reports from High School, baccalaureate, as well as masters level graduates that read like Jethro Bodine’s Diary.

I have also read some impressive reports by under-educated types. It is beyond my comprehension that any polygraph school would graduate a student who could not write a clear, accurate and concise report. Very few college programs require the completion of a technical writing course.

If APA is looking for well-rounded and intelligent folk, they should test the college grads as well. If diplomas conferred intelligence and literacy a'la Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz it would be one thing, but they don't. They don't measure intelligence, ability, or capability. If they did a B.A from an accredited Podunk University would carry the same weight as a B.A. from M.I.T.

Your average run of the mill street cop with 5 years under his belt has a greater understanding of applied psychology than your run of the mill grad student who has never had do deal with people under stress. Not only that, he can do an accurate assessment in under 30 seconds at a rolling stones concert, rather than 3, 45 minute sessions in a controlled environment. Granted the goals are different.

Where the APA is concerned, my perception is that anyone who doesn't have a college degree has to prove their worthiness for full membership while someone who has a degree is automatically presumed worthy regardless of intelligence, ability, or capability.

On a more personal level, If the APA full membership is brimming with well-rounded, learned, degreed individuals with intelligence and ability, why haven't they graded the PCSOT approval exam that I took in March of this year? NOTE: ( This is not a request for assistance, Don K is looking into this for me.)

Finally, if you are correct in your assumption that the reason that people with degrees are treated differently is because "a degree from a legit school - whatever the major - requires a certain amount of credits (about 60 -90) in general education courses, courses which make a person "better rounded" regardless of his major. Then why does the process for an associate member to achieve full membership status only include the demonstration of academic and practical knowledge of polygraph detection of deception procedures followed by a few other issues and training that only relate to Polygraph and APA.

My suspicion is that when the membership portion of the by-laws was initially constructed someone with a personal agendaintentionally created an unnecessary division in the membership for the purpose of excluding someone else from holding office. Functionally the only difference between a full member and an associate member is their ability to hold office but the associate member has to wear the "Scarlet Letter" on all of his business cards and advertising.

It makes so much more sense to say that in order to uphold the professional image of the association, full members desiring to hold office must possess a degree from an accredited university. Full members who do not possess a degree may not hold office.
Or even more sense to allow the voting members to determine the qualifications of their officers by casting their votes.

Come on! You don't have to have a college degree to be President of the United States.

posted 08-30-2006 02:11 PM            

Lets not forget that a polygraph school is a business; a businesses is there to make a profit; if you fail students, you could hurt your business. You see where I'm headed with this? If police department X sends all of their polygraph students to polygraph school Y, and polygraph school Y fails one-fourth of those students sent to the school by police department X, it's not going to take very long before police department X starts sending their polygraph students to polygraph school Z. Furthermore, polygraph school Y's word-of-mouth business has been severely damaged. It's not going to be long before polygraph school Y has a going out of business sale on Lafayette polygraph equipment and accessories.

A person with an advanced degree generally possesses the necessary tangibles and intangibles to adequately represent any organization or profession. (Notice I said generally.)

I too have met intelligent people, who didn't have a high school education. Remember, we are talking about averages here.

A profession without standards really isn't a profession - is it?

posted 08-30-2006 04:12 PM            

Are you also taking the position that a person WITHOUT an advanced degree generally DOES NOT possess the necessary tangibles and intangibles to adequately represent any organization or profession? (Notice I said generally.)

If you are, I take issue with your assumption. If you aren't I question your conclusion.

You also said "You've met them; I've met them; we've all met them; and then asked the same question, "How did he/she graduate from polygraph school?" Maybe this could be said for every profession. I know I've had contact with lawyers, and scratched by head later, wondering how exactly they passed the bar." The same thing could be said about many college graduates. What bugs me is that APA makes a broad assumption that college graduates are somehow automatically more worthy that those without degrees, without providing any reason or logic for that assumption.

OK Polygraph is a business.

