From Degree Mill to Accredited Schools

I 've tried to come up with some system I could use to rate schools, after several efforts, and after reading MANY posts have come to this method for my own use.

1- Diploma Mills= Schools with no study or testing
2- Least Demanding Schools= Schools with very little study and testing, or problems with stability.
3- Less Demanding Schools= Better, but unregulated schools, also authorized/approved schools. More study and testing, shows improved stability.
4- More Demanding= Accredited Distance Learning Schools
5- Most Demanding= Better quality residence Schools.

Alright, this is my system, for good or ill I'll try to fairly include the different schools I come across using these standards. What standards will you use to separate them?

 

I'm interested why you apparently feel that DL schools are below residence schools?

 

In terms of utility, I believe there is no difference between groups 1 and 2, and the vast majority of schools in category 3.

Likewise, the utility of schools in groups 4 and 5 is so far above the others, it would be practical to consider them as one group.

Which would mean that as far as utility is concerned, there are really on 2 groups -- accredited and unaccredited, with a few exceptions.

 

I don't know about utility, but there is a difference in general perception between 4 and 5.

 

I don't believe that a student who graduates from the University of California, Berkeley, after sitting through classes for six years and receiving a Masters Degree, would view the process at Mercy College- Excelsior College or Thomas Edison State College as being equally rigorous. Neither would the same job opportunites be available to all. HARVARD MBA or Baker College MBA

 

I think that the delivery does not make the ranking, but the quality of school. For example, I have found some of the DL (like Case Westerns PhD), though mostly DL, is considered MUCH more prestigous than many brick and mortar school. Case Western is ranked as one of the top business schools in the country (and an extremely difficult program to get accepted into).

You example of Harvard vs. a DL school is the same, so the delivery isn't a good differentiation factor.

Maybe based your criteria on type of accreditation - there are many.

1. No Accreditation
2. State Accreditation
3. Regional Accreditation
4. National Acceditation
5. Professional Accreditation (i.e. AACSB)

This board knows much more than I about the differences in accreditation, but I think a good tool for "grading schools" (with other factors weighed in as well), rather than the tye of delivery.

 

Consider the following list of basketball players:

1. Tom Thumb
2. Elvis Presley
3. Bill Clinton
4. Dennis Rodman
5. Michael Jordan

Sure, Rodman is not as good as Jordan. But they are both pro's. And sure, Clinton might sink a free throw now and then. But if I were creating categories to describe the list above, I think a two-category system would be the most descriptive.

 

What two categories would you use??

 

Although the category number two is for "earned" degrees. I don't think that the general public will make much of a difference between one and two for practical purposes

 

I'm moving towards considering individual departments and programs rather than entire universities. Many schools simply aren't equally good at everything they do. Some places are big mega-universities and others are little specialized institutes. The Pacific Graduate School of Psychology is probably better than Stanford in its field of clinical psychology, but its hard to scale that up to a claim that PGSP is better than Stanford overall.

I differ from you in not using "demanding" as a criterion. I prefer "accepted standards", which I define as roughly whatever regional accreditation requires, simply because in this society that's what the accepted standard is. That's not to say that non-RA schools can't achieve that same standard. I think that some of them do.

Above that level, I look to see if a program offers something special or whether it is a leader in its field.

But ultimately, there's a big "eye of the beholder" aspect to all this. It's partly a matter of taste, which is why I regard it as educational aesthetics.

The hierarchy:

1. Flat out educational frauds. Don't even try to meet any educational standard. Sells degrees.

2. Clearly substandard. These programs offer some kind of educational experience, but it doesn't come anywhere close to what the RA schools are doing. Lots of the schools with religious exemptions are here.

3. Lame. These programs kind of superficially approximate the RA standard, but they don't do it very credibly. They might have some obvious problems or come under serious criticism. They are iffy. If they are RA, their accreditation may or may not be in jepardy. They may be state-approved or be accredited by off-brand accreditors, and they might have limited resources and flaky "alternative" orientations.

4. Standard. These are the "back-in-the-pack" places that clearly meet the expected standards, but don't achieve anything very memorable.

5. Standard programs about which good things can be said. If undergraduate, they may be easy-admissions programs that show some especially good results. If graduate, they may be rather obscure programs where nevertheless somebody is doing some interesting work or where the program being offered is unusual in some way.

6. Strong programs. They probably have higher admissions standards and show their students more attention. On the graduate level these are departments that actively participate in the intellectual life of their field. They host meetings, win grants and put out work that's recognized as being important. While perhaps not the best programs out there, anyone trying to keep current in their field can't ignore them.

