accredited vs unaccredited, etc., etc., etc.

I learned of this forum quite by chance a few days ago. I have posted two messages and this will probably be my last. Since I’ve been retired these many years, the questions of accredited vs unaccredited and the validity of alternative degree programs are purely academic ones. No pun intended. Of the several responses that I’ve received, most have been generally supportive or at least cordial. However, a couple of members have predictably indicated an almost anal, knee-jerk, negative response to anything that smacked of anything that wasn’t accredited. I won’t mention their names. They know who you are. And you probably do, too. While I champion their rights to have opinions that differ from mine, I do have cause to wonder if they have lives beyond the scope of this forum.

That having been said, I shall claim an old man’s privilege of rambling on a bit further. Since I’m probably much older than the majority of you, I have perhaps had more opportunities to make a few more observations about life than most of you. And one truth that I’m comfortable with is the notion that there are no absolutes. That is to say that there is no one, absolute, foolproof, guaranteed, and sure-fire way of doing or thinking about anything. Although I feel safe in saying that we may all agree that it’s reprehensible for one to buy and attempt to use a fraudulent university diploma, what’s even worse is his paying for one when he can print it himself using today’s desktop publishing technology. But what’s equally as absurd is one’s saying that only an accredited college or university degree is of any value. Rather, I submit that there is a place in our world for well-supervised, legally operated unaccredited and/or non-traditional colleges universities. After all, they’ve been proving their worth for over 150 years.

Are we to say that anything that we learned outside of a classroom environment is useless? Who among you learned to tell time before the 1st grade, or to count from one to 10, or maybe even his ABCs. If so, does that mean that you should not be recognized for being able to do any of those things, or that they should be of no value to you? I have written in this forum that my experience with Pacific Western University was a life-altering one. As one who went to elementary and high schools in the l940s and 50s respectively with dyslexia, whose depression-era parents did not go beyond the eighth grade, college was never an option for me. But that didn’t mean that I couldn’t and didn’t continue to learn during the ensuing 30 years.

If you think that accreditation holds the promise of a perfect education, you have another think coming. How about a fellow I know whose wife did all of his assignments, including researching and writing his senior thesis? Great accredited education there, wouldn’t you say? What about the file cabinets in fraternity houses that are filled with many years’ worth of research data? What’s the point in looking up a source authority at the library if one can find it already neatly filed away? That is, of course, if one knows under what heading to “research.” Then we have Tennessee State University’s Master’s degree program for teachers. That’s so they can get pay raises. No less than two of those who attended that course described it to me as “being a laugh.” According to their descriptions a class might be comprised of everyone’s going out for pizza. The whole thing, then, being topped off with a Master’s thesis that might better resemble a high school term paper than a scholarly effort. There’s little wonder why those who have journalism and even English degrees are today saying, “I’m waiting on you.” As opposed to saying, “I’m waiting for you.” Or saying, “I’m planning on going.” As opposed to saying, “I’m planning to go.” If their teachers and professors say it that way, shouldn’t they be expected to, as well?

In 1987 I was asked to be one of a few featured speakers at the Spring Conference of The Southeastern Division of the prestigious National Academy of Counselors and Family Therapists. After my presentation they asked me to become a member of their organization. Unfortunately, though, only graduates of accredited schools could become members at that time. That organization, however, amended that rule to include unaccredited schools, as well, for the express purpose of my being able to join. Perhaps my experience with Pacific Western was, at that time, of some valuable after all. By the way, I diagnosed myself as being dyslexic while doing a research project required by PWU concerning the ways in which the brain processes phonetic scrip language as opposed to pictorial. I found myself reading about what I’d been experiencing all my life. Unfortunately, none of my teachers was able to make that observation.

