Message to DegreeInfo from Alan Contreras in Oregon

Alan asked me to post the following, from him:


Greetings from Oregon. Every few months I graze on the DegreeInfo and
CollegeHints chatgroups to see what the hot issues seem to be. I see that
the ongoing discussion of ODA and its many fine works has once again drifted
away from what ODA actually does, and is starting to fill up with
misconceptions (again). I realize that some members create these
misconceptions on purpose in order to advance their own agendas, but I
surmise that most of you are genuinely interested in what we do and why.
Here are a few basic facts to start with.

Oregon is not the only state where the use of unaccredited degrees is
generally illegal. They are also illegal in New Jersey, North Dakota,
Indiana (doctorates only) and Michigan (state employment). More states are
moving in this direction. Accreditation is the norm in the U.S. for any
school that wants its degrees to be portable and generally recognized.
Anyone who attends an unaccredited school assumes the risk of limited
utility of degrees earned there. Sure, accreditation is an imperfect floor,
but it is all the U.S. has.

Oregon does not have a blanket prohibition against use of unaccredited
degrees. Any unaccredited school, anywhere in the world, can go through a
relatively short, inexpensive review process to have its degrees legalized.
The requirements for approval deal with faculty qualifications, curriculum,
award of credit and admission standards. Distance-education schools are
eligible; there is no requirement of a brick campus. The fee for U.S.
schools is $250; the fee for foreign schools is $400. Most unaccredited
degree suppliers do not apply because they know they cannot meet the
standards, which are the same standards applied to schools that want to
operate inside Oregon.

Why do Oregon and many other states not accept degrees issued by
unaccredited state-approved schools from other states? We submit Exhibit A
(Pacific Western U of California) and Exhibit B (Kennedy-Western U of
Wyoming), both state-approved "schools." Anyone who doubts the true nature
of these entities has not been watching the news or the Senate hearings.
State approval means very little in many states. States get to decide
whether degrees are valid just as they get to decide the requirements to
practice law etc. A degree is a credential awarded by a third party, not a
state-conferred status like marriage. There are 50 different standards.

The requirement that foreign schools have the "equivalent of U.S.
accreditation" for their degrees to be valid in Oregon does not come from
ODA, it came from the state legislature (see ORS 348.609(a)) in 1997. The
reason why we have this requirement is illustrated with spectacular ease by
the St. Regis scandal: that entity, which appears to operate mainly out of
Dixie Randock's real estate office in Spokane, Washington, sells degrees
over the counter. Such is the academic standard supported by a school
license from the sovereign nation of Liberia.

The new ODA school classification system, developed in response to public
requests, does not work very well and we'll probably revise it soon. One
disadvantage of being on the cutting edge is that not everything we try
works the way we hoped it would.

As time permits, I am always glad to respond to e-mails (no phone calls,
please) from people with a genuine interest in what we do. A few of you
send me "inquiry" e-mails that are simply polemics in drag; I won't bother
to respond to those.


Alan L. Contreras
Administrator, Office of Degree Authorization
Oregon Student Assistance Commission
1500 Valley River Drive No. 100
Eugene OR 97401
(541) 687-7452 fax (541) 687-7419
[email protected]
Information: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda

Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public
under Oregon law.

 

Thanks for the post!

 

Not exactly accurate. The law exempts doctorates meeting the following:

"...a religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose
certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious
character of the educational program..."

Answers a lot of questions!

 

Senator Lieberman's comments

Here's a micro-transcript of remarks made by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) during the second day of the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs hearings. Scroll forward to 26:10 into the archived webcast to find:

G

 

Wow US$ 250.00 for a local school to go thro the application for accreditation..... That is cheap. I thought it would cost some where between 50-100 K US$.

If I had a distance school I would be the 1st in the Queue to apply for the accrediation. Even if it falls out due to standards required. Application to Accreditation sends out a positive message to the prospective students who are interested in the school. Its another question of gaining the accreditation.

Unaccrediated School need to have "Balls, Attitude and DIRECTION"


Migara

 

Hi Migara

That is the cost for Oregon State review of an unaccredited school. It is not the cosst of applying for accreditation. I hope this is helpful.

 

Hi Dave,

Thanks for correcting me on this.
It is still hell of cheaper for ODA to review the school.

