Update Biographical and Educational Details
on Ms. Tammy Yard-McCracken
Credited VS Unaccredited Degrees, licensing, educational standards and the Case of Tammy Yard McCracken, a doctor by some standard but not others
Experts? More Questions about Tammy Yard-McCracken, self described violence dynamic expert
I ran into her at the Violence Dynamics seminar in Boston, watched her carefully, listened to a couple statements she made, and said "I doubt very much that this person is a legitimate PhD psychologist," dug into it, and discovered that her degree was non-accredited and from an on-line institute called the Eisner Institute and was unable to find PhD level licensure for her or other therapy licensure in the states where she lives. (It might exist. If someone can find it, please send it to me here.)
Why's it matter? Because she is using the credential "PhD Psychologist" to advertise herself (she is selling one course from The Great Courses people and appearing as an expert witness at police brutality trials (see this although from the article it is not clear that she said she had a PhD. Surely the matter is in the court minutes should someone really wish to check https://loudounnow.com/2016/11/17/jury-clears-loudoun-deputy-of-assaulting-prisoner/ )
So I posted about it because this strikes me as "rotten" and "deceptive" and a public danger.
And someone defended her,
So here's his statements (in Italics) and my response (in normal text). It's a bit wordy (on both our parts) but may be illuminating.
OK, we have a comment. A long comment, written in a
pseudo-academic style, vague on detail, absent of evidence, high on claims of
importance, and including abuse of logic and false equivalency and showing a
complete absence of understanding of not just academic standards but also the
reason why academic standards are considered important. And it
seems to come from Texas, an area of the country where Tammy Yard-McCracken,
the subject of the comment lived for years.
OK, let’s go through it line by line.
But first, if I must waste time on this person, let me also
plug my books [ https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Huston/e/B000APT3YY/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_5?qid=1539476834&sr=8-5 ] –I
have a new short story collection called “Put Your Favorite Picture Here”
coming out soon. I’d also like to plug one of my other blogs [ https://history-for-fun-profit-and-insight.blogspot.com/ ]. I’m quite proud
of it, by the way and would rather spend my time there instead of here.
So . . . going through line by line . . .
I ran across your
posts in random search.
Unlikely, I think someone sent you here on purpose. What
were you searching on when you saw this? This is an assertion with no evidence.
(you’ll see this a lot here today.)
Interestingly, I knew
T. McCracken professionally.
This is an assertion with no evidence. What profession?
A couple of points for
your readership to also consider.
OK
In the counseling
industry, the license is the most critical aspect of credentialing.
OK, I’ll accept that for the moment.
McCracken is
clinically licensed and has been (I believe) for several decades.
When?
Where?
What licenses?
Can you provide links please. (I did find a Texas state
license for a master’s level psychotherapy license but did not find others. I
have repeatedly asked if others have them please share.)
Slight exaggeration, poor choice of words.
The clinical degree
therefore must also be from an accredited university.
Yes, it is a master’s degree. Not the PhD.
New(er) degree
programs require years of matriculating students to become accredited which
creates an interesting conundrum in academia.
There are two claims in this sentence.
1.
New(er)
degree programs require years of matriculating students to become accredited
2.
which
creates an interesting conundrum in academia.
Interestingly I do not believe either of these is true at
all. And someone who works in academia
would know it.
Also notice how no evidence is provided for either
assertion. Yet it all sounds so reasonable to someone who knows nothing about
academia. Typical.
So let’s start with number one. Accreditation standards are
important. They vary. See here for more details. https://www.petersons.com/blog/understanding-accreditation-of-us-colleges-and-universities/
Number two is flat out ridiculous. Academics, by which I
mean college professors at legitimate schools, do not spend much time worrying
about unaccredited colleges. And if they do find one worthy of discussion, they
would begin by questioning its purpose and then looking at its instructors and
professors.
Many, many years ago I
served on an internal board with the university I had earned my M.Div. from
when they were undergoing their own accreditation process, approximately 10
years after I earned my degree (and having been in operation for many years
prior to my enrollment).
This is an assertion with no evidence.
Also note that he never says the school which offered his
M.Div (Masters of Divinity) I assume was accredited or not.
Please note that schools that offer ministers and other
religious degrees tend to often be unaccredited.
This makes the quality of such degrees highly variable.
A friend of mine (much to my chagrine) insists he has a PhD
in Germanic Theology despite there being no record of his unaccredited
university ever existing. He insists it did exist but the owners closed it down
to go backpacking in South America. I do believe (without evidence) that someone
did give him a document that says PhD but few would consider it a significant
credential.
A relative spent a year attending a one year fundamentalist
Christian Bible school and got his reverend degree (Ha! Getting mine took ten
minutes) but he also said lesson one, day one, was on the variability of
quality of such degrees and ministers’ credential in general. He said they
showed him ministry certificates and degrees that had been acquired in the name
of household pets.
FYI, I have a legal right to use the title “reverend”
whenever I wish having earned and acquired a reverend degree from the Universal
Life Church. Seriously. (I don’t use it however.)
So we have a message from a man who seems to be sitting on
the board of a school that is not accredited. I have noted elsewhere that Tammy
Yard-McCracken has taught at unaccredited universities (It is my belief that
her degree would not allow her teach at any legitimate, accredited university
as it is not accredited by any meaningful institution.)
BTW. “Masters of Divinity” from an unaccredited school. That
means put on your thinking cap and have a “woo woo” alert. Magical thinking
type stuff is starting to appear.
As I am also a
licensed clinical practitioner in the mental health field, I would wonder why a
clinically licensed professional with a degree from an accredited university in
the industry - for McCracken this would be the University of Houston as I
recall - would choose an unaccredited doctoral degree program.
