Non-Accredited Vs. Dilpoma Mill

Another one of my crazy questions again....


In reading the 15th Edition of John Bear's book, he has a chapter for other universities and a chapter for diploma mills. What tool is used to differentate between them? Some of the schools in the "other" chapters sound like legimiate schools, while other obviously sound like mills. Why were these schools included in the "other" chapter in the first place? I would appreciate any feedback...

 

I haven't read the 15th edition and I know I am going to DE purgatory.

Dr. Bear has stated that he doesn't like getting sued. If a school has been repeatedly identified as a degree mill by others, its a degree mill. If the jury is out, it's in "other." I believe he was quoted somewhere saying that a large percentage of these are in fact degree mills.

 

I would like to lend my voice as corroboration to Dennis' post. I believe that if you read the whole book (minus the specific school descriptions) it also says the same thing. I can't resist adding that many of these con-artists must make more money than they know what to do with because in the past some of them have apparently sued the good doctor out of pure mean spirited spite, knowing that they have zero chance of winning the lawsuit but are just out to cause grief and trouble.

 

LaSalle is a perfect example.

For years, with great reluctance, I put them in the "Unaccredited" or non-GAAP chapter, because they were appropriately registered with the state of Louisiana, and the Louisiana Supreme Court had validated their practice of calling all their degrees "religious degrees," since God created everything.

That didn't stop LaSalle from suing me, for untold millions.

And, thankfully, that didn't stop the FBI, Postal Inspectors, and IRS from investigating, getting indictments, accepting guilty pleas, and imprisoning the people who ran LaSalle.

I've just looked at Chapter 21 of Bears' Guide 15 ("Other Schools with Nonresidential Degrees") and there are at least 127 in there (about half the total) that I would happily move to the "Degree Mills" chapter were it not for this fear of being sued.

If I were going to do any more Bears' Guideses, and I do not plan to, I would fret about how to distinguish schools like California Coast from "schools" like LaSalle, in a way that conveys useful information to the reader without getting me sued.

 

What about your new book "Bear's Distance Education Ratings" where you list the criteria and apply it.

Properly accredited American schools could rate plus 6 points.

Schools operating in one jurisdiction but claiming accreditation in another would rate a - minus 2 points.

Schools claiming an unrecognized accreditation - minus 2 points.

Schools who have no apparent address or not licensed in the jurisdiction of the provided address would rate an minus 2 points.

Schools offering no coursework (sorry Excelsior) minus one point.

Find about 10 verifiable criteria that would give most legitimate schools a score of 8 to 10 and every degree mill a score of minus 8 to 10 which would be reflected as simply 0.

Probably good in theory, but they would still probably sue.

Whatever happened to absence of malice?

 

Interesting approach, Dennis. Thanks.

Here's an idea that intrigues me. What do you think?

It is swiped from the "Usage Panel" approach used by one of the major dictionaries. Rather than say, for instance, that "irregardless" or "ain't" is right or wrong, they have a usage panel of 100 experts, and they report the score. If 92% say "irregardless" is wrong, you have learned something.

What if there were a panel of 100 registrars and 100 corporate HR people, who were asked if a given school was acceptable to them (always or usually).

Then one could report, for instance:

Slippery Rock State University
Registrars: 92%
HR: 97%

Catatonic State University
Registrars: 12%
HR: 31%

Could registrars and HR people be found who would do this? Would the results be helpful to readers?

 

I like Dennis’s approach much better. It’s would be much like a FICO score. Registrars and HR managers would then be free to accept whatever score they believe is appropriate.

If it was my idea I’d be calling an intellectual property attorney to see if the concept could be legally protected.

The problem with Dr. Bear’s idea is that the survey of the registrars and HR managers would require background information on a school which a school could claim was biased or slanted. (We know that most HR managers don’t really know much about accreditation.)

 

That would probably be useful for generic-type degree programs. The MBAs and IT degrees.

But many non-accredited state-approved programs (at least the non-DL ones that I'm fond of) seem rather specialized. In their cases, what a random sample of registrars or HR people think is less relevant than what a particular target audience thinks.

 

actually..this is not a bad idea at all. I would add a student panel as well.

 

Well, I'm a maths idiot but this approach makes sense.

 

I have a radical idea Why not just list the ones you believe to be adequate? Why even put in schools that you believe to be mills? Then no one makes an incorrect assumption. You still call it the others section, to cover your butt, in case of mistakes. K-W was listed for years without one word of criticism, and now it's more negative. I'm sure that many took this lack of negative comment to be showing acceptance, I did. Though I never used K-W, too high, I thought them to be acceptable. I simply see no reason to list a school that is doubtful. This way there's no rating system to use, and schools that are mills, or not satisfactory, get no free advertisement.

 

Just name schools you believe to be adequate and stop listing schools you don't agree with. No one makes you list or rate any school. If a school wants its name included, tell them, show me the beef, and I'll consider putting you in my next guide. The burden is on them to show they should be included. Just don't make a big deal in print about schools being left out for a reason, and you're safe.

 

There is validity in the suggestion. On the other hand, it is information. Give the information but warn people about the warning signs seems like a reasonable approach to me. Having the negative choices available is invaluable for people using the book to validate the degrees of others though.

The sad part is that then the atrocious choices gets mixed in with more reasonable choices like CCU but then that's reality also. In my view it's the main problem with going with an unaccredited school (as opposed to a degree mill). The degree mills give places like CCU a bad name because it gives the public the impression that unaccredited equals degree mills.

 

There is good reason for that impression. All degree mills are unaccredited. No properly accredited schools are degree mills. There is a very distinct line to be drawn there. But to move it towards a few unaccredited schools that happen to be good is a difficult and imprecise effort most people are unwilling to undertake.

I like Bill Dayson's take: the burden is on the unaccredited school to prove it is valid.

My words: it is up to the unaccredited school to demonstrate it is not a degree mill.

 

Is there that much to be gained by drilling down and rating each school individually? The categories of institutional recognition seem adequate for most purposes, and we already have good data on that.

Of course, it makes it harder to discern the difference between an unaccredited school and a diploma mill, but I don't think those two groups are any good at that anyway. The registrars don't make the distinction and the employers don't even know or care.

 

In fact many registrars don't go to a lot of effort either. The tighter you try to rate schools the closer the point gets between mills and lower level approved. Then the law suits can pop up. Is a degree mill 50 and lower level legitimate a 51. I wouldn't want to cut things that close. Just don't list what you doubt.

 

Right. So lumping unaccredited schools in with diploma mills is all right by me! It certainly clears things up, and it's what is practiced by the industry.

 

It may be alright with you, but not me. I said, don't list doubtful schools, not put doubtful schools with known mills, just list schools you believe to be adequate, and omit the doubtful ones. Of course you knew what I said in the first place. Strange how your willingness to view approved schools fairly quickly turns to complete rejection. Industry in no way does what you have said. Just another of your misstatements, which proves the bias of the so called study you did. You got the results you set out to get. You hear and see what you already believe.

 

Wrong.

You cannot criticize what you have not read.

The results came out quite differently than I would have expected. How did that happen?

For example, a Kennedy-Western degree seems as acceptable to employers as one from an accredited school, despite Kennedy-Western's utter rejection by the education industry. Now, I'm on record as being against Kennedy-Western's operation. So how did that happen? And why are you complaining? Or is this personal?

 

You make attack after attack on approved schools, putting them in the same boat with degree mills, and when called change your song slightly for a moment, and on to the next attack. If you sang the same song each time it would be possible to judge the melody.