In 1988 a friend and I visited one of our high school classmates who worked as a project manager for JPL and lived near Los Angeles. While there we also visited the offices of PWU. My friend, who had an accredited Master’s degree in chemistry and was president of a successful microscope dealership, enrolled in a doctoral program in international business and paid the full tuition at that time. He died last November without a PWU doctorate. “How could that be, since he’d paid them for it?” some might ask. Perhaps, as do many of you, he, too, thought that he would only be required to write a few simple essays and maybe a 10- or 15-page dissertation, and would then receive a meaningless diploma to hang on his office wall. Instead, he could never find the time necessary to complete the prescribed course work or research his dissertation. At that time, their statistical data indicated that PWU declined over half of those who applied for acceptance due to their not having acquired enough practical experience to warrant placement.

So my friends, life isn’t either all black or all white. There are no absolutes. Let us denounce those who would sell or use degree mill diplomas. But at the same time, let’s be open to innovation and alternatives. If one gets a job on the basis of his having a non-traditional and/or unaccredited degree and can do the work or perform the research, what difference does it make? I’m sure that we’ve all seen those accredited degree holders who could retain information long enough to regurgitate it during exams, but whose minds were never developed to the point of allowing them to make analytical observations or do critical thinking. Two of the most inherently knowledgeable and capable people whom I’ve known didn’t go to college. Should their contributions to their professions be ignored because they never sought an accredited college degree? My experience requires me to believe that a degree will seek its own level. Whether accredited or unaccredited, traditional or non-traditional, a diploma alone will be no better than the intellect, relative knowledge, and critical thinking abilities of its owner. So let’s let employers and the market place decide. Given today’s high costs of living and acquiring college educations, I should think that our society should embrace there being an alternative to traditional colleges and universities. To think otherwise is, in my opinion, just damn foolishness.

 

PWU on CBS some weeks ago

See http://cbs2.com/specialassign/local_story_127143143.html.

And just to let us know CBS is paying attention, their web page displayed 3 Kennedy-Wedstern ads and one Almeda College "Earn your college degree in 8 days based on what you already know" ad.

G

 

Well, Jim, as one a.k. to another: I appreciate your post, but I think you have set up a long row of straw men. You characterize those who disagree with you first with ad hominem terms, and then as believing everything they believe absolutely, with no exceptions, thinking this or that works perfectly, such and such is useless, etc., etc. All or nothing, in other words. Well, of course, once you set up things in an absolute dichotomy, then one single instance proves your opponent (the alleged absolutist) perfectly silly and yourself absolutely sagacious.

 

Rather than launch into (yet another) point-by-point polemic, let me point out that the originator of this thread is creating dilemmas that don't exist.

Learning can take place outside of a degree-granting institution. Can that learning be credit-worthy? Sure, if accepted processes are applied. (Like not basing an entire "school" on giving out diplomas for "life experience.") No problem there, and it has nothing to do with the accreditation status of the school in question.

Accredited vs. unaccredited and traditional vs. nontraditional are entirely different issues. Didn't used to be because nontraditional almost always meant unaccredited. Not any more.

No one says that only degrees from accredited schools have value. My research, in fact, points out the reverse: that degrees from unaccredited schools have significant utility in the workplace. Now, the reasons WHY this is so is another matter. My research also shows that when employers get information about accreditation, their acceptance of degrees from unaccredited schools drops significantly. THAT's important.

The problem with most statements supporting degrees from unaccredited schools is that they overstate the degrees' utility.

"If you think that accreditation holds the promise of a perfect education, you have another think coming." (sic) This is an example of the kind of faulty dilemma you present. No one talks about accreditation ensuring perfection. If you hold that up to be the standard that accreditation must meet, of course it will fail. It is more reasonable to ask whether or not recognized accreditation ensures an adequate standard. Yes, it does. There are always exceptions in any situation, but they don't disprove the rule. Accreditation not only ensures a sufficient level of quality, it also determines the acceptability of the credential. That's a cold, hard fact.

Pacific Western is disappointing. That California allows it to continue its deceitful operation says more about California Approval than it does about PWU. (By the way, it lost its approval to award most of its degrees. What does that say about PWU's quality?)

"If one gets a job on the basis of his having a non-traditional and/or unaccredited degree and can do the work or perform the research, what difference does it make?" Who is arguing against that? What we're talking about is the legitimacy of the degree and its acceptance in the workplace. Oh, and the professional and academic competence that the degree signifies. When those are lacking (but the degree is present), it creates great potential for harm to society and liability to the employer.