The American Polygraph Association provides accreditation for polygraph schools. It maintains a standing committee called the Educational Accreditation Committee and charges them with the authority and responsibility to establish and promulgate criteria for evaluation and accreditation of programs and institutions engaged in any course of study within any private, public, or federal educational or training institution which purports to offer instruction in, or the teaching of, the theory or practice of detecting deception or verifying truth of statements through the use of any polygraph techniques or instrumentation, but doesn't publish the standards for accreditation.

If these schools are graduating students that are not suitable to adequately represent APA's organization, ethics,standards and and values, to the point that APA could feel comfortable awarding a graduate full membership based on graduation from an accredited school,why are they still accredited?

posted 08-30-2006 06:40 PM            

I think you didn't understand what I was referring to. First, I didn't ever know that the APA would not grant full membership to anyone without a advanced degree, but if you must allow individuals into a professional organization, what other than education can the organization rely? If you have an advanced degree, you obviously have something on the ball, or you wouldn't have the diploma.
Full membership does not mean anything to me. A member is a member. Period. Maybe for those in private practice, this has some meaning. I'm not sure.

If it offends some of the members, maybe APA should completely do away the status of its members.

posted 08-30-2006 07:42 PM            

What I did convey is that in order for some one who does not hold a degree to obtain full member status they must jump through some hoops to prove to APA that they are worthy. These hoops involve additional polygraph training and testing before the membership committee. They do not require that a member with a B.A. or B.S. in ANY field EVER I repeat EVER take so much as 5 minutes of continuing education for the remainder of their term of membership, be it 1 year or 50 years. In an exaggerated example:This means that if you graduated from Backster in 1970, stopped practicing in 1975 and completed your B.A. in 2000, there is nothing in the by laws to prevent you from becoming a full member in 2004 and running for association president in 2005 35 years after your last polygraph class and 30 years after you ran your last test on a 3 pin instrument.

That's pretty silly. What is even sillier is that someone who graduated from Backster in 2000,working for a law enforcement agency running 200 tests a year and receiving 24 hours of continuing education each year who doesn't have a B.A. or B.S. has to prove he is worthy of full membership by additional attendance training and examination when the fellow used as the first example does not.

I couldn't agree more with your statement that "If your not a competent examiner, you should not be in the profession" lets look at solutions to that problem.

#1 Do away with associate memberships and allow anyone who graduates from an accredited polygraph school to be a full member. If the association wishes to require additional polygraph education as a condition of membership, make it apply equally to all. If a degree means that one has something on the ball then it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think it's fair for one guy to get to run around a wall that the other guy has to climb.

#2 Tighten up and publish the accreditation standards to insure that the schools are capable of both graduating competent examiners and weeding out incompetent examiners. Then inspect the schools on a perioding basis and have the courage to suspend or revoke accreditation to preserve professional standards.

posted 08-31-2006 07:03 AM            

APA doesn't require a membership examination covering polygraph competency OR continuing education Or attendance at a seminar if, in addition to polygraph school, you have a bachelors degree in flower arrangement or anything else from an accredited university.

That's the issue. By virtue of it's by-laws, the organization presumes a level of polygraph competency based on something unrelated to polygraph and that amounts to a tacit presumption of polygraph incompetency based on something unrelated to polygraph.

Either test everyone for membership or accept everyone who graduates from an accredited school as full members. If accredited schools can't weed out folks who shouldn't be polygraph examiners, pull their accreditation.

posted 08-31-2006 07:18 AM            

5.1.1.1 Graduated from an APA Accredited School.

5.1.1.2 Completed not less than two hundred (200) actual polygraph examinations using a standardized polygraph technique as taught at an APA Accredited School and hold a current and valid license to practice polygraphy issued by any state or federal agency requiring such license.

5.1.1.3 Received a Baccalaureate degree from a college or university accredited by a regional accreditation board.

posted 08-31-2006 11:01 AM            

HOWEVER if he completes a bachelors degree from an accredited university, and then applies for upgrade, APA no longer cares how long he has been a member, whether or not he has received any additional training, can demonstrate competency or can afford to attend a seminar, he can be automatically upgraded to full member. It just doesn't seem fair.

