ACCIS/AICS apparently *PROUD* of sham accreditation!

Just so that folks don't miss the discussion (since it's entitled "Report from DETC"), I'm taking the liberty of starting a new thread on AICS/ACCIS and the bogus accreditation it held with the World Association.

As John reported on the "DETC convention" thread, the president of AICS/ACCIS, the less-than-wonderful computer science program in Alabama, apparently came to him, very upset that some of the regulars at degreeinfo need to "get their facts straight" about AICS and it's former affiliation with the fraudulent, worthless accreditor known as the World Association of Universities and College.

According to this AICS official, DETC *DID* consider AICS' fraudulent and misleading accreditation claims when choosing to accredit AICS. This raises several possibilities:

1. Said AICS official is under the incredibly naive and misguided notion that World Association is more than a completely worthless, bogus scam and somehow had a positive influence on DETC's decision to accredit.

2. DETC itself is unaware of the deceptive and fraudulent nature of the World Association, and believed that WAUC was legitimate, and that WAUC's "seal of approval" (which apparently requires only a fee, in spite of their website's claims to the contrary) is helpful in indicating a quality program.

3. The DETC *knew* that World Association was completely fraudulent and worthless, and therefore *had* to know that AICS was misleading and defrauding its students by claiming accreditation that was worthless. In spite of this, and contrary to DETC's own accreditation requirements that schools operate ethically, advertise and market their programs honestly and without deception, DETC chose to ignore all of this and grant accreditation anyway.

None of the above possibilities provide any enhanced credibility for either AICS/ACCIS or DETC. On the contrary:

In the case of "1", we're expected to believe that someone qualified to be a college president is so incredibly ignorant that she doesn't realize that her school has a fraudulent accreditor? I don't think so. And if she *does* realize that WAUC is a fraud, why on *earth* could she think that it could possibly be a good thing that DETC considered the bogus accreditation in making their decision?

The notion of "2" is preposterous. Mike Lambert, exec director of DETC, knows John, has Bears' Guide, reads a.e.d. (and probably this forum as well) and is a sharp guy. I can't *imagine* DETC not knowing that the World Association is a fraud. Which leaves

3. DETC knew full well that AICS/ACCIS had for years been deceiving and defrauding its students by representing that it was accredited when it, in fact, wasn't. In spite of this clear, convincing, and continued evidence of deceptive marketing by AICS, and the outrageous and appallingly callous disregard for honesty in marketing, DETC chose to consider AICS' continued deceptive, unethical behavior and accredit them anyway.

I would, honestly, be thrilled for someone from ACCIS to step in here and explain just exactly *HOW* the fact that DETC knew of the deceptive marketing is, in some way, vindication.

And frankly, since ACCIS has apparently been quite unhappy that they are a frequent topic of less-than-flattering discussion here, thanks to their sordid past, I would be very interested in hearing from ACCIS how they can possibly justify this long history of deception.

Also, I'd be very interested in hearing any other scenarios (maybe some data from the Journal of Irreproducible Results is appropriate here) in which DETC's active knowledge that ACCIS had fraudulent accreditation could possibly be considered a good thing.

 

Your post was full of excellent and reasonable logic which all seems to lead to puzzlement and confusion. I'm still one puzzled monkey wrench!

 

I think any of the scenarios are possible, though 2 & 3 are the more disturbing. This reminded me of something that I've been thinking about for awhile.

Is it possible that with so many DL schools gaining regional accreditation, that the DETC is starting to panic a little bit by seeing their traditional customers (DL schools) go RA, and thus are more willing to overlook things they wouldn't have in the past?

I'm not making any accusations, and I certainly have no proof, it's just a thought.

Bruce

 

I would agree that your thoughts are well presented and the logic sound. The problem I have is that you build it entirely on hearsay. I do not subscribe to the notion that if you can't get it from the horse’s mouth, then it is valid to argue a point on hearsay.

I am sure John repeated what he heard, how he heard it. I am sure the ACCIS rep said something of meaning to them, and said through many filters of frustration and anger.

To presume that the accuracy of the official DETC position somehow made it through the ACCIS reps filters and bias, which was processed and repeated by John through his natural filtering process seems very unfair to the debate.

The points are well thought out, but what seems to happen very often here is a premise is established, perhaps three or four times removed from any citable specific source, then a long list of arguments are made either for or against. It may be interesting to debate issues, but when the original basis for the argument is so far removed from the source and has traveled through a variety of filters, it surely diminishes the value of the debate.

It really boils down to the old lessen we learned very young about acting on hearsay as though it was gospel.

