Is there room today for unaccredited schools

how come graduates of questionable schools become licensed professionals.

Some times I think that the substandard schools may be not so substandard as they are made.

When I see an athorney who became licensed in CA after receiving education at unaccredited (authorized in the past) or approved schools.


Isn't pass rate on licensing exams a mark of quality of some sort?

I know how importamt accreditattion is.

But is there a room for existanse for other schools that make a business choice not to get accredited?

In a way to be Vocational degrees

learner

 

I like Bill Dayson's thesis that unaccredited schools need to prove their legitimacy. This limits the field tremendously.

Except for a few niche schools, I don't believe anymore that legitimate schools should go without accreditation over the long run. There simply are no excuses anymore.

Here's a test: come up with a legitimate, unaccredited school that offers a unique educational opportunity that is not found in at least one other, accredited school. I believe there are a few, niche schools that fit the billl. But the biggies that are routinely discussed here do not fit that example.

Note to other fora: What I supported in the 1970's, '80's, and even in the early 1990's--legitimate, unaccredited alternatives--cannot be supported anymore. Times have changed. Changing with them isn't hypocrasy. Not changing would be comparable to the idiocy taking place on those boards. And supporting a new school as it builds towards accrediation isn't the same as touting Kennedy-Western or some other degree mill. So piss off.

 

What about something like NationUniversity, that is free?

Doesn't accreditation require a charge for the education?

Are there any accredited free schools?

 

So acording to your view lets say Central State University
in CA has to become accredited or shutdown?

Wile they are to expencive for unaccredited school and a person can get education at accredited university for the same or less.

I think if they lower the cost they can be tolerated and exist
If a person with accredited undergraduate degree will get his MBA from Central State ho harm is done.

The question why should a person make this choice if there are other accredited schools around.

As stated before if school provides good education and their graduates pass licensing exams in my humble opinion
they earned and prove their legitimacy - Bill Dayson's thesis.

US Law and State laws seems to be acomodating this as well.

ODA including.

So is this post makes me in to a troll?
;-)

Learner

 

Troll?

Not at all. Don't be silly. I don't know why you would say that.

Your posts are reasonable and constructive--if I think many of your conclusions and arguments are wrong, so what? Trolls are nihilistic, destructive, defamatory, without any agenda other than making a mess, starting fights, etc. You argue sanely for the points you want to make, and don't resort to irrationalism, surrealism, or hooliganism. You don't violate the TOS. I don't see what the problem is.

And don't play the martyr. Somebody else has that act patented.

 

Lerner isn't a troll. He/she might advocate from a postion opposed by others, but don't we all?

Lerner cites Central State in California. Besides the utterly objectionable name, do I think they should be accredited or shut down? Sure.

A degree is a proxy, communicating to others that the degree holder has accomplished a course of study normally expected for the award of that degree. Degrees from unaccredited schools do not do this. Some do, many do not, and that's the problem.

California Approval has almost no meaning anymore in terms of quality assurance. The same organization (the BPPVE) that approves some very fine schools also approves some very suspect ones.

Some accredited schools are better than other accredited schools. Some unaccredited schools are better than some unaccredited schools. But in the real world, the big line drawn is between accredited and unaccredited. Trying to distinguish between good and bad unaccredited schools is a tough argument, a permanent yoke around each graduate's neck. And no matter how you rack and stack accredited schools, their graduates do not ever have to make the same arguments. That's the difference.

 

What about the employer who hires this person under the mistaken assumption that the MBA comes from an accredited school? That is the natural assumption, given that--even with the proliferation of diploma mills--the vast majority of degrees claimed come from accredited schools.

Can you imagine what full disclosure would do to that person's employment prospects? Of course it would lessen them. That's one of the reasons such degrees are valuable: the mistaken assumption they cause.

 

Yes, NationsUniversity is a totally legitimate, unaccredited school and serves a very useful purpose. In fact, I highly recommend the school:

http://www.nationsu.org/

Dave

 

Indeed. I, too, like Dayson's thesis, in this regard... as well as several others, now that I think about it.

Agreed, again. And Lerner cites a perfectly good example of just such a niche school, that being the ones that offer CalBar-accredited or -approved or -registered, non-ABA-approved, but nevertheless bar-eligible J.D. programs (either residential or via D/L). Only two of the 12 D/L schools have any USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditation (specifically, DETC, in both cases), but all 12 serve the pretty-much sole purpose for which they were created: To prepare graduates to sit for the California bar exam. As long as they adequately perform that function, then USDE- and/or CHEA-approved accreditation becomes kind of a a tough sell... that is, unless they buy-in to the notion that acquiring ones J.D. from a DETC-accredited D/L law school (as opposed to one that isn't) might one day help keep one out of dutch if and when one is in a state that makes it illegal to claim any degree not accredited by a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved institution.

