GAO Report

GAO: Some U.S. Workers Have Fake Degrees

Nuclear agency managers among diploma mill users

DIPLOMA MILLS: Federal Employees Have Obtained Degrees from Diploma Mills and Other Unaccredited Schools, Some at Government Expense

 

I would never call CCU a "DIPLOMA MILL" It's only lacks accreditation.

Migara

 

Public Paid for Bogus Degrees

US report pins down bogus degrees

 

This story was also on CNN last night.
It is great to see all this news media attention to diploma mills but will this interest last? I doubt it.

 

Doubt lingers over bona fide unaccredited schools

Lawmakers consider legislation to close diploma-mill loophole

 

OPM told a Senate panel that degrees from non-accredited schools must never be used to base hiring or promotion decisions on in the federal government

At least 463 federal employees have obtained degrees from unaccredited schools or "diploma mills"

 

A Nuclear Safety Administration employee described his LaSalle master's degree as a joke

 

Wasted Education - Investigation Finds Taxpayer Money Going to Diploma Mills

Discusses Lexington.

 

I readily admit that the only materials that I've seen from CCU in recent times were the requirements for their doctorates (which no longer accept enrollment). My opinion, such as it was at that time, was that they were woefully inadequate in terms of requirements. Hard to call it a doctorate.

Substandard, yes. Diploma mill? That's a different story. I really don't know.




Tom Nixon

 

Interesting, are the lower degrees somewhat substandard or was it primarily the doctorates? The answer to this question would raise more interesting questions. Why choose a business model with only a substandard doctorate? A cash cow perhaps or maybe a long time vision of potential DETC accreditation? If they are substandard across the board and DETC still accredits them then this too would be interesting?

 

What I don’t quite understand is how the DETC requires that a school like CCU make the necessary changes to a degree program in order to satisfy their criteria, while at the same time permitting the school to allow existing students in the program to adhere to a different (presumably less rigorous) curriculum and/or methodology. For example, it is my understanding that students who now enter the MBA program must take proctored exams, while those who enrolled just prior to the cut-off date do not. Yet, assuming that CCU receives DETC accreditation before the students in the less rigorous, non-conforming to DETC standards program graduate, they will be awarded the same degree, one from a DETC accredited school. In other words, the school would be awarding a degree that did not conform to accreditation standards.

Similarly, although a school must drop their doctoral programs prior to applying to the DETC, by aggressively marketing a program such as the dual MBA/DBA prior to the cut-off date (as CCU did), it is quite possible (assuming, once again, that the school receives DETC accreditation fairly quickly) that students won’t begin their actual doctoral program until after accreditation has been awarded. In other words, a student would actually be commencing a program that the school was not allowed to offer.

 

CHEA already has a fine database listing every school in the United States with CHEA recognized accreditation.

I think that the first item of business needs to be to define the phrase "unaccredited college that offers legitimate degrees", and much more importantly, identify some criteria that would help us identify these schools.

Take the lead in doing what, exactly?

It's stupid to ask the federal government to duplicate the work that the accreditors are already doing very well at no cost to the taxpayers.

I'd be curious to hear which CA-approved schools Mr. Contreras considers to be "diploma mills". I don't deny that there are some, but I think that most of them operate under religious exemptions.

Why should we consider his small number of OR-approved schools better than CA-approved schools? How many OR-approved schools have successfully received recognized accreditation in the last few years? How many are currently candidates or applicants? Right.

While I strongly agree with Contreras' point that state approval shouldn't be confused with accreditation, I take exception to his dissing California.

Aren't those two things contradictory?

Again, the obvious contradiction.

What this Cato Institute idiot misses is that accreditation already is the free market. If you don't like WASC, choose another accreditor like DETC or ACICS. If you don't like them either, then start your own new accreditor like the AALE people did. If you don't like any accreditors, just be CA-approved or whatever, and try to build up some institutional reputation of your own in a niche application or something.

As things stand right now, choices are possible and alternatives exist. Educators have a lot of freedom to set their own standards and then try to convince the wider community that those new standards are credible. Calling for the demolishing of that system in favor of one single mandatory government bureaucracy in each of the 50 states is totally and utterly asinine, coming from a libertarian.

I don't see what's so hard. The government doesn't need to be reduplicating accreditation work that's already been performed without cost to the taxpayers. If legislators don't want people with non-accredited degrees working for the federal government, then just pass some personnel regulations to that effect and shut up. Don't attack the entire accreditation system because your own managers were too f'ing stupid to even consult it.

