How good is Kennedy-Western?

An update on a poll by Andy Borchers from a little over a year ago:http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8827&highlight=poll

 

I almost never vote in polls, because I never know how to answer.

Kennedy-Western is a scam -- I could easily agree with this. Considerable evidence to support it has been posted in previous threads. If it sells easy-degrees that don't represent what people expect degrees to mean, then it's a scam almost by definition.

Kennedy-Western is substandard -- It does seem to offer real instruction. So it isn't just a degrees for dollars deal. But its requirements don't seem to be close enough to expected standards to qualify as 'standard'.

Kennedy-Western has some value as a university -- I'd be more comfortable with this option if K-W didn't offer misleading degrees. By some accounts some of the classes it does offer are pretty good. So it might conceivably be an OK source of non-credit continuing education or something.

Kennedy-Western is a a good university -- I would pretty much exclude this possibility. I live in California and they won't even send me a catalog.

I guess that I can see K-W as simultaneously being a scam, being substandard and having some value. (But not being good.) It all depends on whether you have a degree-objective and how you intend to use the education.

I tried voting, rather arbitrarily, for 'substandard'. But three tries each generated an 'invalid session' error message, so I gave up.

 

I agree with Bill

I think Bill makes a very compelling point that would find application in reference to any number of schools. It is clear that KW is not a "good" university. As used here, "good" would mean to most people a school that is at least average in its learning outcomes, resources, faculty, research output, general reputation, and numerous intangibles. To me "substandard" would mean simply below standard, which may or may not mean that the school is "bad" --which is really categorically different than substandard. A substandard school might well have "some value" or considerable value as a university. There was a time, perhaps twenty or twenty five years ago, when schools like Century and Pacific Western were most likely almost universally regarded as "substandard" but also "of some real value." I don't see the two categories as being mutually exclusive. I might even go so far as to say that before the explosion of web based degree mills, there was a comfortable and socially useful nich for the "substandard but not horrible" school. Human nature will discerne levels of prestige, and no one will mistake a PWU for a Harvard or even a Cal State. It was not a great degree that these schools awarded, but it represented something in the general area of an undergratuate degree. It is a shame really that such schools have fallen victim, not to accreditation agencies and big time universities, but to the flat out mills that have destroyed the reputation of the "reputable" unaccredited school.

 

Perceptive post. Thanks,Craig.

 

Kennedy-Western University plays the life-experience-for-large-amounts-of-undefined-credits scam that is a standard favorite diploma mill trick. As far as misleading their students, KWU does it so well that many have apparently moved into a permanent state of denial (based on posts by KWU alumni on this forum). The KWU state of denial seems to packed with a very large percentage of the KWU alumni. I don't disagree with Bill and Craig that multiple votes can be reasonably supported but because of the fraudulent and extremely misleading aspect of KWU business practices, I believe the best answer is "scam".

 

Not trying to stray off the subject but...I clicked on the link that Mike provided and I read the majority of the posts (that was really long) and it seems to me that the majority of you believe that any unaccredited degree is a "time bomb". I don't understand your logic. If the Department of Education says that accreditation is volunatary then I think we're safe in assuming that some schools are going to go that route and others will not. Why are the schools that opt not to go through with accreditation villified?

 

BDEV...I'm with you on that. Accreditation is a VOLUNTARY process and is not regulated or managed by the USDOE, but is recognized. I've made a point on other discussions that Ifeel that the only true solution to prevent these discussions is to have ALL schools mandated to comply and meet a uniform accreditation standard set by USDOE or be shut down. Problem is that adding that kind of standard would shoot our taxes thru the roof.

Just one idea though...

Another problem for KW is they were already denied to practice business in CA and another state as well. Not available to Oregon and CA residents. That. to me, is a definite flag that something is wrong. At least some of the older and more reputable State approved universities in california, they can at least enroll students in all states as far as I know. I do not know how much utility a KW degree would have.