Truer words rarely written.

Oooh... er... well... oh, what the heck... sure: What he said!

I actually think that goes a bit too far. Instead, I think it would be more accurate to say that they're nearly always at least valid, but often not terribly sound.

All that's actually the least of their damage.

I'm certainly with ya' on that one.

Or not taken seriously, at least.

All true enough, probably, if legitimacy were the only issue. But many of these "legitimacy of the unaccredited" arguments, however valid and sound they may occasionally be, tend to miss or flat-out ignore that most salient benefit of accreditation: Establishing standards so that it may more easily be determined which degrees and/or coursework may be transferred from institution to institution; and/or which may be used as requisite to higher degrees, or licensure, etc. The people who have to make those decisions shouldn't have to launch a full-scale investigation and comprehensive (and usually complex, and certainly costly and time-consuming) investigation, evaluation and assessment every time someone presents a degree from an institution which may very well be legitimate, but can't really prove that in any sort of shorthand or quick-and-dirty way because it's not accredited. I cite, again, by way of illustration, the need for standards in my own industry (computers/telecom): Sure, I might be able to make product "A" work okay with product "B" if I'm willing to fiddle with it long enough and figure out if product "A" is using product "B's" protocol (or vice versa), etc. But why? Who has the time? It's just not worth it. If, on the other hand, product "A" states, right on its label, that it's "Product 'B' compatible and/or compliant;" or that it uses suchandsuch known IEEE standard which product "B" also uses and, therefore, they're guaranteed to work together, then I'll rely on that assertion and proceed. Time and money are saved.

When the world relies on known standards, those who either don't comply, or who do but don't bother to prove it by getting independently certified as compliant, should not be surprised by a busy and time-constrained world's reticence to do the work of certification that they, themselves, won't bother to do.

 

I'd be surprised to learn that anyone thinks of you as a troll.
Jack

 

My opinion is that there is no longer room for habitually* unaccredited schools. The rare exception may be speciality schools. Bill Dayson has given a number of very convincing examples of these that specialize in a narrow and unique subject. Although it appears that many of them are now seeking accreditation after all.

There are multiple reasons for there no longer being a good market for unaccredited schools. (It was different in the past.) The public is less accepting of unaccredited degrees. The accreditation agencies are much more accepting of distance learning and acceptance of credits given for already acquired knowledge. Bona fide habitually unaccredited schools are finally becoming accredited and there are extremely few in existence today.



*by habitually unaccredited I mean a school that was started up with the idea that it would not seek accreditation or it stays open for years without ever seeking accreditation

 

<Are there any accredited free schools?>

Yes. Central Christian College of the Bible and Moody Bible Institure are both accredited and free to all full time on campus students.

Pug

 

I think that there's room for unaccredited non-degree-granting schools.

For example, there are traditional Tibetan monastic colleges or shedra. (Tibet developed a unique academic tradition up there in its mountain isolation.) When the Chinese tried to destroy Tibetan Buddhism, a number of shedra were refounded in the diaspora, particularly in India. (Some of them have English language webpages!) It's amazing how the Tibetans have transitioned from hermit-kingdom isolation to the 21'st century so smoothly.

There seem to currently be two attempts to adapt the traditional shedra curriculum to North American conditions.

An impressive Kagyu attempt is Nitartha Institute:

http://www.nitarthainstitute.org./curriculum_over-all_curriculum_plan.html

These people have a major translation project underway, since many of the root-texts and commentaries exist only in Tibetan and must be translated into English to be taught.

The Dalai Lama's Gelugpa Namgyal Monastery in Dharmasala India naturally has its own shedra, which runs an extension at Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies in Ithaca NY:

http://namgyal.org

I think that this one is just in its infancy, but it certainly has potential. Their ambition is similar to Nitartha's, to naturalize the whole shedra curriculum in the West.

But neither of these things is accredited. They don't really lend themselves to regional accreditation. They aren't exactly ATS' cup of tea and TRACS would probably have a conniption-fit.

The Tibetans do have a whole unique system of 'degrees' of their own, culminating in 'Geshe' in the place of 'PhD'. (The Dalai Lama is a Geshe.)

But neither of these two schools seems in very much of a hurry to anoit any Geshes either. You have to start small. Besides, the point in attending isn't collecting diplomas.