7. Leaders. These are departments that could make a credible case for being the best in the world at what they do. The very best undergraduate programs, extremely stimulating for a select group of students. At the graduate level it might just be a particular research specialty, but they are arguably the world leaders in it. Places with star faculty. Places that win Nobel prizes.

As far as DL goes, it's hard to think of very many DL programs that are better than #5. (Standard+) It's probably too difficult to give DL undergraduates the kind of support, resources and stimulation that the best on-campus programs provide. On the graduate level, it's hard to point to any DL programs that are leaders in their fields, or even very many that are research productive at all.

At this point in time, I think that DL rises to a little better than standard, then stalls out. That's while it almost monopolizes the lowest 'fraud' category and is very strongly represented in the 'substandard' one.

I do think that there is a tremendous opportunity for the new communications technologies to pull together world-wide virtual research communities in various subjects, but it doesn't seem to have really happened yet.

 

Well thought out system, I'm impressed. You've thoughtfully laid out the differences between schools. This is the type of opinion and information I had hoped to receive.

 

I think this is a key point, and completely agree.

I think there are more and more. I think we have hit a time where mostly all schools have some sort of DL program. An entirely DL program might be the case for the above statement, but with residency requirements, I can name several that are considered leaders - like Case Western in Business. I think for the most part your statement is right, but times - they are a changin'.

Do you think for non-teaching careers that there is a difference between 5 & 6?

 

Kristie7: "Maybe based your criteria on type of accreditation - there are many.

1. No Accreditation
2. State Accreditation
3. Regional Accreditation
4. National Acceditation
5. Professional Accreditation (i.e. AACSB)


Cehi: Your idea has more wisdom than anyone would imagine. The issue about accreditation or the lack of it, in my mind, is that there are schools that has authority to grant degrees and there are some without any authority to grant degrees. The question then becomes, what kind of authority are we talking about? State, Regional or National authority? These labels (1-5, above)can easily be described, defined, and defended without members not pulling out each other teeth without anesthesia.

 

I like this system also. While it is in no way all encompassing, it is probably the 'fastest and easiest' way to describe differences in quality and utility.
I think numbers 3 and 4 need to be transposed though.

3. National Accreditation
4. Regional Accreditation

Tony

 

I can't believe it - OK, I am taking the rest of the day off to celebrate!

Myoptimism - The national / regional accreditation still puzzles me, and I am sure you are probably right.

 

Nice and hard to disagree with, but way too complicated...

I prefer the following:

1. Suck.

2. Suck less, but still suck.

3. Don't suck.

 

I like Bills categories. I'm guessing that there would be very few arguments as to which category a given school belonged. I also agree with his statement above. The general concept of "demanding" is too subjective. What's demanding for me may be quite easy for you. If you then say that "demanding" means the number of tests you have to take, books you have to read, essays you have to write, etc. then you have entered into the realm of "accepted standards" anyway.
Jack

 

Bill Dayson has done an excellent job describing what I believe is the reality of the answer to the question. From the point of view of what people's perceptions are though, I think we see different and much simpler catagories.

I believe that from the point of view of Joe Public there's three general categories.

1. Degree mill
2. Standard School
3. Schools that have a football team that plays on TV

If Joe Public has ever heard of accreditation then his assumption is likely to be that unaccredited equals degree mill. I believe that relatively few people even know that there's RA vs DETC vs professional accreditation.

Another point of view is that of the HR professional. This is the area where Rich is the real expert. But I'll use my own characterization. Here's the general HR professional's view.

1. unknown schools
2. local schools
3. top schools that require them to pay top dollar

The more interesting category in this list is the unknown schools and my understanding is that Rich's study concentrated on this area.

Another point of view is the academic point of view and I think that Dr. Bear has already covered that one.

 

Another interesting point of view is the view held by the substandard degree holder. Generally this view seems to be.

1. degree mill is an institution that is somehow differentiated as being inferior to their alma mater
2. their alma mater

 

Then there's the perpective of the business major:

a. Degree Mill - illegal, inordinate risk, inadvisable
b. Degree with Low ROI - generates <$1M in 20 yrs or has a ratio of <1.0 (first year after graduation income/education cost)
c. Degree with Medium ROI - generates $1-2M in 20 yrs or has an income/expense ratio of 1.0-3.0
d. Degree with High ROI - generates >$2-3M in 20 yrs or has an income/expense ratio of 3.0-10.0
e. Degree with Exceptional ROI - generates >$3M in 20 yrs or has an income/expense ratio of >10.0