 

When a certain DegreeInfo poster announced his enrollment in the CCU MBA/DBA program--along with his intention to point out CCU's DETC accreditation while conveniently igoring the fact that it won't apply to the DBA itself--I called DETC about this. I spoke with DETC's Sally Welch, who made it clear that DETC expects the school to "teach out" students already enrolled in programs the school had to drop to receive DETC accreditation. This means students already enrolled in CCU's doctoral programs would/could continue to graduation, but DETC's accreditation would not apply to them. (It is just this "loophole--of sorts--the poster intends to exploit, by his own admission.)

I can see why the DETC wants to do this. First, the agreement between students and the school isn't interrupted. Second, the students have made a significant financial and academic commitment. But what puzzles me is why dual-degree students (like the MBA/DBA) students are included? I would think that students enrolled in the MBA part when CCU is accredited (if they are accredited) would not be allowed to continue to the DBA. Students already in the DBA, however, would be allowed to finish. (If a student already earned his/her MBA from CCU, however, that student would have received a degree from an unaccredited school.)

I would hope DETC would not allow students in the master's portion of the dual degree to continue to the doctoral portion if/when CCU is accredited. It makes no sense. (The difference in tuition, for example, could be refunded by CCU. Maybe DETC doesn't want to make CCU do this, however, thus allowing the school to put students through these unaccredited doctoral programs start to finish just because they're already enrolled in a dual master's/doctoral program.

If this loophole was closed, our poster would be faced with a dilemma. See, he currently hopes to earn the MBA after CCU is accredited. (A very reasonable decision, IMHO.) Then, he intends to proceed to the DBA, even though CCU has dropped these programs. Thus, his MBA will be accredited and his DBA will not. He hopes no one will notice. He's probably right.

 

I agree with all of Bill's points. I'll add this: the Cato Institute is really wrong on this one. The free market is fine for most things, but education isn't one of them. There is a consumer protection issue here: what it means to have (or issue) a college degree. The two main consumers of college degrees are students/graduates and employers. They have expectations about what it means to have a college degree. When they see a potential or current employee listed with a degree, it has meaning. But if the free market has its way, there will be no standards at all. Consumers won't be able to find--much less assimilate--sufficient information about all schools in order to make their informed decisions. Accreditation--and, to a lesser degree, state approval--does this.

Imagine this: Let's say Chrysler did some research and found that consumers really didn't consider the spare tire in vehicles they're considering for purchase. So Chrysler, in order to save some money, decided to stop making spare tires standard equipment. Well, word would get out PDQ and consumers would demand their tires! That's because there are a handful of manufacturers and consumers would quickly recognize--and avoid--any who would pull that stunt. But with thousands of degree-granting schools in the U.S. alone, it is much more difficult. Even when one gets a bunch of publicity, there doesn't seem to be a discernable shift in the situation. You don't really think all those Columbia State University "graduates" out there are losing their jobs, do you? Of course not. Employers don't know and don't check (for the most part). And those that do check don't have information about the quality of the school(s) in question, again, for the most part. They look to see if the school is "accredited." (Without even knowing what that term implies, of course, which is why state approval gets by in so many cases--employers often think state approval is accreditation. That's from my survey.)

 

I don’t see a problem letting students that are in the midst of a doctoral program complete their studies, as the degree awarded will always be considered an unaccredited one. I do, however, question the ethics of a school allowing a student to begin a program that is no longer offered because it was dropped to comply with accreditation requirements.

What also amazes me is the loophole whereby students already enrolled in a program (such as the MBA) are allowed to complete the program under completely different set of standards from what the DETC insists upon for accreditation. Why should students be awarded an accredited degree if the curriculum and/or methodology do not meet the accreditor’s requirements? What prevents the school from requiring that currently enrolled students, at a minimum, complete the remainder of their program adhering to the new standards?

 

Bill,

"If legislators don't want people with non-accredited degrees working for the federal government, then just pass some personnel regulations to that effect and shut up."

This caveat already exists, the problem is the lack of verification or the ignorance of the reviewer.

I completely agree with your viewpoint on state accredited degrees.


Rich,

you must not drive a pick-up. Not only are spare tires optional in many cases, but also rear bumpers.

 

I suspect he was specifically thinking of Pacific Western, given the recent TV report.

 

I've owned only one, a Toyota Tacoma. Came with a full spare underneath. Traded it in on my PT Cruiser Turbo. Vrooom.

 

What, no ragtop? You need to trade up...

 

I know this is terribly OT, but I couldn't resist. I bought mine last year, before the ragtops were out. But I did get the full package: leather, sunroof, 6-CD in-dash changer, 220-horsepower turbo, 17-inch chrome wheels. It was a graduation gift. My wife becomes a nurse practitioner next Spring. Let's just say she's looking forward to something a little more....