Califorina Pacific University's Unaccredited Reasoning?

Will others provide insight as to why California Pacific University has remained unaccredited for so long? Their business degree niche appears credible yet I believe CPU has never had inclination toward pursuing recognized accreditation. Might one conclude that Dr. Dalton is truly adverse to the accreditation establishment? Or might the reasoning be strictly a business model conflict in relation to recognized accreditation standards? I’m interested in board members’ direct /indirect knowledge, comments, observations, opinions, etc.

 

It sure not helping the graduates.

The assumption is I assume that people knowingly earn unaccredited degree.
Some times if you have accredited Bachelors and masters degree and you want to get second masters degree in a different filed then CPU can be that school.

Depends on how you use the degree and in what sate.

 

This is from the CPU website. “I consulted by email with Dr. John Bear about DBA Programs. He recommended yours. - R.S.M. Oak Harbor WA.” http://www.cpu.edu/index-5.html Of course in that CPU has been around 33-years, we certainly don’t know how old the statement is or even if it’s accurate. Perhaps the author merely requested feedback regarding unaccredited DBA programs (?).

Another quote from the CPU website “Although accreditation serves more than one purpose quite well, the primary purpose of accreditation is to process student loans (a profitable practice for all but the student…).” Seemingly Dr. Dalton has some strong sentiment, perhaps flawed, regarding accreditation (?). http://www.cpu.edu/index-4.html

 

California Pacific has always been a small cottage of a business. It's always been small. I doubt if they'll ever be accreditable, given their tiny infrastructure. But I've always gotten the impression they were serious about delivering quality, and my one chat with Dr. Dalton (I'm from San Diego) back in the early 1980's seemed to back that up.

They do one, narrow thing, do it pretty well, and probably make Dalton a decent living. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go away when he does.

No faculty listed on the website, which is troubling since they offer the doctorate. (I'd also like to see other faculty behind the correspondence courses offered.) Also, there is some mill-speak in the FAQ and elsewhere, and their dismissal of accreditation as being primarily to process student loans is disingenuous.

 

Thanks for your reply Rich. I agree with you in that CPU doesn’t list its faculty on their website is somewhat troubling. Out of curiosity, I did request a catalogue back in 2007-2008. I just pulled it out and their faculty is listed. Three of the faculty and administration have PhD’ s from United States International University, with the Dalton’s (PhD - California Western and daughter Cynthia DBA - CCU). Additionally, four adjuncts are listed … one EdD from Indiana University and one PhD from Metropolitan University; the remaining two have DBA’s from CPU. All master-level degrees held by faculty and adjuncts are from accredited universities, excepting one adjunct who has a MA, MBA, and DBA from CPU. As a side note, there was even one PhD whose BS is from LaSalle Extension University - Chicago; now that is going back.

 

I don't understand why anyone would choose this unaccredited program unless it was being done only for self satisfaction. The assumption most people would make when learning that a degree is unaccredited is that the school is a diploma mill. Instead of getting some respect, one is probably more likely to lose respect. In general when someone is exposed as an academic fraud, I worked hard for my degree is usually the first thing they say. Even if it was a pure life experience degree, they still claim that they worked hard for a degree. Then they typically say, I thought it was accredited,l it was a good quality school when I went there. Which exposes another problem with unaccredited schools. They can go bad very quickly.

 

I believe most everyone on this sight understands the basic differences between an accredited and unaccredited degree, and the potential for academic backlash if one possesses an unaccredited degree without full disclosure as such. However, my purpose was not to start a thread to return to that facet of RA or NA degrees vs. State Approved, Licensed /unaccredited. I am inquiring as to reason/s why an unaccredited, but most likely legitimate non-RA /NA school might choose to continue its operation as unaccredited. I’m confident CPU’s Charles Dalton as well as you Bill, fully comprehend the limitations of unaccredited schools and their degrees' functional boundary. Perhaps Rich’s analysis regarding the very small infrastructure of CPU might be the determinate reasoning behind the 33-year unaccredited status of CPU (?). I am merely inquiring about others insights, ideas, opinions, etc.

