[IPAC-List] differential validity? Fake Degrees
dd1 at uakron.edu
Wed Mar 18 22:31:20 EDT 2009
And sometimes an education is not an education at all.
A couple of years ago there was a GAO report on the number of fake degrees
among high ranking executives in the federal government. I do not know if
any further reports were ever released or if there was any final reporting
Does anyone have any current information on the prevelance of fake degrees?
Anyway, for Mark, I was wondering if this was a problem in Canada as well
and if there was any data?
Dennis Doverspike, Ph.D., ABPP
Professor of Psychology
Director, Center for Organizational Research
Senior Fellow of the Institute for Life-Span Development and Gerontology
University of Akron
Akron, Ohio 44325-4301
330-972-5174 (Office Fax)
ddoverspike at uakron.edu
The information is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential, privileged and/or a work product for
the sole use of the intended recipient. No confidentiality or privilege is
waived or lost by any errant transmission. If you receive this message in
error, please destroy all copies of it and notify the sender. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. In the case of E-mail or electronic transmission, immediately
delete it and all copies of it from your system and notify the sender.
E-mail and fax transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses.
From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Hammer
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:38 PM
To: IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] differential validity?
I guess I didn't convey it right the first time.
1) An accomplishment
2) A qualification
3) A marker of socio-cognitive attributes
4) A marker of socio-historical factors (not quite as many folks in their
80's with Masters degrees even though they've had more time to get one than
5) A marker of cultural factors (compare post-secondary rates in Angola vs
6) A marker of access routes and all demographic and socio-economic factors
leafing to access
If it was ONLY a marker of socio-cognitive attributes (and I'm one of those
fools who thinks of intelligence as intrinsically social), and an
accomplishment, then there should be no differential validity. The trouble
is that education is all of those other things too, such that it CAN be
telling a very different story about identifiable group A vs B.
Case in point: Some 20 years ago, working on my doctoral research in adult
cognition, I sat back for a moment and realized that proper matching of my
senior/retiree group and college group for education would involve much more
than simply saying that the 20-30 year-olds had 18.3 yrs of education and
the 60-80 year-olds had 18.7 (or whatever it was). After all, just exactly
how many young women in the 1930's went to university and completed not one
but two degrees? Heck, how many folks in general went that far? So, I
figured I'd get some census data for the two birth cohorts, construct a
regression slope, and calculate how similar or different each age group was
from the other based on the residualized education scores. In other words,
how much closer to the *typical attainment* for their birth cohort was group
A than group B? If they both reflected their birth cohort equivalently,
then they were "matched" on education.
Unfortunately, the analysis never came to fruition. The data provided me by
Statistics Canada was simply not optimized for the analysis I wished to do
(you would think they could have anticipated my needs in 1906! Harumph!!).
Then there was the small matter of WWII during which data collection on men
was poor because they were often somewhere else, and immediately after which
the national average was altered by the huge influx of immigrants from
Europe. But then that's pretty much the exception that illustrates the
rule, isn't it? People *get* education and are *able* to get education for
different reasons. I'm pretty confident that educational attainment within
demographic group predicts the way you think it ought to, because of #3
above, but I am equally confident that the same attainment can easily mean
something different at time A or for group A than it does at time B or for
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
More information about the IPAC-List