College approval in theory

I'd be interested in smoking out some viewpoints on a basic issue.

Should anyone be legally allowed to start issuing degrees without government approval?

If so, how should society evaluate their meaning and validity?

If not, how should the issuance of degrees be regulated?

 

Government approval YES

Government approval YES, but at the Federal level so there in consistency across the nation.

 

That is how most countries do it - a national authorization. I have argued to the feds that they need to have a national evaluation and approval system for unaccredited colleges, but they don't want to do this. They may eventually get pushed into it by lawsuits, at which time accrediting agencies will go out of business, for the most part.

 

Alan,

to protect citizens government oversight is more important than approval but I agree with this thought. I think if all the states agree with a national governing body it will happen. However, under current federal guidelines state approved and unaccredited degrees are unacceptable and if used on a SF-86 (Questionnaire for Security Clearance) can lead to sure 'nuff criminal charges.

I am not sure that the states want to relinquish their approval authorization.

I think you are right about the effect on the individual accreditors. With politics and dollars involved the accrediting bodies and the associated schools would likely weigh in against the creation of an overarching authority.

The President's Management Agenda calls for the outsourcing of 845,000 government jobs. Any bets on increasing staff for an endeavor to look at evaluating unaccredited schools?

I'll point back to a comment I made to you previously, until all the bogus degree holders are out of the government (state or federal) you will never see any success on a large scale of shutting down degree mills.

My thought, do away with all state approval, require compulsory accreditation.

 

I'm not sure. I guess that I'd almost say 'yes', but only if there is a realistic and effective way for the general public to sort out the chaos.

(In the case of schools of religion, court ordered religious exemptions already make the laissez-faire situation a reality.)

There probably does need to be some sort of consumer protection. I'd certainly support attempts to insure that schools don't run off with their students' tuition, that they have at least superficially credible syllabi, that they use qualified instructors and so forth. But states probably shouldn't try to duplicate the work of the accreditors.

That's precisely the problem.

I like the existing accreditors. They already do a pretty good job of sorting out what colleges and universities are doing.

The problem with the accreditation system is that it requires sophistication to understand it. I'm not sure that employers, clients and customers are always prepared to ask about accreditation or to understand the often intentionally misleading answers that they will receive.

That's only compounded when schools enroll foreign students. It's just too much to expect somebody in Malaysia to understand the nuances of 50 state approvals and dozens of accreditors, many of them phony and unrecognized.

So I guess that maybe I'd support laws that forbid unaccredited schools from enrolling DL students outside the licensing jurisdiction.

I doubt that issuance can be fully and effectively regulated. Even if Oregon enacted ideal in-state requirements (or if the whole thing were federalized) the degree-mill operators would continue to happily exploit every legal loophole and doubtful jurisdiction that they can find everywhere else on earth.

That's why the Oregon user-end approach is so interesting.

 

I hope you don't think I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but maybe, just maybe the reason the federal government doesn't step up to the plate and start to take responsibility for setting and enforcing accreditation standards is because so many federal employees have diploma mill degrees. In the meantime, I thank you and the State of Oregon for doing the job th feds are shrinking from.

 

One way to insure meaningful approval of all universities would be to establish a world government, but I oppose that. I support a reasonable amount of immigration, and I support the ability to study in foreign countries, either in person or at a distance. Inevitably some countries (including the United States at the moment) will allow universities to operate with little or no supervision, so there will never be any alternative but to rely on evaluation of universities either by a non-government entity, or by a government other than the one where the university operates.

 

I have been asking the exact same question, but in a different manner at http://tinyurl.com/44pzt and http://tinyurl.com/5885m

Was the answer easy? No!

Cheers,

George

 

I disagree, if the states want to relinquish their rights regarding this issue the feds will take on the task.

Let's see, over a million and a half employees and less than 1000 identified with degree issues. I think that there are far fewer representative academic frauds in the government than in the general workforce.

 

In the past, starting a new university on a good idea might have been a good idea (in terms of public service), but things are no longer that simple.

With the ever-increasing reliance of employers on college degrees to make HR-related decisions (rightly or wrongly, but true), the validity and quality of those degrees becomes paramount. This pressure also gives rise to diploma mills and other scams set up to allow people to cheat the process. Take this and add the stealth-like qualities of the internet and you have both the fuel and the spark for this inferno.

No, even start-up schools should be placed under considerable scrutiny--which should normally mean a functioning state approval process, followed by recognized accreditation.* This is to protect all three consumers: the students, their employers, and the general public.

*If the states can come up with an approval process to deal with brand new schools, why can't the accreditors? Why can the RAs and DETC come up with an initial process so legitimate schools can get started in a pre-accredited status that, while not rising to the level of candidacy, gives the public some indication that the school is serious? Or is this a holdover from the traditional academy's unwillingness to even recognize the diploma mill problem?

 

As far as the current RA system goes, I believe that it's a system that is working fairly well. I read some articles a while back (about four years old) about the UK system struggling with government oversight. They were strongly considering trying to move to something more like the USA RA system. The advantage of the RA system is that the people that are supposed to know education the best are the ones that are in charge of making and enforcing the standards.

