South Dakota bill takes aim at fake degrees

Report here and bill wording here.

Section 1. No person may knowingly use a false academic degree or falsely claim to have a valid academic degree for the following purposes:
(1) To obtain employment;
(2) To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment;
(3) To obtain admission to postsecondary education; or
(4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation.
A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

We'll see if it passes.

 

Let's hope that South Dakota does a better job of figuring out what constitutes a valid academic degree than do states like Texas or Oregon.

 

I think both do a pretty good job. Where Oregon failed--and where Texas is tripping up--is with maintaining lists instead of standards.

 

It's as if foreign schools didn't exist, or didn't offer DL programs to U.S. students. (The University of Leceister, like several foreign universities, is approved under Title IV. But that shouldn't the qualifying factor.)

Criteria are good, lists are flawed. I like this idea.

Although the U.S. Department of Education is not tasked with authorizing schools, I wish they'd take the lead regarding this matter and set guidelines for states to consider.

 

You are quite correct Steve. This year will bring about many changes and it will have a compound affect on other States. Also, I predict States picking and choosing among bona fide "recognized" accreditors will be done away with. These are exciting times and precedents will be set.

Abner

 

This bill is poorly drafted even if the intent is to recognize only RA degrees.

The bill appears to prevent someone from using a degree from an RA school that either ent out of business or lost its accreditation AFTER the degree was awarded.

 

To say nothing of DETC, ACICS, ACCSCT and several specialized accreditors, closed colleges, new colleges... And it isn't entirely clear to me what that "neither - nor" language is about. It's possible that RA degrees can be "false" as well, if they were awarded by RA schools that aren't participating in federal student loan programs.

Of course, the prairie cretins would never forget that.

Apparently a degree can't possibly be false if its subject is Jesus Christ, but can't be anything but false if it was awarded by the University of London.

I couldn't agree more emphatically.

I don't enjoy watching our ever-paternal rulers taking more and more decisions concerning our lives out of our own hands and claiming the exclusive right to exercise them themselves, in our behalf, in order to protect us from ourselves.

That's a not-so-subtle expression of contempt for the people that they govern.

 

Then what is the status of a Bachelor of Divinity degree awarded by the University of London?

 

Fake, according to this dumbly-worded monsterpiece!

Hi, Ted -

According to the South Dakota bill, such a degree would be a fake.

Reasons -

(1) It's not RA by a US agency or participating in Title IV

(2) It does not come under the religious exemption because it's conferred by a University, not "a religious institution that offers credit or degree solely for the purpose of conferring status or authority within that religion."

Ludicrous! ROFLMAO!

Johann

 

The University of London has several federal school codes. It is not clear whether or not this would do, since the degree is offered via the External Programme which, it appears, doesn't have a separat code. (Most foreign universities have just one.) Because U.S. students pursuing DL degrees from foreign schools are not permitted to use student aid--even if the school itself is approved for Title IV, it would seem logical that the Exernal Programme would not pursue Title IV eligibility. However, because the UofL has many such approvals, I bet a BD from there would do just fine in South Dakota. But that's just my opinion; YMMV.

 

Philosophy OK? Divinity not? Maybe in South Dakota!

Hi -

Rich, thanks for your update and comments.

I checked the FAFSA site for school codes and found something interesting.

As you said, The External Division itself, at U of London does not have a school code. Neither does U. of London's Heythrop College, which actually teaches the distance degree - Bachelor of Divinity. However, U. of London's Birkbeck College, which teaches a well-known quality distance bachelor's degree in Philosophy DOES have a school code! (Agreed, US students can't apply for federal aid for a foreign distance degree.)

It seems, if taken LITERALLY, a philosophy degree from U of L is legit under the South Dakota bill SOLELY because the college (Birkbeck) participates in Title IV -although no U.S. distance student could get a dime in Federal aid.

Applying the same literal criteria - not even the religious exemption would legitimize the Divinity Degree for use in Pierre or Sioux Falls! Reason: no school code for Heythrop College and it's part of a University - not a religious organization! If some SD official actually applied this RIDICULOUS line of reasoning(?) to one degree of ANY kind from the University of London, he should have his rump kicked all the way to Mt. Rushmore!

Johann

 

South Dakota bill amended

I alerted the Director of DETC as soon as I had read this post, and just received word the South Dakota bill has been amended to include recognition of ALL accreditors recognized by CHEA and the USDOE. The title IV participation requirement is gone as well. The Director of DETC was able to call the author of the Bill the night before the committe hearing. Here is what the bill author wrote after reconsidering his stance (to his credit):

The bill sponsor was SD Representative Al Novstrup. Here is what he wrote for the DETC newsletter, which will be released soon:

"The intent of this new legislation is to protect the citizens of South Dakota from the scourge of fraudulent degree mills that the Internet has spawned in recent years. South Dakota values highly the idea of a well-educated and well-skilled citizenry, and we encourage our fellow citizens to study with legitimate educational institutions. But degree mills need to be eliminated, and we feel our new legislation, which relies upon the recognition of accrediting agencies by the U.S. Secretary of Education, will go a long way toward making fraudulent degrees and their dubious providers unwelcome in our state. We were gratified to work with the national accrediting community, and with DETC in particular, to get this law enacted. Everyone--students, taxpayers, employers and legitimate educational institutions--will benefit from this law. "

I will also add the Texas law was amended effective 1/24/08. Degrees from any accreditor recognized for CHEA and USDOE will be acknowledged, as it should be.

Indeed, what a great start to 2008!!!!!

Abner

 

Excelente Abner

 

Good job Abner!

 

What about foreign universities? What about those domestic state-licensed schools that are academically valuable?

The implication is that any school that isn't accredited by an accreditor that the US Secretary of Education personally likes is "fraudulent". That's just false.

Of course DETC would scream bloody murder when it wasn't included, but strongly support the legislation once it was. By making it impossible to legally use state-licensed degrees in SD (and apparently foreign degrees as well), that's just more SD business channeled DETC's way.

I've gradually come around to opposing laws that criminalize degree use.

There's the free-speech issue. The word "use" is extremely vague and could easily include things like talking about a degree at a party. (What if somebody present is impressed and offers you a job?)

And it takes away the right to make these determinations for ourselves and hands it to our always-paternal government.

It's usually proposed in the form of an accreditation requirement. But there are multiple accreditors, so which ones count and which ones don't? That usually boils down to Dept. of Education recognition which in turn is the unilateral decision of one single individual, the Education Secretary. He has a staff to advise him, but there's no requirement that he listen to their recommendations and on occasion he hasn't.

Ultimately, I think that I know more about the credibility of programs of interest to me than the Education Secretary does. I will continue to make decisions for myself, even if that makes me a criminal in some states.

 

Fraud is a crime, not privileged speech.

 

Is Bill Dayson Hungry Ghost from DD?

Are you Hungry Ghost from Degree Discussion? If you are not, how come this same exact post is posted over there by H.G.? Please explain.


Abner

 

He is. But his points about DETC are way off, as I described in my response on the other channel. They show a distinct bias towards unaccredited schools in order to preserve the viability of a few of his cherished favorites. (Schools I too believe are good.)