 

I believe I read somewhere that one of our members, Dave Wagner has a DBA from CPU. If so, maybe Dave will provide some of his insights regarding CPU’s reasoning/s for remaining unaccredited.

 

Maybe CPU doesn't want to share the profit with the Accrediting agency, AKA membership fees.

 

Membership fees are quite tiny compared to the operating costs of a school, even one as modest as CPU. But a real bid towards accreditation typically requires these kinds of things:

-- Drop one more programs
-- Upgrade faculty
-- Upgrade courses
-- Build accountibility measures and processes
-- Create a data reporting mechanism
-- Establish sufficient financial resources to ensure long-term viability and consumer protections
-- Build robust student learning measurement processes
-- Conduct serious and thorough self-studies, and then respond to the resuts

And so on.

Let's say you're Steve Shank, CEO of Tonka. You've just sold the company to Hasbro and are looking to get into higher education by starting a university. You want it to be legitimate, so you establish it, from the ground up, to be something that can get regional accreditation. In a few years, you have the fully accredited Capella University and you're off.

Now let's say you're Dalton. You've been operating a model that, while once widely held in California, has largely disappeared. Your old competition, schools like California Coast, Columbia Pacific, Kennedy-Western, William Lyon, Kensington, Pacific Western, et.al., have for the most part folded. In fact, you see only one, CCU, that ever went on to recognized accreditation. But to do it, it had to drop programs, go through significant upgrading of its programs, and settle for the less-than-optimal DETC. (Hey, it ain't TRACS.) Knowing the doctoral programs were huge cash cows, you're impressed they could drop them and still survive. Also, you realize that CCU also offers a wider array of programs, making them a possibility for a wider range of students. What do you do? Do you try to follow their (CCU's) lead and get crushed? Or do you carry on, grateful for your niche (and your cash flow), your reputation (unsullied if not exactly known), and the fact that the State doesn't mess with you?

"Hey, Martha, grab the credit card receipts and the checks; we gotta get to the bank today." Right....

 

So CPU is content within its business model comfort zone; makes sense. Just goes to show that being first in the marketplace (e.g., California Approval) doesn’t necessarily equate with being the market leader. Marketing gurus Al Ries & Jack Trout might disagree (?).

 

In a word, it's not accreditable. It doesn't satisfy one or (probably) more accreditation standards. The real question is why it hasn't been able/willing to overcome those deficiencies over the years. You would have to ask its owner that question.

I agree with that last, unless - 1. The people that the graduate is talking to are already familiar with the school - or 2. The graduate can make a convincing argument for the school.

I believe that a persuasive case can be made for several currently non-accredited schools. One California number might actually produce a Nobel Prize before it becomes RA. Hey, it's possible!

The thing is, the indicators that schools are credible are also typically indicators that they are accreditable. The majority of my old California-approved favorites are now accredited. (And damn annoying that is too.)

California Pacific University is just kind of... there. It doesn't have any interesting features that would make somebody go, "Now that's cool!" There's not a whole lot there to recommend it in the event that its degrees are met with skepticism.

Finances are probably a challenge for California Pacific.

At least superficially, CPU's organization and facilities resemble a small business more than they do a university. It looks like it's basically an owner, his family, and a small number of sometimes part-time employees. Kind of a mom-and-pop university shop.

My impression is that the regional accreditors expect an applicant school to have a robust organization that is reasonably autonomous and independent. University governance shouldn't just consist of the desires of a single individual.

So, back to the original question about why California Pacific hasn't evolved into a more credible (and accreditable) university. I can only guess, but I'd speculate that - A. The owner doesn't have the financial resources to develop the thing himself - and B. He doesn't want to share decision-making with anyone else.

 

major56: "This is from the CPU website. “I consulted by email with Dr. John Bear about DBA Programs. He recommended yours..." Of course in that CPU has been around 33-years, we certainly don’t know how old the statement is or even if it’s accurate."