 

I believe there is room for unaccredited schools . For example, DL schools that offer law. They meet the need for those whom choose to learn law without a Bachelor's degree and a LSAT to gain entrance or for the utility of the degree for those who just want to learn to expand their knowledge. I find that the legitmacy of these schools are in their pass rate percentage and thus shows quality. If you are intelligent enough to do the work then by all means earn your degree and practice law. That's what I like about the opportunity that The State of California is giving here.

NationsUniversity seems to be an excellent education from what I understand. My brother enrolled as a matter of fact once I told him about it. He has the option to go to David Lipscomb University for a master's degree in a provisional status. Luckily enough the drive isn't far.

So far from what I see in certain areas of education there is room and in other areas they could utilize accreditation. I suppose fields of psychology. Where you need a license to practice.

Should it be all or none? That's my question.

 

Nope. Why should they? I think that all the accreditors care about is whether the school is financially stable.

Here's one that I like:

http://www.deepsprings.edu/

It's a tiny men-only 2-year junior college, located in the remote desert near Death Valley. The school is a ranch, and the students work it. That's how it stays free, along with a big endowment.

Not only are the Deep Springs guys horse-riding, stetson-wearing cowboy-students (the French must really love that), they are also the school's administrators. The students run the school and hire their own teachers.

(Teaching at a place like that must be as much of an experience as attending it, and I gather that they have their choice of top-tier professors who gladly take a sabbatical to teach a term or two there)

Deep Springs is kind of the exact opposite of DL. Students remain in the valley during term (except for emergencies and ranch business), and there are no TVs. (No women either.) Just really intense 24-hour interaction with a small group of extremely smart people that you get to know really well.

http://www.deepsprings.edu/students/index.html

Deep Springs is EXTREMELY hard to get into, making Berkeley look open-admissions. SATs are astronomical, but that's not what it really takes to get in. Like the Marines, Deep Springs is looking for a Few Good Men. The students are the admissions office, you have to convince them to admit you, and they are very picky about who they hand their beloved school to. The new students will be running it, after all.

It's the kind of experience that changes lives. And it's entirely free. And yes, it's RA, accredited by WASC.

 

I enjoyed reading what you had to say Bill.
I must say that was a great find for anyone that is interested in this type of learning environment. I honestly believe as well that this could be a life changing educational experience for the better.

 

Unaccredited schools will always exist; hopefully, only good ones will exist for long...

Dave

 

It's becoming harder and harder to justify even unaccredited D/L law schools, I think. If DETC goes ahead with its professional doctorate pilot project, that will be yet another nail in the unaccredited law schools' collective coffin.

I DO think, though, that my personal definition of law school "accreditation" might have to expand to embrace State Bar accreditation such as is found in California and a few other states. This isn't "accreditation" in any sense that those forum uses the term but it does comprise an external periodic review of the school and official recognition for licensure of graduates.

The advantages of any sort of accreditation are growing as restrictions on the use of unaccredited degrees grow.

I doubt that any California D/L law school that routinely makes lawyers would be unable to achieve DETC accreditation; indeed, two of the four most prominent schools have already done so.

 

Re: Re: Is there room today for unaccredited schools

I agree with both halves of this statement. However, I've come to object increasingly about the phrasing error in the original question (it's not really lerner's error, it's a common error). The degree mill shills would like this to become a question of accredited v. unaccredited. They feel like they can, in principle, tie themselves onto a respectable unaccredited school and then say, "Hey they're unaccredited and they're respectable and we're unaccredited and so WE must be respectable too." We all know that there are some respectable unaccredited schools. The reason that they're respectable is that they're accountable, they are transparent. If you ask for detailed information they will give it to you. Their processes are clear. There is no mystery. Most unaccredited schools will not and can not do this. They can not because there is no process (aside from depositing your check into their bank). They will not describe their process because then they can be held accountable. It's not a matter of accredited v. unaccredited. It's a matter of accountable v. unaccountable. It's a matter of transparent v. opaque.
Jack

 

Right. It was the leech trick to which I objected in defence of CCU. The shills glommed on to CCU and figured that a rising tide would float all boats. This was why one particular shill kept shilling for mills and kept bragging on study at CCU. Now the differently-realitied elsewhere are claiming I was engaged in a "subtle campaign" to discredit CCU. Nonsense. It was an open campaign to discredit a shill and keep people from attributing shilliness to innocent CCU. Never mind that BJU is applying for TRACS accreditation. Glomming on to BJU, or WLS, or Bill's aerospace school (I forget the name), and a very few others, will never ever float a rotten craft. Hence the rigorous distinction between the handful of ethical and responsible unaccredited schools (Akamai, perhaps, should be added--I certainly trust the good intentions of Tony Maranto and others have spoken well of Doug Capogrossi), and the masters of deceit who bait the gullible and collude with the vainglorious.