Another Thread about Non-accredited Degree Utility

It seems to me that the utility of non-accredited degrees probably falls into two broad classes:

1. Cases where hiring is competitive and where education is an important consideration. A non-accredited university will probably be out of the running in most of these situations, but might have utility in some niche applications where the employer is familiar with the school.

2. Cases where hiring (or more typically advancement) is non-competitive. While the company or agency might technically have a degree requirement for a position, the actual person approving the hire might not care about it very much so long as the appropriate box is filled in.

In the first case, the degree is being treated as what it technically is: a certification of academic achievement. It is judged according to its credibility. In the second case, the degree isn't really being treated as a degree at all, it's being treated as a bureaucratic formality to be overcome as easily as possible.

I think that most people with questionable degrees employ them in my 'case 2' situations. So I'd say that non-accredited degrees do have some utility, though considerably less than accredited degrees.

It seems to me that this utility is probably greatest where the employer simply doesn't care. (Rich's results suggest that.) That means that general bachelors degrees are apt to pass, at least in non-technical applications. But if an employer is looking for someone with a graduate degree, particularly for someone with a doctorate, education is now being made a priority. The employer clearly does care.

I witnessed an interview performed by a small biotech firm in 'Silicon Valley'. The employer was seeking a Ph.D. who could immediately address certain issues the company had in getting its oncology treatment (which destroyed cancer cells spectacularly in-vitro) from the lab bench into a usable product. Unfortunately, the stuff was hard to synthesize and different batches had different compositions and potency. Manufacturing scale-up was a challenge. What's more, the stuff had the annoying tendency to be denatured in the blood-stream, making its effective lifetime in the bodies of lab animals very short. They were getting big-bucks research funding from a major pharma company because of their concept's big-time implications, but it was unclear if they could ever get their product to work, let alone pass the regulatory hurdles.

My point is that the employer CARED. He was hiring a Ph.D. precisely because he wanted very high level, cutting-edge research expertise that would have a fundamental impact on the company. (He was also hiring Pharm.D.s, which he felt were better than Ph.D.s at addressing regulatory hurdles, testing on human subjects and so on.) The interviewers were Ph.D.s themselves. They didn't inquire once about accreditation, but that's because they were already familiar with the candidate's department. They wanted to know a lot more about the work that he'd done there.

My feeling is that as one moves up the food-chain from bachelors degrees to doctorates, the more likely hiring is to be 'type 1'.

That puts a question mark over all those non-accredited doctoral programs. What kind of applications do doctorates have that don't involve an employer who is both well informed about education and who puts a high priority on it?

Writer's credentials for popular authors perhaps. (Men are from Mars...) Vanity degrees for aging boomers. Impressing clueless clients. I don't know.

 

From what I've seen, it seems that the greatest utility for unaccredited degrees seems to be if it is mistaken for an accredited degree. I would consider this different from the "actual person approving the hire might not care". They might actually care but just be naive about accreditation.

 

This is the number one conclusion I drew from my research. HR managers didn't know and didn't check. They said so in many cases, and the way their responses changed after getting some accreditation information confirmed it. After getting some information, their responses regarding the legitimate accredited choices (and foreign equivalent) went up, the non-accredited (and unrecognized forms of accreditation) went down.

Ignorance is a key factor in the acceptability of degrees from non-accredited schools.

 

Rich, I am glad to see that your research supports the Theorem of Unaccredited Degree Utility that I first proposed several years ago.

“The utility of an unaccredited degree is in direct proportion to the apathy or ignorance of the person whose function it is to evaluate it or the skill and willingness of the degree holder to deceive others.”

 

Happy to see you take credit for Rich's work. Did you also teach him how to pee?

 

Dennis:

One of the consequences (perhaps unintentional) of your zealous posting competition with Dr. Dr. Quack Quack is that it provides much anecdotal evidence in support of one of the axioms of the Theorem of Unaccredited Degree Legitimacy:

"The most significant cogent evidence of the substandard nature of unaccredited degrees is the level of intellect exhibited by those individuals who either hold such degrees or are currently in the process of pursuing one.”

