Orlando University and Nations Question

I was curious....I saw that Orlando University and Nations was on the "New Applicant" listing with DETC.
I cannot find a website for Orlando University anywhere. Do any of you guys know of one?

Also, I know from the last forum that NationsU did not receive DETC accredited status.
Have they indeed reapplied?

Thanks!

 

I was curious too -- and I could not find a website for Orlando either -after a serious attempt. Usually DETC lists websites of institutions they're dealing with. I'm thinking that if Orlando is currently operating, it may be under another name, that will change to Orlando U. if the school is successful in obtaining accreditation. But that is just conjecture on my part.

And yes. Nations applied to DETC quite a while ago. No disrespect to Nations, but I read that for some reason, their initial self-evaluation did not conform to DETC requirements. At that time, DETC removed them from the list of applicants, until they submitted a revamped self-evaluation, which was deemed acceptable. They have been back on the list of applicants ever since.

Accreditation was not granted at the last DETC meeting, but they are still on the applicants list. All we can do now is wait. Perhaps the final decision will come at the December DETC Accreditation Meeting. They publish accreditation decisions only twice a year.

Johann

 

Is it this?
homepage

 

Nations has been trying to gain accreditation for a long time now. It just doesn't seem like it's ever going to happen, but I don't quite understand why. What is it that they're doing (or not doing) that's preventing them? I can't understand how a school who appears to have a really good reputation (you hear about quite a few of it grads getting into graduate programs at RA schools) can't get in? While programs with no rep at all are getting in.

Granted, a school shouldn't be accredited based solely on their good reputation alone, but this all seems a tad bizarre to me.

 

I think it is political. The school doesn't charge tuition and accrediting agencies and colleges are about making money! Education is big business in this country and to give it away for free is a slap in the face. Just my thoughts on the issue!

 

Yet somehow there are a number of fully accredited schools -- both public and private -- that don't charge tuition. Examples include Berea College, Cooper Union, Webb Institute, Curtis Institute of Music, and the US Military, Naval, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine Academies.

 

The US service academies are run by the US government and they cost the tax payers a fortune! "Get a million dollar education shoved up your arse a nickle at a time."

As far as the other schools, did they initially start off as tuition free schools or phased into it after years of endowments?

 

The fact is, Distant learning schools have very little overhead expenses compared to a B&M school. It's just a theory and I emphasize Theory! Accrediting agencies like DETC do not want to open the flood gates to colleges offering free college degrees through distant learning. In the long term it will devalue the college degree. Everyone knows I hate to use the phrase "online degree"
but graduates already face the scrutiny of getting an "online degree". Imagine the eyes role when they say, "I received an online college degree for free on the internet from a tuition free college"? Yeah, whatever!

 

It doesn't matter. All schools, including Nations, obviously cost something to operate. So any school that offers free tuition obviously has to be subsidized somehow.

Nations is apparently subsidized by private donations and volunteer labor (because their website actively solicits both of those things). But free tuition is free tuition, no matter how it is subsidized.

 

In that case, Nations should simply announce that tuition costs $50,000. Now no one can say that the school is tuition-free. Under your theory, this will make the accreditors happy, right?

Then Nations can simply offer every accepted student a $50,000 merit scholarship. Problem solved.

 

The school obviously doesn't meet accreditation standards tuition free or not! By the way, the military academies are not "free tuition." After the first two years the student has an obligation to serve in the military for x amount of years!

 

There are obviously many factors that go into a school becoming accredited. Having no selection process and no tuition, bucks the system and I believe the powers that be don't like it!

 

The accreditors charge fees, but they're not very much (especially DETC's fees). As for the political conspiracy described above, is there even one shred of evidence to support the notion that an accreditor would deny a school's application because the school didn't charge tuition? To my knowledge, and I wrote a doctoral dissertation on the subject of accreditation (and its impact on the acceptability of university degrees). I've never seen anything to suggest this.

Community colleges in California used to be tuition-free. I don't recall any of them being denied accreditation because of it.

 

You're not demonstrating working knowledge of the term "theory." A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. We see something occur, we gather evidence, and we put forth an explanation of what happened, how, and why. What you're proffering is not a theory. It is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Again, you've offered no evidence to support this statement.

How would a tuition-free degree be devalued? The value is in the work accomplished and the learning achieved, not in the tuition bill. As pointed out by a previous poster, there are numerous examples of free schools (and lots more overseas). No one is devaluing their degrees because of this.

What is the support for your statement?

 

Ah, so you've moved away from the-tuition-free-equals-poorly-accepted-degree conjecture?

But the second half of your post does serve as a reminder that there is no such thing as "free." Still, as a retired military officer, I don't recall my service as an "obligation." Finally, x = 5 (for graduates) for those not comfortable with the higher math employed here. x > 5 for those leaving the service academies early, depending on the circumstances.

 

Now it's a belief. Okay. Here's another one: I believe you're mistaken.

 

There is no support, I agree, it is pure conjecture!

 

This type of question invites conjecture!


Answer: The school did not meet the accreditation standard!

 

Splendid. Thanks.

 

The accreditors probably don't like it. But the reasons are probably economic, rather than political.

Suppose I proposed a new kind of car dealership, one that would really "buck the system". Here's how it would work: I would give away cars (which normally cost thousands of dollars) for free. And there would be no selection process: I would give away a car to anyone who applied. No selection process and no cost.

Does this seem like a successful business model? Or is my car business destined to collapse?

The accreditors don't want to approve schools that are destined to collapse. And so they probably have some tough questions for Nations. For example:

- If Nations received accreditation, their enrollment would explode, right?
- So Nations would then need large numbers of qualified new faculty to work with all the new students, right?
- But their revenue would stay exactly the same, at zero, right?
- So how does Nations expect to get large numbers of qualified new faculty with zero dollars?

Maybe Nations doesn't have a good answer to that last question.