I don't think that just because there's federal laws restricting the privledge of granting degrees that we have to do away with the current accreditation system. Many current state laws reflect that fact.

Clamping down on degree mills and substandard degree use is an important need, IMHO. Laws at the federal level may be the best way to get that done.

 

I would be in favor of some sort of minimal federal standard. Not at the level of RA accreditation but somewhere between CA and Oregon state approval with exemptions for legitimate religious schools. States would then do no authorizing, it would all be at the federal level. This would represent the absolute minimum standard for issuance and use of degrees. Of course the degrees from a fed. authorized school would have to be usable in all 50 states. Anything without at least fed. authorization would be strictly illegal.

 

The religious exemption issue comes up a lot. Oregon has historically taken the view that religious exemption is fine as long as the degrees are religious in nature. Many states take this approach.

Problems arise when an entity like Hamilton in Wyoming files as a church, then sells degrees in all fields. Our view is that religious schools should not issue degrees in fields like architecture, nuclear engineering etc. unless they have undergone the same kind of evaluation as a secular school.

Thoughts?

 

Fed: Let's see, over a million and a half employees and less than 1000 identified with degree issues. I think that there are far fewer representative academic frauds in the government than in the general workforce.

John: I think the number suggest a huge problem. Consider:
The GAO degree audit looked at 6 agencies (fewer than 5% of the total).
They looked only at top jobs, GS-18 and above (fewer than 5% of total).
And they were only trying to find about 30 fake school names,
fewer than 5% of total .

This suggests the possibility that if they had done 100% of 100% of 100%, they might have found 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000 times as many as they did find.

And that, of course, does not even address the people with counterfeit diplomas with real school names, or simply those who lie on their resumes.

Or the possibility, I would guess, that fake degree use is more prevalent at the lower GS numbers.

 

Agreed, although I think that degree-granting itself is a secular activity. Regulating it doesn't (or shouldn't) be a church-and-state issue, so I feel all schools awarding degrees should be regulated, no exceptions or exemptions for religious purposes.

If a church opens a restaurant, doesn't it have to be regulated and inspected? If a priest starts pulling teeth, won't the government (and the ADA) get involved? The reasons for allowing these exemptions to church-based schools are likely rooted in antiquity, but our Constitution is not.

 

Hummm... let me figure this out.

Doing a little multiplying and dividing, I conclude that each and every federal employee has 5.33 bogus degrees!!!!!

That casts a whole new light on some hitherto inexplicable government policies.

 

I was just looking at the California Education Code. Section 94739(b)(6) says both that an exempt school may only offer degrees in religious doctrines, and that it can only use degree titles of a religious nature (e.g. B.D., Th.M., M.Div.). It is expressly forbidden to use B.A., M.A., Ph.D. and so on, unless the school has gone through the conventional approval process. I'm not sure how religiously the BPPVE enforces this one.

 

Re: Re: College approval in theory

The general way it works is that federal law is the minimum, but states are allowed to pass more stringent regulations. The California Air Resources Board level II gasoline is a good example. CARBII gasoline is the onlu unleaded gas sold in California, and it has lower emissions levels then Fed mandated gasoline.

In other words, states would still be allowed to have more strict requirments for degree use in side their borders.

 

Interesting thoughts, assuming all employees claimed a degree. While we can spin the numbers until someone actually does a 100% study my point is that the federal government, while not perfect, at least is making the inward look and taking steps to correct the problem. Additionally, if you look at the agencies indentified you will see that they were selected because they represent the largest portion of federal employees or have key roles. DOD alone represents 636,000 civilian employees and was one of the identified agencies.

I would like to comment on your last statement. The impact of using a fake degree at the lower levels is, in my opinion, a greater problem than at the upper levels. Education can be used as a substitution for experience at the lower levels and in some instances be the single reason for qualifying. The same cannot be said for most positions above the GS-12 rate. Once a person slips in with a fake degree it takes the "time-bomb" going off before anyone challenges. It is incumbent upon the initial hiring agency to validate the degree. As I have stated before the study should have been done on positions with a positive education requirement. Doing the study in the manner that GAO did netted the predicted political answer once the results were made public.

I think the real method of curtailing the use of fake degrees issue is to implement penalties that are enforceable. Not necessarily criminal but, I am not opposed to those. A couple of foks losing jobs would send a pretty good message (might provide some upward mobility). I can say that some positive changes have been made in both vacancy announcements and validation of credentials.

Back on topic-I think Mike has a good thought, I am opposed to the federal government deciding what is best for a state but certainly think that a minimum can be set.

 

Another way to do it might be a credential validation service. A degree holder would present his diploma, wherever earned, and receive a "validation" from some byzantine federal agency, if and only if the agency shows the school on its labyrinthine list.

Completely voluntary, completely optional, and every government agency, university, and employer would be foolish not to ask an applicant to obtain it.