With regards to ACCIS, I personally think it their responsibility to make known their official position on their former claimed accreditation. It is absolutely reasonable for any rational thinking person to have serious reservations about them based on their claimed former accreditation. If they don't like what they are reading, then please show up to state your case as to why we should not look at their former accreditation in the negative light that we do. They may feel they don't owe us an explanation, but if that is the case, they have to live with the reasonable criticism over their former accreditation.

I just think it is a big mistake to present arguments based on what John said that an ACCIS rep said about the DETC position. Go to the source (in this case that would be the DETC) and then present your informed opinion and arguments.

 

I think (3) is the only reasonable conclusion. DETC surely knew about WAUC, and certainly knew of ACIS's accreditation claim. (It was prominently displayed on the ACIS web page before and during the accreditation process).

It seems clear that DETC decided to accredit ACIS anyway, probably taking into account the other aspects of their program and weighing them against this very negative issue. On balance, they were accreditable. Whether or not this was good judgment on DETC's part has been a topic of debate since their decision was announced.

I'm not so sure the school's rep was implying anything other than, "Sure, they looked at that and accredited us in spite of it." Based on the way John told the story, it didn't sound to me like the rep was proud of the WAUC connection.

Rich Douglas

 

Rich wrote: I'm not so sure the school's rep was implying anything other than, "Sure, they looked at that and accredited us in spite of it." Based on the way John told the story, it didn't sound to me like the rep was proud of the WAUC connection.

We would, of course, not make use of hearsay or worry about interpretations of oral statements if ACCIS would respond clearly in writing. Since it is clear they read this forum, let us hope they will do so.

I was curious to see if Chadwick University is still claiming WAUC accreditation and, intriguingly, their website is closed, with a "come back later" message. Wonder what's up.

John Bear

 

That would certainly increase the validity of any debate on the subject. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

Chip has raised a number of interesting points in his comments on the WAUC and its "accredited members." To the best of my knowledge, I have never had any contact with any representative of ACCIS. However, I can understand how they could have remained associated through 1999 with WAUC in good faith.

Admittedly, this is a somewhat self-serving statement. I am a founder of William Howard Taft University which was affiliated with WAUC until July, 1999. While no representative of Taft ever attended a WAUC meeting, we were provided with a newsletter which purported to provide updates on WAUC activities. On more than one occasion, Asher pointed out to members that neither Columbia State University or LaSalle University were affiliated with WAUC. She gave reports on her efforts to obtain recognition from foreign governments. Had she been successful in these efforts it would have provided benefits for some students.

Most institutions are members of many organizations and trade associations but take often no active interest in their operations. Should we have paid more attention? In hindsight, of course. As President of Taft, I take responsibility for our association with WAUC.

At the time our lawsuit against WAUC was settled, we distributed a press release. Copies were provided to all WAUC members. Accordingly, no WAUC accredited school can today claim ignorance. However, according to their website, ACCIS obtained DETC accreditation in January, 2000. As I understand it, they resigned their WAUC accreditation at that time and accordingly they would not have received the release.

If ACCIS had access to the information we obtained, I have to believe they also would have resigned. Likewise, I think we should cut DETC some slack. Until our lawsuit, I doubt there was any documented evidence of WAUC wrongdoing.

Set forth below is a copy of the news release we issued at the time the lawsuit was settled. We also have files approximately 6 inches thick related to WAUC which we would be willing to review in our office with anyone who expresses an interest.

I hope the following will be of some help in spreading the word regarding WAUC.

