Program Review - Missouri State University

[Duneranger]

Most people live paycheck to paycheck in the US, so a $200 increase can be really impactful.

Most people will also never see a $300k+ salary let alone have $160k to drop on a degree.

Please dont use your personal anecdote to belittle others.

It's perfectly valid to criticize people complaining (including petty complaints about UMPI in general) and being ungrateful about an EXTREMELY cheap bachelor's degree that in the past would cost 10x more if done on campus or through traditional means online.

[NotJoeBiden]

I never said it wasnt valid to criticize people.

You can say what you want, and so can I. It is not my fault if that makes you look out of touch.

[Duneranger]

I never said it wasnt valid to criticize people.

You can say what you want, and so can I. It is not my fault if that makes you look out of touch.

I just don't function in a worldview of delusion. I am sorry but if 200 dollars in 2024 is a bridge too far for a 4-year college degree, then you really need to rethink where you screwed up in life (or why you function with a lifeline of entitlement and excuse making).

[NotJoeBiden]

Again, most people in the US live paycheck to paycheck, minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and the guy who won the presidency said he would lower the cost of eggs which currently cost $4/dozen.

Idk why you feel the need to belittle people who dont make enough money that they can easily fund education. It has very little to do with the actual purpose of this post.

[Jonathan Whatley]

I'm now studying Defense/National Security Policy at Missouri State instead.

What is it like there today? A 2011 blog post from "Militarist Monitor" describes the department as a den of Republican foreign policy hawks (as Republican hawks were at the time, Reagan-Bush era, pre-Trump).

[EliEverIsAHero]

I'm now studying Defense/National Security Policy at Missouri State instead.

What is it like there today? A 2011 blog post from "Militarist Monitor" describes the department as a den of Republican foreign policy hawks (as Republican hawks were at the time, Reagan-Bush era, pre-Trump).

While officials who've served in past GOP administrations are still well-represented in the faculty, most are aligned with a Defensive Realist school of thought. imo pacifist nonprofit orgs like Militarist Monitor have a way of distorting and misrepresenting International Relations Realism as warmongering. I know for myself I specifically chose the program for its Realist theoretical focus. 

I've also found there's plenty wide berth as a student to take a competing or dissenting stance in courses dealing with ethics or international organizations.

[FireMedic_Philosopher]

I'm now studying Defense/National Security Policy at Missouri State instead.

What is it like there today? A 2011 blog post from "Militarist Monitor" describes the department as a den of Republican foreign policy hawks (as Republican hawks were at the time, Reagan-Bush era, pre-Trump).

I just completed the graduate certificate with them and am looking to continue towards a doctorate. I personally think it is an amazing program. 

Now I can see where the blog opinion comes from, due to the simple fact that literally everyone teaching in the program is either a current or former DoE/USAF nuclear officer, a current or former state department staffer, or a current or former Professional Staffer from the UN or Capitol Hill. So without anyone teaching merely from a theory standpoint I can see an outsider confusing it for hawkish behavior. ... personally though, I was thrilled to have professors who are been there-done that professionals (as opposed to pure theory academics)

But I completely agree with Eli that the actual mindset is a realist point of view. These are all experienced folks with decades of knowing what works, what doesn't, and what is propaganda. Differing opinions are welcome,but require you to defend your stance with verifiable proof.

Like I said, a realist mindset. No obvious warmongers, but no obvious pacifists either. And no room for "theory" or anything that cannot be proven. Just cold hard results. As a first responder I understand that mindset and can respect it, to get through an otherwise mentally exhausting job. Pretty appropriate when talking about national defense... ymmv

[Imbanewbie]

So here's my experience with Liberty.

I was desperate to get into a Doctoral program in Public Policy after facing a number of rejections, so I applied to Liberty's Public Policy PhD (Chinese Affairs concentration). 

I got in pretty easily and was admitted to two courses in Public Policy for the Summer 2024 term with a new student scholarship. I will say that, yes, the religion aspect was a bit ham-fisted and the students tended to be upset or easily flustered on the message boards when I expressed a socially liberal or radical opinion, although the responses were generally civil if heated. 

The readings tend to be by Intercollegiate Studies Institute types who use religion to substantiate conservative talking points, mixed in with theorists who are genuinely essential to the field. 

I didn't continue in large part because the funding model was bait-and-switch in that they lure new students in with a generous first-semester scholarship and then ask you to pay your own way going further - I didn't want to give Liberty a single red cent out of my own pocket, so I didn't continue. 

I'm now studying Defense/National Security Policy at Missouri State instead.

I could not mesaage you. Can you share your experiences with phd Defense/national security policy?

[EliEverIsAHero]

I'm now studying Defense/National Security Policy at Missouri State instead.

What is it like there today? A 2011 blog post from "Militarist Monitor" describes the department as a den of Republican foreign policy hawks (as Republican hawks were at the time, Reagan-Bush era, pre-Trump).

I just completed the graduate certificate with them and am looking to continue towards a doctorate. I personally think it is an amazing program. 

Now I can see where the blog opinion comes from, due to the simple fact that literally everyone teaching in the program is either a current or former DoE/USAF nuclear officer, a current or former state department staffer, or a current or former Professional Staffer from the UN or Capitol Hill. So without anyone teaching merely from a theory standpoint I can see an outsider confusing it for hawkish behavior. ... personally though, I was thrilled to have professors who are been there-done that professionals (as opposed to pure theory academics)

But I completely agree with Eli that the actual mindset is a realist point of view. These are all experienced folks with decades of knowing what works, what doesn't, and what is propaganda. Differing opinions are welcome,but require you to defend your stance with verifiable proof.

Like I said, a realist mindset. No obvious warmongers, but no obvious pacifists either. And no room for "theory" or anything that cannot be proven. Just cold hard results. As a first responder I understand that mindset and can respect it, to get through an otherwise mentally exhausting job. Pretty appropriate when talking about national defense... ymmv

Following up that I would disagree that DSS has "no room for theory". One of their recent Doctoral grads just published a fairly compelling book on Christian Realism and Just War Doctrine with the DSS-affiliated National Institute for Public Policy think tank, and I am currently enrolled in a course they offer on the Ethics of WMD that engages with various philosophical and faith traditions. 

If you mean navel-gazing Critical Theories/Pomo type stuff that has no policy-relevance, or Marxian/Economic Structuralist theories that simply say "f- the system" without offering viable/realistic alternatives, however, I'd definitely agree that those are thankfully absent.

[Jonathan Whatley]

I've moved a few posts about the Missouri State Defense and Security Studies program to this thread from a Liberty thread.