 

PWU

Greetings DrJim,

I have read all your post and will get directly to the point. PWU has been around for over 27 years and now finds themselves in a critical situation with the diploma mill scams being talked about.
PWU has an obligation to its students and alumni and that obligation is to become an accredited institution and be in compliance with the ODA. Many other California State Approved schools have (or in the process) already done this. PWU must do this or cease to exist (my own opinion).

IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE STUDENTS AND ALUMNI TO WRITE PWU AND DEMAND THEY UPGRADE AND SEEK ACCREDITION!

What once worked when no other opportunities were avaliable is now gone and done with.

HADJr

 

Hello DrJim,

You ask, "Are we to say that anything that we learned outside of a classroom environment is useless?" I have never heard anyone on the forum suggest such a thing. Since there are many methods used by accredited colleges and universities to assess prior learning (CLEP, ACE equivalency, DANTES, Excelsior tests, portfolio assessment, etc.), I'm not sure why you have brought up this issue. There are over 4,000 higher education institutions in the U.S. and there are many regionally and nationally accredited universities offering "innovation and alternatives".

I also know many highly intelligent people without college degrees and I'm certain that most of the people who frequent Degreeinfo do as well. Besides your advocacy of Pacific Western as a rigorous school, it seems unclear what you are trying to accomplish here.

In 1987, far fewer options for non-traditional education existed. In 2004, there are so many options among regionally and nationally accredited universities that there appears to be little need to pursue an unaccredited degree. Many institutions, such as California Coast, have recognized this trend and have sought accreditation from a recognized agency. If Pacific Western is capable of doing the same, it should follow suit.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Tony brings up some excellent points.

The trend, as I see it, is that the the laws are clamping down on unaccredited schools. Making the unaccredited schools and the use of their degrees illegal. At the same time the few perpetually unaccredited schools offering bona fide academic programs are becoming accredited. Eventually the only thing being left in the unaccredited field are the bona fide programs that become accredited within a very few years and the bogus programs that are looking for victims.

 

"DrJim" claims to have done a PWU doctorate in the 1980's. Fine. Assuming that's true (why would someone make a false claim about that?), he chose a State-Authorized school over several State-Approved choices at a time when State Approval meant a lot and State Authorization meant nothing at all.

This isn't a case of 20-20 hindsight (like we've seen used regarding MIGS, for example), PWU was an inferior choice all along. Not one thing has changed that.

NB: Why is it that in almost every case, a posters invoking the term "doctor" in their handles either have no doctorate, or a doctorate from an unaccredited school? I think I've seen one exception.

 

There are doctors, and then there are doctors....

There's another part of this "rule"... Why is it that the tendency to use the term "doctor" to address a person with a terminal degree increases dramatically with the relative lack of prestige of the employing institution? I'm thinking of community colleges and third-tier universities/colleges where everyone with a PhD must be called "doctor", in contrast to world-class institutions like the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana where Dr. George Gollin with his degree from Princeton just likes to be called plain old "George"....?

 

Re: There are doctors, and then there are doctors....

Is this really accurate? (I'm not disputing; I'm asking.) Most of the doctorate-holders I meet go by their first names (me included). I've never worked at a community college, so I don't know about that.

 

People want recognition.

Just think of Dr. Duck and how every thread turns to his work and to how he thinks that he's being disrespected. That's why he pursues grandiose titles and why he reacts so badly when he doesn't get the respect that he so obviously craves.

The ones with the real doctorates don't flount it quite as much as the wannabes (except for Steve when he's crowing about not flounting it) because they are less desperate, but they always get their accomplishment out here somehow.

Nobody earns a Ph.D. and keeps it a secret.

I think that there's always a tendency for students to formally address professors they don't know as "Dr. so and so". It's a sign of respect. And there's usually a tendency for classes to quickly move to a first name basis. I have never, ever, seen a professor demand to be called "doctor", though a great many have asked their students not to call them that.

But if such a phenomenon as you describe really exists (I've never seen it), I'd speculate that it is explained by the need for recognition that I mentioned above. It's probably a matter of professorial pecking-orders.