 

May I suggest a response for the Don't Know/ Not Sure condition in future polls?

The reason is that while their foibles are continually discussed on degreeinfo.com, I personally only know about their shiny brochures and aggressive "academic advisors".

Dave

 

Hi BDev

You really seem to be asking two seperate questions. First why do many see any unaccredited school as a time-bomb, and, two, why is K-W "villified".

The vast majority of U.S. schools are Regionally Accredited. It is the accepted, and in most cases, expected criteria when looking at college level education. There are some much smaller accreditors that are in some cases equivilent to RA. DETC, formerly known as the National Home Study Council, is one such accreditor. While the DETC has made some questionable decisions at times, they have also grown in stature and seem to be a great job.

A school that remains unaccredited over a long period of time is most likely saying either they don't think they can attain accrediation or they don't want to spend they money to attain it. The former indicates a vastly sudstandard school while the latter indicates their financial condition puts them in a dangerous position that might cause the closing or serious breech of standards of the school.

Many unaccredited schools are simplely out and out degree mills or near degree mills. Having such a degree on your resume could certainly be a "time-bomb" waiting to go off.

K-W has a particularly nasty reputation. They have moved from state to state to avoid regulation. They operate from one state while licensed in another. Their degrees are prohibited or illegal in at least two States (Oregon and California). The give a Bachelor's degree for completeing 5-6 classes when the norm is around 40. They are either a degree mill or near degree mill depending on how charitable a person is.

So, if letting potential students know about the pitfalls of unaccredited schools or K-W specifically is villifing them, perhaps it is a good thing.

 

Dave,

I understand and appreciate what you stated but what if it's not quite that "black and white"? What if a school passes on accreditation simply because the federal government says that it can? I don't think that K-W is the only unaccredited school that gets beat up around here...I notice that many of you approach CCU with quite a bit of skepticism, too.

I genuinely believe that a "real" education can be obtained from any school that is willing to instruct (whether it be accredited or not).

Please don't lump me in with the K-W apologists (because I certainly am not one). I just try to look at things from different perspectives.

 

"What if a school passes on accreditation simply because the federal government says that it can? "

Well in the U.S. accreditation is voluntary, but not in the normal sense of the word. You could also say having teachers or a school name is voluntary. Just like passing on accreditation, these choices would be extremely unwise and would cause most to be very skeptical of a school. If someone chooses an unaccredited school knowing that the degree may have little or no value and that the instruction is likely to be vastly substandard, so be it.

An education can be gained without a school. Why spend thousands of dollars only to have it later cause a "time bomb"?

As to K-W, I guess I totally miss your point. K-W is built on deceiving perspective students and others. Calling them shady is being generous. How is pointing out their actions and history "beating up" on them?

 

This thread contains the standard argument about getting a degree from an unaccredited school: namely, that a legitimate program might be pursued at an unaccredited school. Let me stipulate that this is true. Further, however, let me say that this doesn't matter one damn bit. Not one. If you want an education, you can get that anywhere. So, what we're really talking about isn't education, it is credentialing. And that's where unaccredited schools, almost invariably, fail.

Can one get an education at K-WU? Perhaps. While much of what they do is suspicious, it isn't necessary to attempt to measure the veracity of the operation. The weaknesses presented in possessing such a credential are sufficient to recommend that no one--under any circumstances--should pursue such a degree.

A few, small, mostly California-approved and largely residential schools in a few niches might be good options for a tiny minority of students. Bill Dayson writes about these schools and I love it when he does. But for the majority, taking degrees from unaccredited schools is a bad idea. And usually it is an over-rationalized choice made to avoid a real degree program.

 

Add to this the fact that there are no longer any legitimate programs offered at unaccredited schools that are not also offered at accredited ones and that should end the discussion.

But it won't.