This is an assertion with no evidence.
Also “licensed” is a vague term. Licensed by who? For what?
At what level?
Also McCracken’s master’s degree seems to be from the University
of Houston -Clear Lake located in east
Texas not far from where she used to live. (I actually have not verified this
but it seems believable and fits the picture I have of what is going on here.
Perhaps I should check it but there are only so many hours in the day.)
But the point is good. Why would she do this?
(Perhaps to advertise herself a a PhD when she is not able
or willing to get what most would consider a real PhD from an accredited
university? Perhaps so she can advertise herself as a “PhD” and put “Doctor” in
front of her name? Perhaps because this title, whether warranted and deserved
or not, will assist her in getting prestige, money, and power over others
through speaking engagements and appearing as an expert for the defense in
police brutality trials and such? Could be. That just might be a motive for
doing this. But go ask her if you know her so well. Someone should definitely ask
her.)
Incidentally, I had the opportunity to know
McCracken at the time she was pursuing the doctoral degree and have in my
memory - what her explanation was for that choice, at that time. In my
recollection, she was particularly interested in a course of study linking
mental health and physical health.
This is an assertion with no evidence. OK, I’ll believe she
said this but that does not make it either true nor the primary reason for her
selection of this on-line, unaccredited university that is high on “woo woo!”
(offering courses in “energy healing” and an entire graduate degree in
“parapsychology” -If this does not strike you as strange, go seek out an
accredited university that has a graduate program in parapsychology. You won’t
find one. Why? Because the field is nothing but “woo woo!” aka “Bulsh*t”)
What is now commonly
referred to as Mindbody Medicine championed by Jon Kabbat-Zin.
This is interesting. It’s a rhetorical technique that my
friend with the silly PhD uses all the time. Drop a name as if other people
should have heard of it, when it’s actually something the majority of the
population have never heard of. It makes the writer or speaker sound important,
lowers the confidence of the reader or listener, and distracts from the topic
at hand. No matter.
At the time, there were few programs offering
a course of study in that arena - limited options create limited choices.
This is an assertion with no evidence. Are you telling me
that there were “few programs” that offered qualified graduate students the
opportunity to do research on the connection between mind and body, on links
between psychological well being and mental and emotional health? I think
that’s easily disproven. (How to disprove this statement -Go to an academic
database, Insert key words for these topics, see who is being published on it
and where. You’ll soon get an accurate picture of what it happening. This
should very quickly get a good overview of who at legitimate universities is
doing research in this field.
It is; however, as I
noted an interesting conundrum. Do we, in academia, forbid new institutions for
higher education from entering the market place BECAUSE they are not
accredited?
This is an assertion with no evidence. In fact, it’s
provably false and remember it comes from someone who claims to be on the board
of an unaccredited university.
First, “new institutions” and “unaccredited institutions”
are not the same thing. Provably false.
Second, no one is “forbidding” either. They are just saying
an unaccredited degree is an unproven degree with no evidence of its quality.
Or perhaps the
industry might consider a type of provisional accreditation prior the
institution accepting it's first student.
Define “the industry” please? Do you mean the “accreditation
industry”? I am not an expert on these things but I imagine many or most new
colleges do exactly this. (also note a punctuation
error.)
But then, how would the accrediting boards
know whether or not the program would provide academic value?
This is not a rhetorical question. You can check this link
and do further research to get an answer to it. https://www.petersons.com/blog/understanding-accreditation-of-us-colleges-and-universities/
Again they probably look at the quality of the professors
and who the university, college, or school is affiliated with. I do not know
the answer but this is definitely not an unknowable, rhetorical question. Find a recently created university and research its history and you should get the answer.
Whilst we consider
these possibilities, I followed your request to research the doctoral program
in question.
Why consider these positions when one can go do research and
find the actual answers? But glad you looked into the "doctoral program" in question.
They are currently
under review for their master's degree (clinical) accreditation. This is a
particularly good indicator of the program's quality.
The idea that this is a “particularly good indicator” of a
program’s quality is an assertion with no evidence. In fact, I believe, it’s
just plain wrong. Applying for something does not show that one is qualified
for it.
I (honestly) once applied to get into Harvard. I was
rejected. What does this actually mean?
What it means is that I was rejected by Harvard.
I (honestly) once applied for a spot on the United States
Bobsled Team back in the 1980s. It was a lot of fun. One of my proudest
athletic accomplishments is that I did not embarrass myself that weekend at
Lake Placid. However, what does this actually mean? What does it actually show
about my abilities or talents?
Hard to say. What it means is that I did not get onto the
United States Bobsled Team after trying to do so.
OK, enough said, except for this.
Here we have a gentleman who is basically writing to argue
that unaccredited schools are not necessarily inferior to schools accredited by
respected accrediting bodies. I believe he is writing referring to his
experiences with a (then) unaccredited Bible college in Texas. Let me point this
out. Aside from the problems with logic and false equivalences in his comment,
as well as the factual errors, he never took the time to check the quality of Tammy
Yard-McCracken’s credentials and neither did anyone else seem to check them (or
at least consider them important ) in the professional and academic circles
where they worked together. Let me suggest that this is one of the big
differences between an accredited school and an unaccredited school. An
accredited school uses academics with legitimate credentials that they
(normally) have taken the time to verify and whose publishing history has been
examined carefully as well. (FYI, if Tammy Yard-McCracken’s PhD meets normal
academic standards her thesis is easily available for public review. Where is
it please BTW, if requested, I’ll send you a link to my Master’s dissertation.
I’m quite proud of it.)
I hope I’ve said enough.
Reply
Comments
Post a Comment