News Release

For Immediate Release

Contact: David L. Boyd (714) 850-4800

May 4, 2000

Settlement Announced In Accreditation Lawsuit

David L. Boyd, President of William Howard Taft University, announced a settlement has been reached in its lawsuit against the World Association of Universities and Colleges (WAUC). Terms of the settlement are confidential.
Taft filed suit against the WAUC in August, 1999 alleging the WAUC and its president, Maxine Asher, breached its agreement with Taft by failing to make an onsite visitation of Taft's facilities, and failed to follow rigid accreditation evaluation procedures for Taft and other member institutions. Taft also sought a permanent injunction against WAUC preventing the organization from stating Taft continued to be an accredited member.
Taft's first contact with WAUC was in November, 1994 when it received a marketing brochure from WAUC. Based on the representations contained in the flyer, Taft submitted an application to join what was represented in writing to be a non-profit organization.
The brochure stated to obtain accreditation, a member must "submit to a rigid evaluation procedure. In addition to numerous forms, documentation, and statements of mission and purpose, assessed by a three person panel, visitations may also take place to ensure that the information transmitted is valid. After accreditation is secured, accredited universities are evaluated again on a timely basis, ensuring that a high standard of academia and integrity is maintained."
In February, 1995 Taft received notification that its detailed application had been reviewed and it had been approved for accreditation for a period of three years. Dr. Boyd stated Taft sought affiliation with WAUC as a result of the representation made by WAUC that it intended to explore recognition by the United States Department of Education and foreign countries. Taft never advertised or promoted its affiliation with WAUC.
Taft alleged WAUC breached its agreement by failing to maintain a rigid evaluation procedure. Taft's accreditation was extended in February, 1998 without a site visit or even an updated application. In spite of Taft's regular requests for a site visit since its initial accreditation expired in February, 1998, WAUC never offered to provide a site visit or otherwise assure Taft its accreditation standards were being applied on a consistent basis.
In July, 1999, Dr. Boyd, concerned about the internal operations of WAUC, wrote Asher requesting copies of WAUC's Articles of Incorporation, bylaws, minutes of recent board meetings, and recent accountant prepared financial statements. Taft further asked if officers were to be elected at the next annual meeting. Taft believed this information was
important to itself and other members of WAUC which has consistently promoted itself as a nonprofit organization.
A review of WAUC's website on July 21, 1999 indicated WAUC claimed Cambridge State University as an accredited member. This was in spite of published reports the Attorney General of Louisiana, Richard Ieyoub, had closed Cambridge for unfair trade practices and commented it had operated out of a mail box.
In a response to Taft dated July 23, 1999, Asher wrote "WAUC is a for-profit corporation. We have absolutely no obligation to provide you with any of the official papers you have requested." Asher further stated "I anticipate that we may have an election of officers next year in Costa Rica."
As a result of Asher's comments and Taft's review of WAUC's website, Taft mailed a letter resigning as an accredited member of WAUC on the afternoon of July 23, 1999.
WAUC presently maintains a website on the Internet that it claims is for the benefit of their members and prospective students.
Included in the website is a section entitled "Accreditation Guidelines of the World Association of Universities and Colleges." It lists twenty-seven accreditation guidelines WAUC claims are mandated by the World Association of Universities and Colleges which apply to all accredited member universities. WAUC claims on the website accredited members of WAUC are monitored on a timely basis to ensure that the guidelines are being followed.
During the course of discovery in connection with the lawsuit, WAUC was unable to provide a single piece of correspondence with the Department of Education, bylaws for the
organization, or minutes of Board meetings. "Most disconcerting," Boyd indicated "they were not able to provide any documented evidence they had ever conducted a site visit at any member institution."
Taft has offered to provide documentation to the Federal Trade Commission and other WAUC members regarding the operations of WAUC and Asher. Boyd stated, "If WAUC does not monitor member compliance with the guidelines, it could constitute a fraud on its members and the public."
END

 

David,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thoroughly informative post on the World Association.

This represents probably the most solid evidence we've ever seen that the organization is a scam.

And I also appreciate your willingness to provide access to the WAUC file in your offices. At some point when I'm in or near L.A., I would enjoy the opportunity to review these documents.

 

From my perspective all that has been done is guessing and presenting possible theories. I don't think anyone has tried to say what it actually must mean. This is a forum where I believe it is fair to express puzzlement in a seemingly confusing statement or conversation. If we were pretending to be a court of law it would be different.

 

I agree. And I did not intend to infer the actual DETC position. I simply pointed out, based on her statement that DETC DID consider the WAUC accreditation, and the only two possible scenarios I could imagine in which DETC could go forward with granting accreditation to an organization actively involved in misrepresenting itself to its students.

 

Ahem.

2nd attempt:

I agree. And I did not intend to infer the actual DETC position. I simply pointed out, based on her statement, that DETC DID consider the WAUC accreditation, and the only two possible scenarios I could imagine in which DETC could go forward with granting accreditation would be

(a) ignorance of what WAUC is

(b) active disregard for its own policy requiring DETC-accredited schools to operate ethically and not market deceptively.

No inference required there, and no interpretation of DETC's thinking, just deductive reasoning.

And I doubt that (a) is what happened. DETC is *not* ignorant of what goes on.

If there's another scenario you can imagine, I'd love to hear it.

And, of course, since DETC reads this forum, it would be delightful for someone from DETC to provide some insight into how they could overlook their own clearly written policy on this matter.

 

I understand your point. In this case the question centers on whether or not DETC understood WAUC and what their take on it was relative to accrediting ACCIS. But why speculate. Why not go directly to the DETC, then opine in their response. I don't see the value on opining on speculative scenarios when, potentially, no speculation need be considered. Of course, depending on the response from the DETC. But without direct inquiry to those that can best define the parameters of the debate, it seems all one is left with is speculation.

Remember, the focus was not on ACCIS, but rather on the DETC. Why not try to get an answer from the DETC directly?

As consumer advocates, this forum is not just about expressing puzzlement, it is also about providing information founded in knowledge gleaned from as close to the source as possible. We don't get any closer to truth by speculating on imagined scenarios.