diploma mills

If a school has accredidation from one of the regional accrediting agencies, is it safe to assume that the school is not a diploma mill?

 

Yep.

Is there one in particular that you have doubts about?

G

 

Just trying to make sure that there is no chance that Walden is not a diploma mill before spending a lot of money in the program. Already wasted $600 dollars in a DL school only to find out it wasn't very good. Could never get the instructor or the school to return calls to answer questions about the course. Also, the course was "fluffy", no real depth to it.

 

Walden is not a diploma mill. It is accredited by NCA, one of the six regional accreditation agencies in the U.S. NCU and Walden are properly accredited, however, in terms of reputation, the latter definitely has an edge over the former, probably because Walden has been around for a longer period of time. You also have to be mindful of the fact that all DL degrees especially those earned from DL-only schools are still looked down upon by denizens of the academia and in fact by the general public. If your intention is to earn a degree that is devoid of any stigma, I will advise you to look elsewhere but if your goal is to pursue and earn a legitimate degree with recognize accreditation, both NCU and Walden will be ok.

Ike Okonkwo, PhD

 

Depends on your definition. Some wags have called some properly accredited schools "diploma mills" as a means of putting them down. But it is reasonable to conclude that no real diploma mill is properly accredited.

 

Besides, perhaps, David Noble (who harbors the delusion that all DL programs are diploma mills) no one who knows anything about higher education would consider Walden University a diploma mill.

The standards imposed by the regional accrediting agencies, while far from perfect, give the assurance that an accredited institution is not a diploma mill.

Tony Pina
Faculty, California State U. San Bernardino

 

Ike,

I agree with your assessment that Walden is certainly not a diploma mill and that there is a clear distinction between the recognition of Walden's degree over that of NCU. However, I tend to disagree that it is only because of Walden's longer period of existence. Instead, I think the distinction has more to do with the substance of the schools as whole, which are not even in the same league.

Accordingly, I do not quite see how NCU found its way into the mix along side of Walden, which, like Nova, is clearly head and shoulders above the substance and recognition of NCU. Additionally, I rely on a simple metric for my own purposes as an employer: I would pay employee tuition without hesitation for Walden (even though a for-profit school) or Nova, but there is no way that I would pay or reimburse tuition for NCU's business PhD program base upon the substance of several PhD level courses as outlined by their syllabus and from discussions presented by several previous students in this forum.

You can throw good and bad apples, oranges and pears together and call it a fruit basket, but I would certainly prefer to savor those that are of clearly of better quality than to chew on one that looks and feels questionable. And even though for-profit schools are not necessarily my favorite fruit, I still find Walden a far more palatable option base upon the overall quality of its business program.

For clarification, I have no affiliation with Walden or Nova, other than paying for tuition and hiring their graduates as employees. I also have no desire to stir a debate with you (Ike) directly. Indeed, I’ve always found your comments and contributions to this forum to be well grounded, intelligent and insightful, so I have the utmost respect for what you have to say.

Tom

 

One of the very few negative things people have said about Walden relates to it being a for-profit business, owned by a much larger corporation, Sylvan.

The concern relates to bottom lines. If the Nilla Wafers division of the Nabisco division of Phillip Morris isn't doing well enough, the cost accountants might say, "Shut it down," even if millions of people love Nilla Wafers.

When the LaSalle Extension University division of Macmillan Publishing was not doing well, they shut it down, 'stranding' over 100,000 students.

It is rare, especially in higher education, but it can happen. And it is also the case that non-profit schools also can close for financial and other reasons -- about 20 of them last year.

I know nothing that suggests that Walden is anything other than a good-performing worthy investment for Sylvan. And I think if I enrolled there, I'd probably buy a share of Sylvan in order to get their quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, etc., just to see what they have to say about their investments.

 

Yes all that is very true. An accredited brick and mortar college in Atlanta, Ga. just lost its accredation and left many students stranded and they are also in danger of having to close the doors due to finances

 

Indeed, neither for-profit nor non-profit institutions are immune to the financial implications and outcomes associated with gross mismanagement.

However, for-profit and non-profit institutions exist for clearly different purposes and serve distinctly different interests. By their very nature, for-profit organizations primarily exist to serve the objective interest of its shareholders in the form a financial return on investment. Non-profit institutions, on the other hand, exist primarily to first serve the interest of its students and their education.

That is not to say that a for-profit institution cannot serve the interest of students. However, I do think it is most likely that the best interest of students are served only if accomplished along the way while serving the larger objective interest of the shareholders as a whole. Unfortunately, the ability to earn sufficient profits can cause the two interests to quickly diverge, which will most certainly result in measures and actions that are more favorable to overall shareholder position.

In general, educational institutions are expected to put the interest of students and learning foremost and above all other objective interests. Unfortunately, in the case of for-profit institutions, the interests can be polar opposites unless the organization operates with sufficient profitability necessary to satisfy stockholder expectations. Accordingly, students are most likely the first to get the short end of the stick unless the for-profit organization is experiencing anything less than ideal profit conditions.

Tom

 

I've worked for both for-profit and not-for-profit universities. There is simply no difference. Both are concerened with growth, revenues, recruiting, marketing, finance, etc. The employees of for-profit schools are serving some profiteering master. They're building their careers, just like people in not-for-profits. Not-for-profits aren't immune to growth and revenues; they're driven by them.