A "top-tier" research university is going to hire mostly Ph.D.s. So if everyone in your department is a doctor, there's not a lot of marginal utility in emphasizing that you are a doctor too. It doesn't distinguish you from the professorial pack.

But if a community college mostly employs faculty with masters degrees, the minority of doctors might conceivably feel tempted to pull rank, to parade around, preening like little peacocks.

But personally, I have never seen that happening. It wouldn't make the pompous twits more popular in their departments, so it would probably be self-defeating.

 

In my happy sojourn at a major university's grad school, I found that the profs in the humanities depts* were all first-name-basis, but the profs in the school of education were all Doctor So-and-So and God save you if you ever slipped. Funny.

*No contact with the hard sciences, so can't say there

 

Re: Re: There are doctors, and then there are doctors....

I've worked in K-12, community colleges and universities. There are persons in each of those that prefer that you address them as "doctor", rather than by their first names; however, most of my acquaintances prefer that I address them by their first names.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

 

Janko proves the theory.....!

This goes to prove my theory. The less "real" your subject matter (i.e., "education"/pedagogy - barfff) and/or the less prestigious your college or university (e.g., University of Wisconsin EXTENSION - cow college redux), the more likely it is that the person in the professor job wants to be called "doctor".

 

Re: Janko proves the theory.....!

===

As I recall while in the Oregon State EdD program, which I did not finish, although I then was nearly 40 and a grad teaching assistant, we called our profs "Dr." But the Western Seminary profs go by first names as does my Unizul Promoter (by email). I'd be happy to accept your premise that the cause of this difference is that Theology is the more real subject matter

 

Re: Re: Janko proves the theory.....!

Absolutely. Theology, physics, religion, philosophy - those in my humble opinion are all examples of "real subjects". We need more people in "education" today that are "subject matter experts" and less people who are "pedagogy experts"....

The inferiority complex, although subconscious, comes out in the demand to be called "doctor" by the education crowd, while true world-class researchers in areas of substantive academic subject matter are generally just fine with plain old "whatever"... They don't need to hide behind the title to make them feel "important" or "smart" in the academic hierarchy.

 

Re: Re: Re: Janko proves the theory.....!

It seems to me that the inferiority complex manifests itself most often with those holding unaccredited degrees than anything else. Usually with good reason.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Janko proves the theory.....!

Or in a tiny portion of the people who do not hold doctorates. I don't recall much debate among my colleagues about this.

Rich Douglas, Ph.D., who tells his students and the university staff to call him "Rich."

 

I think that addressing somebody as "Dr. so and so" is a formal mode of address. The usage occurs in all levels of school, in all fields, in formal contexts. Students typically address professors they don't know that way. Speakers at conferences are introduced that way.

I don't think that it has a whole lot to do with the status of the institution in somebody's imaginary hierarchy, with inferiority complexes, or with whether or not this field of study is better than that one.

If the "Dr. so and so" usage persists longer in one context than another, that seems to be an indicator that the whole context is remaining formal longer, that it is slower to adopt a level of easy informality.

I think that the hard sciences are quick to turn informal because people spend hours in the lab together. They struggle with frustrating problems and form emotional bonds.

But a night class at a commuter school that only meets once a week, particularly one without a lot of interaction, might remain formal longer, simply because nobody ever really gets to know anyone else.

I do find it a little ironic that those who criticize the "Dr. so and so" mode of address are simultaneously differentiating between "community college and third tier" and "world class", and between superior and inferior academic disciplines. Obviously the hierarchical imperative remains as strong as ever.

 

Touche, Mr. Dayson.....

You are correct in that I'm probably reading too much into this, but I've had experiences working at all levels of higher education and am just venting my frustrations with small-minded people using their degrees to keep others down who do not (yet) have those degrees....

I have been singularly impressed, however, by the cordiality and informality of world-class professors/doctors, and have been much less impressed by hacks and has-beens lurking in backwater institutions but demanding formal decorum around their degree title from everyone and anyone.

Anyway, enough already!