Migara

 

Question for Mr. Contreras: When ODA reviews a school, do they give any sort of critique to let them know where their shortcomings might be? i.e. "Your school is fine on X and Y, but falls miserably short on Z" (As oppsosed to thumbs up/thumbs down)

 

This is a good message from Alan. But why in the list there are some form of unaccredited school which was recognise by ODA for example SCUPS, and others. If the State set a standard not going to recognise the school unless is was accredited then all the unaccredited school will be classified to a non recognise degree.

 

Because unaccrdited does not mean fake it means unaccredited. And for the purpose that the degrees from SCUPS are to be used for ODA has detemined that the degree is worth while.

 

A blanket law that made all unaccredited school degrees illegal would likely be declared unconstitutional. For example, it would be unfair to someone that earned a degree from an unaccredited school that then became accredited. This was the flaw in the Florida law that got it declared unenforcible.

 

I think most of the university in America might started as Unaccredited school for some time then following only seeking for the RA or DETC approval. But why most if the unaccredited school was rated as

 

My tax dollars help to pay for the ODA list. I feel that it is a good INTERIM step. To Alan Conteras' credit, he seems to be pretty prompt in correcting errors and omissions, which is one concern about a list such as this. What is really needed, in my opinion, is a set of objective standards for schools. Possibly some sort of rating system similar to California. I think my old home state of Louisiana now has something similar, with various ratings by the State Board of Regents. (I have to plead ignorance here, I'm not entirely up on all of what's going on in other states.) Next comes the problem of who sets the standards, and what will they be? Possibly some sort of check list where a prospective employer could see if what you studied would be relevant to what his needs are. I know, transcripts are supposed to do this, but many times they are just course titles. Regional Accreditation, is of course, a good standard, but it is costly in time and money, both of which are resources in short supply by a small and/or startup college. Also, religious schools tend to run from RA on the fear that some outsider is going to want them to do something against their doctrine to obtain accreditation. This fear seems to be slowly fading away as more denominations become familiar with what is actually involved in the accreditation process. Suggestions for a better system, anyone?

 

California has no such thing. Schools are either accredited, approved, or exempt. There are no "ratings."

 

That assumes that everyone could agree on what an objective standard looked like.

I kind of prefer the current accreditation system in which multiple standards are possible. It's possible to recognize all of them, so long as each one can make a credible case for what it's doing.

California doesn't rate schools, it just approves them. The weakness of CA-approval is that it takes in so much. A handful of CA-approved schools are not only RA-equivalent, they are international leaders in their fields. Many more are seriously lame and have a very high flakiness factor. And then there are all the schools that operate under religious exemptions, some of which are probably mills.

My opinion is that if you can't afford accreditation, then you probably lack the resources necessary to start a new full-service university. It might make more sense to begin by offering a few classes or a certificate program of some kind.

Hundreds of religious schools (some staunchly evangelical) are happily RA. Some of the smaller seminaries get their institutional accreditation from ATS. And there's TRACS for the fundies. Orthodox Jews use their own AARTS. Religion seems to have a great variety of alternative accreditors to suit almost any (Judeo-Christian) taste.

The problems arise for the non-Christians who want to try alternative things. WASC isn't willing to approve a traditional Buddhist monastic-style curriculum that integrates study and practice, for example. And there's no Buddhist version of TRACS to turn to. So you find some very sophisticated programs opting to offer no degrees at all, while others remain state-approved.

I kind of like things as they are now.

If it ain't broke, it's probably dangerous to try to fix it.

I like the freedom that people have with state-aproval to experiment, to try new educational approaches. I do wish that all the states would take strong action to eliminate full-frontal mills though.

I like the multiple non-governmental accreditors, a system that gives people the opportunity to select for different, not always consistent, things.

I like the US Dept of Education and CHEA telling us which of the accreditors they find credible, weeding out the WAUCs of the world.

I even like Oregon's attempt to prohibit degrees that lack recognized acceditation, unless Oregon assures itself that the school that granted the degree meets basic OR standards.

Bottom line: I don't think that the system needs redesigning or that a whole lot of new laws need to be written. I do think that current laws need to actually be enforced and in some cases tightened up, with the loopholes finally being plugged.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression from some (not here) that CA and a couple of other states were either rating or planning to rate higher ed schools. What I have personally observed is some foreign based corporations who are operating in the US and are totally clueless about Regional Accreditation and what it means. I know of one company that doen't see any difference between Excelsior and SRU, for example.