California proposes eliminating state-approved doctorates

New legislation has been introduced in the State Assembly (bill 1889) stating, in just one sentence, that the bill would "prohibit institutions from offering a doctoral degree, unless the institution is accredited." It then, rather amusingly (or alarmingly) defines "accredited" as "being accredited by an accrediting agency." Period.

Lots more in the proposed bill, but that's the only biggie, I think. Full text at AB 1889 (Portantino): Private postsecondary education: California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009.

 

(2) For institutions participating in the federal student
financial aid programs, this subdivision shall not prevent the
payment of compensation to those involved in recruitment, admissions,
or the award of financial aid if those payments are in conformity
with federal regulations governing an institution's participation in
the federal student financial aid programs.
(o) Require a prospective student to provide personal contact
information in order to obtain, from the institution's Internet Web
site, educational program information that is required to be
contained in the school catalog or any information required pursuant
to the consumer information requirements of Title IV of the federal
Higher Education Act of 1965, and any amendments thereto.
(p) Offer a doctoral degree, unless the institution is accredited.

-------------
(e) Advertise, or indicate in promotional material, that the
institution is accredited, unless the institution has been accredited
by an accrediting agency.

------------------
(l) Use the terms "approval," "approved," "approval to operate,"
or "approved to operate" without stating clearly and conspicuously
that approval to operate means compliance with state standards as set
forth in this chapter. If the bureau has granted an institution
approval to operate, the institution may indicate that the
institution is "licensed" or "licensed to operate," but may
shall not state or imply either of the
following:
(1) The institution or its educational programs are endorsed or
recommended by the state or by the bureau.
(2) The approval to operate indicates that the institution exceeds
minimum state standards as set forth in this chapter.

 

These appear to be amendments to the postsecondary education act passed in 2009 that established the new BPPE.

I doubt that the vagueness about "accredited" and "accrediting agency" is very important, because both of those terms are further defined elsewhere in the act.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=94001-95000&file=94810-94871

The really radical thing is the sentence that appears to ban California-approved doctoral programs. Among other things, that would kill the California-approved psych schools like Ryokan.

Given the almost hysterical opposition to the suggestion that the California State University be allowed to award doctorates, I'm guessing that the University of California's lobbyists' fingerprints are all over this proposed amendment.

(UC would probably try to ban private universities like Stanford from awarding doctorates if they thought that they could do it.)

Interestingly, the California psychology licensing law (in the Business and Professions Code) expressly forbids the California Psychboard from considering professional accreditation by the American Psychological Association or any other professional organization of psychologists when making its licensing decisions. Obviously a different pack of lobbyists chewed on that one.

 

What about unaccredited law schools?
JD is a doctoral degree, I think CA has couple of unaccredited law schools that allow one to take CAl Bar.

 

Fortunately, the entry-level law degree is not really a doctorate, so it should be exempt...

I would hate to see the Western Institute for Social Research and California Pacific University (along with Ryokan College) affected by this legislation, as they are all schools that have produced quality (even if non-standard) doctoral graduates in their respective disciplines.

Another thought is that no CA based school could offer doctorates from inception; they would first have to become accredited before the doctoral program could start and therefore the organization is denied normally plentiful seed capital. Moreover, no school could "transfer" it's regional accreditation if relocating (or sold) to CA with doctoral programs running -- the doctoral programs would have to be shut down first to comply with the law, one presumes...

 

I can see a problem no exemptions for religious institutions I know the Universal Life Church will file a lawsuit not to mention most of the other unaccredited schools there that offer doctorates.

 

One of the top law schools in the country, UC Hastings does not seem to have regional or national accreditation (unless ABA accreditation counts or if it is covered under another UC university).
The JD is not considered a doctorate but a first law degree (even by the ABA). There are doctorates in law however:
https://www.abanet.org/legaled/postjdprograms/postjd.html

 

This is confusing me, so the first professional degree is actually a masters degree.
MD, JD etc.?

 

No, it's a doctorate, it's just not equivalent to a doctorate in the traditional research sense. Ergo, a professional doctorate as opposed to a research one.

The research doctorate in law is a JSD or SJD and usually requires a LLM prior to undertaking it which as a prereq requires a JD. Thus to the legal research community the JD is sort of the same as a LLB. (which pans out if you look at any state bar application. Most accept either a JD or LLB to register for bar entrance.)

However, see the JD? thread on this same forum in the distance learning area for a full disclosure. We just had a big rowe over this exact thing.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW I see you earned degree from WGU.

How was it, how well is your WGU accepted, Are you happy with the program. etc.

I'm very curious to hear from actual graduates.

Thanks

 

Hi Lerner -

WGU worked out fine for me and it was accepted for matriculation into UMass Amherst's AACSB accredited MBA program so the program hasn't caused me any grief (I can guarantee that it didn't because I never disclosed my Northeastern undergrad on my UMass application).

If you're self-motivated and diligent, the WGU program is awesome because you never have to deal with anyone other than your mentor if you don't choose to. In my particular field it was well worth it because I was able to apply professional certifications to the process. (the networking curriculum was directly mapped to the Microsoft and Linux credentials so the program was much faster for me)

Overall, can't go wrong in my estimation, but if you need to feel like you're part of a group or need traditional student collegial interaction to get ahead, don't go there. It's one of the major drawbacks to the methodology used there that you don't interact much with others. To me, at the point in time where I was going there, I didn't need any more people in my life than I already had. It worked.

BTW. I still interact with my mentor going on three years later.. that was a major pro in favor of WGU in my humble opinion. The mentor relationship

A

 

The JD is not the highest degree in law and there is no dissertation required, so it is not a doctorate in the classroom, nor in the clinic for that matter. Moreover, nobody who knows what a doctorate is would mistake it for a doctorate, so it should be exempt from this effort to clamp down on CA state-approved doctorates; the CA JD provides much needed access to the legal profession for disadvantaged candidates...

 

The J.D. is categorized by the U.S. Department of Education as a first professional degree. Most first professional degrees contain the word "doctor"--an exception being the Master of Divinity Degree (M.Div.)

The first professional degree is different than the research doctorate, which requires a research dissertation and tends to require a masters degree. The USDOE does not have a classification for "professional doctorates," since that term is confusing and includes both research and first professional degrees.

 

Without a dissertation (and not being the highest degree in law) the JD is not a doctorate outside the law school... no matter what the lawyers at the Department of Education have managed to maneuver.

 

Great Idea! I hope this bill passes.

As a victim of state-sponsored education fraud in Ohio, I applaud this legislation. Union Insitute and Univesity claims it is "regionally accredited", but it is not. They have been struggling to maintain even state level accreditation since 2004 for their doctoral programs. Check this website: AdvancED - Find Accredited Institutions. Union is not listed as accredited. They are not even accredited by the DETC. I've had a terrible experience at Union, and a group of us are suing because we were not given anything like we were promised at matriculation, including a "regionally accredite" Ph.D.!