John Bear: I sold my degree consulting business in 1980* so it had to have been before that. The line I always used (and still do) is, "If you are satisfied that an unaccredited degree will meet your current, and predictable future needs, then . . . "

I've been spending a bit of time lately visiting at the Western Institute for Social Research in Berkeley, another unaccredited, state-approved school around for 30+ years, with several Ph.D. programs. As I meet graduates and degree candidates, I am more than ever persuaded that programs like this really do meet the needs of some people. (Old timers will remember David Yamada, a Boston lawyer, who posted regularly on the alt.education.distance forum. Last year, I attended a conference on social activism at WISR, where David presented his extensive study of bullying in the academic workplace.)

 

Thanks again!

Gentlemen (Douglas, Dayson and Bear), thanks for offering your insights toward answering my question/s pertaining to CPU. The mom / pop infrastructure setting along with possible financial limitations /financial will, and perhaps disinclined to share internal leadership are certainly speculative but viable reasons for CPU’s unaccredited status or even non-qualifying to pursue recognized accreditation. And as been previously mentioned … only Dr. Dalton would truly know those answers.

Thanks again!

 

Spot-on comment, and I wish I'd thought of it. However, while I utterly agree this is true about RA, I suspect it is much less true in the trade school culture and ethos that is DETC.

 

In that CCU is the California representative DETC market leader among the several other former CA Approved schools that are now NA; conceivably CPU has determined it’s not worth their effort toward accreditation at this business cycle juncture to join the somewhat crowded and limited utility DETC market as a late California school entrant. And within a growing DETC accredited list of degree granting schools, it's also feasible that CPU is complacent to remain within the fringe of the seemingly less competitive CA approval niche marketplace.

 

Yeah, I was thinking that too. ACICS probably resembles DETC in that regard.

That might be one of the biggest differences between DETC/ACICS and the regionals, actually. Namely the willingness to accredit what appear to be small-business proprietorships, the kind of schools that have individual owners. My impression of the regionals is that they expect university administrations to have their own independent organizational identities. They want decision-making authority dispersed into multiple hands with defined functions and expect that various internal controls will be in place. Stanford University isn't just a single man calling all the plays, it's more abstract, a complex self-perpetuating process.

That in turn raises questions about the larger corporate proprietorships, the "for-profit" schools that are owned and operated by publicly traded companies. I expect that the regional accreditors want to see academic decision-making insulated from and reasonably independent of board-room/executive-suite business agendas, but that's going to be awfully hard to ensure in practice.

Similar issues probably exist for church-related and even for government-related schools, I suppose. The history of accrediting these latter kind of schools has likely shaped the regional accreditors' expectations on how much administrative autonomy they expect universities to have.

But like you say, DETC (and ACICS) have different histories as accreditors of smaller proprietorial trade-schools and these accreditors probably have different and likely less robust administrative expectations.

 

Bill,

In your examples it appears that the regionalist have pretty much covered the entire spectrum; this might make one pause as to where the regional’s priorities actually lie in that they currently accredit: 1) Non-Profit traditional (B&M /virtual) institutions, 2) For-Profit non-traditional universities (B&M /virtual), 3) governmental schools (e.g., various U.S. military Command & Staff Colleges, War Colleges, Naval Post-Graduate, U.S. Military academies, etc.), along with 4) religious affiliated colleges /universities. With RA’s in essence covering the entire gamut could their focus actually be profitability whether accredited institutions are more traditional, non-traditional, incorporated as not-for-profit, for-profit or governmental or religion based? This outwardly could emerge that the regionalists have no true core business model hub either regarding customers they’ll service (e.g., expanded product /service-line). In actuality, how much true difference is there with DETC, ACICS, or ACCSCT vs. RA in their (NA) seemingly wide spectrum from trade / vocational to degree granting schools /universities ... also incorporating both for- and non-profits, traditional and non-traditional education?

 

This is a smart idea but not a new one. Seemingly, the gap narrows as we move forward. I can envision a time when accreditors will merge as distinctions fade.

 

Good points pertaining to probable future post-secondary RA /NA distinction dilution and potential merger/s. Perhaps sub-category /programmatic accreditation will become the more recognized and preferred way to differentiate (?).