 

The differences are too big to even justify the comparison. A single example:

An accredited university would not provide me with the equivalent of two thirds of a Master's degree in credit for a two page resume and no other supporting documentation. This is my personal experience. Witnessed first hand as a part of my own research.

As Rich said, it is not about some measure of learning taking place, learning can take place in a cave, it is about legitimizing the credentialing process. K-W has no legitimate credentialing process. They award credits with no basis for assessing actual prior learning by the applicant. This alone makes K-W so vastly different, that the most meager of attempts to compare them with an accredited institution begins with a faulty premise and goes down hill from there.

 

Hi Jim

I am curious. There are dozens of DL degree programs from accredited schools that are low cost in IT, IS, and CS. Why would anyone choose K-W which has a history of deception?

 

I don't think that's true.

But it does seem to be true for the most popular kinds of DL programs.

 

"Unaccredited" is not something to be proud of. It means that the school is operating with little or no quality assurance. Schools usually fly under the radar like that for a very good reason.

Perhaps 99% of non-accredited distance learning programs are either substandard or outright scams. That's just a fact. If you pick one at random, chances are very good that it's a degree-mill.

If a person with a non-accredited degree ever becomes controversial or acquires professional enemies or rivals, their questionable degree can easily be used in an attempt to discredit them.

That's what the "time bomb" talk is about.

If a person buys a phony degree from a scam university, that's pretty convincing evidence right there that employers and clients should question both the person's expertise and his/her honesty. Claiming a bogus degree is simply a lie.

And even if somebody has a degree from an academically sound non-accredited school that offers real education, how are people who don't have personal knowledge of the school supposed to know that? They will just hear "non-accredited" and assume the worst.

So a person with a non-accredited degree has a heavy burden of proof. He or she needs to be ready and able to defend the honor of the degree in the face of dismissive skepticism.

That's why I think that non-accredited degrees work best in niche situations. By that I mean specialized applications where the people evaluating the degree are apt to already be familiar with the school that granted it. An example might be a religious denomination that operates its own non-accredited seminary.

But even in these cases, doubts will be raised if the person strays out of his or her niche into the wider community that doesn't know the school and only hears "unaccredited".

 

What I'm saying is that unaccredited schools get beat up here (whether it's justified or not I'm not qualified to say). I'm not necessarily talking about K-W (I just happen to be saying this here). It's odd to me to see "State Approved" schools get demeaned (as a whole-- per the previous statements) but then Oregon's State Approved list (ODA) gets lots of praise. I don't get it...either state approval/rejection is good enough or it isn't. I don't know anything about K-W...I don't know what takes place there...I'm just showing you guys how this looks from my perspective (looking in). I agree that unaccredited schools probably don't offer anything that an accredited school doesn't/couldn't. I just disagree with this mindset: "if it's unaccredited, it's probably shady". I think this type of assertion has to be made on a case-by-case basis. How many schools started off with accreditation?
I understand that accreditation is the "standard" and that you believe that if a school is unaccredited it is a sub-par institution. Whether that is true or not, the DOE is ok with that, right? <--Because it says that accreditation is voluntary. I agree that if accreditation is the "standard" that it makes sense that all unaccredited schools move towards the standard because that will benefit the students/alumni. The law says they don't have to though so...I agree with JNelson that the guidelines should be rewritten and that probably won't happen until they are "challenged" which is why I'm glad that K-W is taking the ODA to court (that should answer many questions).

For the record: I agree with much of what you guys are saying (honestly). Some of the questions that I ask, I ask simply to promote discussion.

Rich, you shouldn't take this stuff personally:

I thought I read somewhere that you are a professor at an unaccredited school but...I'm sure it's just a rumor. I can't imagine you being a part of something that you see as flawed/dubious. And just so you know, I'm not talking about credentialing, I'm talking about quality.

 

There is no reason to believe that Kennedy-Western offers anything that might be called "quality." But there are many reasons to think otherwise. Same shilling, different shill.