An offshoot of "Legitimacy of an unaccredited Institution"

Ok, this is one of those "don't go there" types of questions but I have to ask it to clear things up in my head. Please observe the following scenario:

Let's say there's an online institution that teaches non-safety-critical subjects, like arts-&-crafts and so on. It offers programs consisting of a certain number of courses that are taught (and I mean actually taught - none of those life-experience deals) online through assigned course-work and online discussions. At the end of the program, the institute awards its students a certificate or a diploma (not degrees). It also explicitly states through the website that it is unaccredited*. The reason could be that it cannot apply for accreditation due to limited finds, and it may choose to pursue accreditation of some kind in the future.

In your opinion, are the operators of this "online institution" engaged in unethical and/or unlawful conduct? Also, would this be considered a degree mill?


*Most unaccredited schools usually hide the reality about themselves by stating that accreditation is a "volentary" process

 

Since this institution isn't issuing degrees, it certainly couldn't be considered a degree mill.

Based on what you've described, it sounds perfectly legitimate. My wife took a course in Chinese cooking through the Adult Education division of the local vocational high school, and was awarded a certificate of completion. This sounds like the same type of thing.

Of course, the place you describe has no control whether or not their graduates misrepresent the school or its diplomas.......

 

Hi Bruce and Dis...etc:

How ought we respond if that's exactly what we find going on (misrepresentation), or, by extension, how ought we respond when there's other kinds of mill promotion (shilling, trolling) or self-promotion by mill operators?

 

That's certainly an interesting question!
In the case I described, the website has to state the academic value of the certificate or diploma (once again - no degrees awarded) earned in order to minimize misrepresentation... let's say, it is explicitly stated that the institution is unaccredited and will pursue accreditation after it is able to procure some sort of fuding to sustain it.

 

Right. That's utterly straightforward.

I guess I wanted to expand the question in light of the cautions against invective. How do we call a mill a mill, a shill a shill, a troll a troll, or a conman a conman in a way completely consistent with the cautions against invective?

 

It doesn't sound illegal or unethical.

Even if it awarded degrees, I wouldn't necessarily consider it unethical. Now, what people did with those degrees might be another story.

Contrary to what the trolls will tell you, I've been a big supporter of unaccredited, nontraditional schools over the years. If a school wants to operate that way, fine. But, at the same time, I caution against enrolling in one, unless that school is striving towards recognized accreditation. This has almost everything to do with the utility of the degree and almost nothing to do with the quality of the school in question. But on that point, I want to wiggle a bit.

One of the more effective aspects of accreditation is its oversight of schools' financial situations. Accredited schools are less likely to close, only to take the money and run. It happens, of course, but financial stability is a significant factor in accrediting a school. Unaccredited schools (except in some situations, like in California) offer no such assurances. (California has a tuition refund fund.) You never know if you are writing a check to an unaccredited school right before it closes its doors in bankruptcy. Accredited schools can be put on probation while the fix their finances. This also warns potential students that the school is struggling financially. They may want to take their business elsewhere.

In your example, the unaccredited school is being forthright regarding its status. It is not awarding degrees or pretending to be a university. Potential students are left to their own devices, however, to determine the efficacy of the instruction offered and the likelihood of receiving that instruction. Accreditation helps indicate that. A lack of accreditation, however, doesn't signal the opposite. But it makes it more likely.

(BTW, the reason I don't recommend unaccredited schools anymore is that the scenery has changed. There was a time, even into the 1990's, when there were not very many legitimate alternatives to traditional schools. Many schools that have since gone on to be accredited went years without a sniff from the regionals, and DETC has only recently gotten into the act. For example, a student in 1982 could take a Ph.D. from Columbia Pacific University or Walden University. Both were legitimate, alternative, unaccredited schools. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we decry one choice while applauding the other. Twenty years ago, both were among a handful of legitimate, alternative, unaccredited schools. The schools at that time that were accredited--or candidates--and offering short-residency doctorates could be counted on one hand. Now, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one.)

 

I don't know why it's a "don't go there" question, since it's precisely the direction I seem to be heading.

Change your example from "arts & crafts" to Tibetan Vajrayana, and you have just described this:

http://www.nalandabodhi.org/study.homestudy.html

I don't understand why anyone would call it unethical, so long as the education has value and isn't misrepresented.

Legality is a more technical question, since many states require schools offering post-secondary education, even if it doesn't result in degrees, to be state licensed. About 90% of the CA-approved schools fit that description.

I don't see how it could be a degree mill if it doesn't grant degrees.

It might be some kind of certification mill if it grants certifications in such a way that they don't mean what people expect them to mean. But your example seems to stipulate that isn't the case.

Here's curriculum from a short residency program that pretty clearly (to me at least) isn't a mill. In fact, I think that it's some of the most sophisticated instruction available anywhere outside a Tibetan monastery:

http://www.nitarthainstitute.org/curriculum_over-all_curriculum_plan.html

Here's course descriptions of their introductory classes. Obviously they presume preparation such as Nalandabodhi's above. Their very first class is already discussing Dignaga and Dharmakirti.

http://www.nitarthainstitute.org/curriculum_courses_foundation_courses.html

Here's a description of their translation work:

http://www.nitarthainstitute.org/publications.html

No accreditation, no university credit, no degrees. But they aren't fooling around, either.

 

I see no problem with a school that does not misrepresent itself. New York is known as a State with strict standards and New York has many schools like Ridley-Lowell. This school advertises what accreditation it has. Not an online school but all the same if it were.

IMO, schools like the above are a valuable educational resource. In fact, I think they are probably doing what many colleges are doing but more efficiently.

I have never had any affiliation with Ridley-Lowell or any like schools.