 

Wasn't it a bit funny???

 

Third use of the unaccredited degree-where it is accepted for licensure. (Law degrees in California). Minor exception, but worth remembering.

 

When would such a mistake be most likely?

It seems to me that if an organization is seeking a person with a Ph.D., then they probably have some pretty sophisticated needs. They are seeking an individual with proven research skills who can perform a high level function in the organization.

In my example, biochemists and molecular biologists aren't simple commodities, and I question whether they are often hired by non-specialists as if they were. At some point they will be interviewed by somebody from research who knows precisely what he/she is doing.

But the situation might be different in a position where possession of a generic bachelors degree is just one of the job specs. Does the candidate have a bachelors degree? Check the box. Does anyone in HR care enough to investigate all the schools that all the applicants list? Maybe not.

My speculation is that as one ascends the academic ladder, the stakes go up and the spotlight becomes more intense. That would reduce the likelihood of an employer mistake that would allow a questionable degree to inadvertantly pass.

 

Point taken. I agree.

 

I agree with this part of your analysis/example. I guess that I was just saying that either case number 2 needs to be expanded to include ignorance or there needs to be a third case for ignorance being the main culprit. To me it seems an important distinction from indifference being the factor. For example the case where checking on the degree actually being betowed was done but not realizing it is from a degree mill.

 

What about the fact that an unaccredited (state approved) doctorate in psychology allows one to be licensed as a clinical psychologist in CA.? This doesn't fit any of the catagories of utility mentioned above. If one wants to be a clinical psyc. in CA. an unaccredited ( state approved ) doctorate has pretty good utility. If you look up the CA psyc. licensing exam figures, CCU (unaccredited , state approved) graduates do as well or in some cases better than graduates of RA programs.

 

Does it anymore? I thought I read that some California-Approved schools were no longer acceptable.

One of the charming aspects of California Approval has been the existence of some charming, small, specialized schools, many of which have turned out licensed counselors and psychologists. CCU isn't any of those things, though.

 

Another example where unaccredited degrees have some value: Overseas company merges with US company, Senior management is (now) headquartered in Europe. Senior management decides US divisions MUST follow the same guidelines as European divisions,"All employees at Supervisor level and above must have a minimum of Bachelors degree." Many of the old cronies in US division barely have High School diploma, many generally got their position through their superior talents of being related to someone. The solution: Buy a degree, and send a copy of the degree to headquarters. Everybody is now happy. With the possible exception of those with RA degrees who are passed over because they're still not related.

 

Gee, Dennis, I suppose you also think those posts about Dr. Bear being in prison are also funny.

No, they are not funny. They are moronic attempts at sarcasm hoping to at least be able to parade at humor. No such luck.

 

If the school was state approved prior to July1, 99 and hasn't moved since then, it's graduates are still eligible to sit for the CA psyc. licensing exam. In fact, graduates of CCU are licensed as clinical psychologists every year in CA.

 

Thanks!

 

I think the aed stuff on Dr Bear being in prison is a hoot. I don't post stuff like that but find amusement reading it.

You seem to be wound a bit tight. Did all your sign-ons get banned at collegehints or just one???

 

What do you find amusing about it?

 

A fourth use of the non-RA degree is in the discipline of religion/theology/ministry. If one wants maximum utility then RA is the route to take. If one has aspirations of using the degree to teach at an RA school, to gain admission in a higher level RA degree program, or to gain a ministry position which requires an RA degree, then RA is the route of choice.

However, there are positions within this discipline which do not require the RA degree. And of course, I speak not of the money-for-diploma type of degree, but degrees which require substantive coursework. Some cases in point:

1. A local church which has no specific academic requirement for staff.

2. The Christian school (K-12) which has no RA requirement for its teachers.

3. A denomination which utilizes its own non-RA school for training ministers.

Many such examples of the above cases in point exist. This also is a point worth noting.