I don't have a problem with APA trying to insure that they allow only competent well-trained examiners to be full members of their association. What I do have a problem with is the presumption that any college degree automatically vests the holder with competency in a highly specialized field which is unrelated to the course of study that led to the degree. (Your state doesn't do that, see below) In my opinion APA rules do exactly that and I think they should be changed. My comments here are designed to generate discussion and become an instrument of that change.
I think we have several options
Since the term associate member only functions as a bar to holding office..
1. Do away with the term associate member and require a competency exam for everyone.
2. Do away with the term associate member and delete the college degree requirement for full membership. Thereby expressing faith in their accreditated schools ability to graduate only those persons suitable for membership. Hey how about conferring membership in APA as a bonus for graduating from an accredited school and building the cost into the training fee.
3. Do away with the term associate member and deny any form of membership to anyone without a degree.
4. Do away with the term associate member and further amend the bylaws to prohibit someone without a degree from holding office. (This maintains the satus quo without the stigma that comes with the term associate)

4. Do nothing

APA, in its mission statement, professes the goal of "Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association" My belief is that the procedure by which they seek to attain that goal puts them in conflict with the first goal in their mission statement: "Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and FAIRNESS (emphasis added) to ALL persons

The State of Michigan requires that the academic degree submitted in support of a polygraph license application to include specialized study in 1 academic major, or 2 academic minor areas that their licensing entity determines to be suitable for and related to specialization as an examiner.

By the way, Michigan law also provides eligibility for a polygraph license for someone who has a high school diploma or its equivalent from an accredited high school and at least 5 years of continuous investigative experience with a recognized governmental law enforcement or governmental investigative agency. Other than this little fork in the road the licensing requirements are the same. It is fair to assume that investigative experience is treated the same and therefore has similar value as a college degree by not only Michigan, but by the majority of states that have licensing statutes. It is the same way in my state, but evidently thats not good enough for APA.

I am willing to bet that persons who obtain polygraph licenses in Michigan without a college degree are not licensed as Associate Polygraph Examiners.

I have the feeling that this topic is getting ready to close. I want everyone to think about fairness and common sense and hopefully recognize the need for change. Go forward or go backward but don't just sit there.

ebv

posted 08-31-2006 12:00 PM            

Regarding the status of Associate and Full members, if the APA is perceived as being unfair, permit me to offer a solution. The members of the Board of Directors are empowered and expected to carry proposals from the membership to the Board for consideration. If anyone here has a better idea on the membership issue, or any issue for that matter, the Board would like to hear it. Please consider contacting someone on the Board with a formal proposal, and a written statement that articulates the rationale for the change. The Board member you contact is accountable to you to forward the proposal and rationale for discsussion. We have some good folks on the Board, and I'm confident that they will do the right thing. If you do not get satisfaction, my personal e-mail address is below.

Hope everyone here has volunteered for at least one APA committee. It's our chance to give back, and to shape the course of what the profession is to be.

posted 08-31-2006 01:15 PM            

BTW I haven't heard anything from the fellow you asked to look into that PCSOT issue I wrote you about.

Glad to see you still ahve time to see what's going on here on the board.

best regards

posted 08-31-2006 02:57 PM            

Part of what you posted about Michigan law is correct. However, the exemption for education was written in to provide means for a grandfather clause and, if you read more closely, is no longer applicable. The proceeding line indicates;

quote:

---

(d) Has either 1 of the following, subject to subsection (2):

---

Subsection (2) states;

quote:

---

(2) All applicants shall have received an academic degree, at least at the baccalaureate level, from an accredited college or university, with such academic degree to include specialized study in 1 academic major, or 2 academic minor areas that the department determines to be suitable for and related to specialization as an examiner.

---

Further more, the rules and regulations promulgated by the Forensic Board of Examiners, as prescribed in the law (considered as law), provides further definition and requirements for the education portion ;

quote:

---

R 338.9012 Academic areas of specialized study.

Rule 12. Not less than 15 semesters hours, or equivalent, in total or in
combination, of the academic areas of specialized study required under
section 10(d) of the act shall be in the social or behaviorial(sic) sciences.

---

It is one of the more stringent.