The differences are in terms of what to do with excess revenues (or profits), and how funds are raised. That's it.

When I was full-time at San Diego State University, the school cut dozens of degree programs, stranding hundreds of students. They couldn't support the programs financially so they cut them. No remorse, no morals. Just boom! Gone. And a big F-You to the students.

The Chronicle of Higher Education did a piece recently on Bellevue University, praising it--as a not-for-profit school--for its for-profit approach to the higher education business. The suggestion was that other not-for-profits ought to pay attention. I agree.

(NB: All of my degrees are from not-for-profit schools, some public, some private.)

 

I have one comment regarding “tesch” statement about hiring from Walden and not from NCU. Well, I have experienced one professor from Walden University and frankly, I was not impressed at all neither was my class. The professor had no clue whatsoever about strategic management and most of his comments/feedback came right off the instructor CD supplement word for word - one of the TA told me so.

Same thing at work, we have an employee who currently attends the PhD program at Walden. According to him, he will complete his PhD next summer – two and half year PhD program, what a deal. This guy is clueless as well and I don’t know how the heck he managed to make it through the program.

However, from the quality of my previous professor and knowing my coworker very well, I concluded that Walden is not a good institute.

 

This gets the "tip of the day award."
Jack

 

My experience is identical to Rich's (please replace his word "university" with my word "corporation."
Jack

 

Out of curiosity, what campus did the professor and your associate at work graduate from or attend? Not that I'm suggesting that it matters if one campus turns out better students than another (they should all produce equally good product); however, I am looking to understand why I have viewed something entirely different from Walden and its graduates.

I've observed course material that was reasonably substantive and commensurate with PhD level work. The dissertations I reviewed were very well conceptualized, fully developed, intelligent and in the range of 300+ pages. Over a period of several years, at least 10 books have emerged from just one of the dissertations. Additionally, I know of one graduate the is a very highly regarded and tenured professor at a local college.

Again, I'm no fan of for profit schools, so I am quite concerned about any negative feedback regarding these types of schools.

Tom

 

Rich,

Not to minimize your observations or their validity, but I too have served in senior executive roles for large publicly held companies and worked in academia.

I can share with you that the ferocity and scrutiny of shareholders and a board of directors to meet commitment views and increase stockholder value is far more intense and effecting than anything experienced in not-for-profit institutions and academia. Yes, there are certain commonalities such as growth and drive to increase revenues, but that is just one aspect for comparison.

The reality is that stockholder interest is king. Decisions are commonly made that have clearly adverse long-term implications to the organization, its employees and customers, simply to meet short-term (next quarter) projections and commitment views. Even as a senior executive, you are almost powerless do the right things and still survive if it means something contrary to stockholder perception or falling short of expected earnings.

I'm sorry Rich, but having been in both worlds, I cannot equally compare in the larger context the core organizational purpose and interests that are served between a public for-profit organization and a non-profit institution.

Tom

 

Uh oh...

 

Naw. No big deal. Saying it with louder or with more words doesn't make it true.

As with Jack, I've also worked in both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations in the private sector. Again, no difference. To listen to the CEO of a not-for-profit hospital talk about market share, customer segments, customer retention, marketing, etc., was no different than listening to it from heads of for-profit companies.

Personal experiences aside, I'm still waiting to see any tangible differences between for-profit and not-for-profit private universities.

 

Rich,

With all due respect for your experiences and position (which I do appreciate), I would have to disagree, at least from a senior executive's point of view.

It appears that you are assessing things from perhaps a different level of management and perspective. My point is straight forward in that there is a clear distinction surrounding the organizational purpose and interest that are served between for-profit and non-profit organizations that go well beyond the more fundamental aspects common to most any market driven organization.

Specifically, shareholders demand a return on their investments, which reigns king to all other interest -- period. In a non-profit organization, all profit (excess revenues) are rolled back into the organization for capital expansion, new equipment, improved services, better resources...etc. By governing law and organizational by-law, non-profit organizations cannot (should not) flow profits or excess revenues to external entities that do not directly benefit or serve the interest of the non-profit organization.

Conversely, for profit organizations can and will flow whatever profits (excess revenue) they wish to stockholders (and executives), rather than flow the dollars back into the organization where it is more likely to benefit the customers and employees. Moreover, stockholders demand minimum returns on investments, so those returns are satisfied first and foremost. Additionally, in many (most) cases, stockholders demand that profits even in excess of the required minimum also flow to them in form of additional dividends.

More concerning, however, is that those whose interest are purely financial in nature have ultimate control over the direction of the organization and decisions on how revenues and profits are distributed. Accordingly, stockholders (and the board of directors) actually determine how and where the dollars flow. The more that flows to the stockholders, the better -- period.

Although some believe that the CEO is in absolute control, they are indeed quite limited in what they can do if it has negative implications in terms of earnings or stockholder perception. Remember, unless the CEO owns the majority share of the organization, they can be overruled or terminated in a New York minute, so it is those with the financial interest that are in ultimate control.

Stockholders have never been known to be organizational philanthropist, so don't fool yourself into thinking that serving their interest does not come before the interests of all others including customers (students) and employees. It is this simple reality and nature of the for-profit beast that I use to frame the differences and support my position as true.

Tom