Do non-RA degrees still make sense?

Given that there are now several good accredited DL programs at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels, why should anyone be considering a non-accredited school? Often, I think that it may be because students falsely assume that no accredited school would have them. However, most of the correspondence I've received over the years would indicate that most "good" accredited DL schools want to work with adult learners and help them to achieve their goals if at all possible. Fear of rejection may be what sends many learners in search of non-accredited degrees!

 

Very possible, but my gut instinct is that most people who go with unaccredited schools (and I mean legitimate schools, not diploma mills) fall into 3 categories;

1) They don't understand the importance of accreditation, and therefore don't know any better.

2) They're lazy and see an unaccredited school as an easy way out.

3) They don't plan to use the degree other than as a wall decoration, so accreditation means nothing to them.

There also could be the people looking to save money, but they fall into #1, IMO.

Bruce

 

I agree with you. I think a great many fall into number 2 & 3.

North

 

1) They don't understand the importance of accreditation, and therefore don't know any better.

Bruce, you may be correct. It's a shame though, because the RA degre may come with not a lot more work attached to it than does the "quality" non-accredited degree.

 

I think that many who go with unaccredited schools -- or with diploma mills -- are indeed ignorant, naive, and/or impatient. However, I think there are at least some who know quite well that the degree/diploma is worthless but think that it will fool others. See http://distancelearn.about.com/library/blpages/blexposes.htm for links to stories about people who have been exposed -- such as Gary S. Stocco, the "burns and burn analysis expert" who pled guilty to perjury and obtaining money by false pretenses after an investigation into his credentials (which included back-dated "degrees" from the University of San Moritz).


------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

And of the thousands and thousands and thousands of graduates of legitimate, non-accredited schools who use their degrees sucessfully in their careers? Their degrees are hardly useless to them.

For every story we hear about someone being educationally "outed," there are tons of happy customers. Not all of these people are ignorant or co-conspiratorial. Many have found their degrees from non-accredited schools quite useful.

The question of why someone would pursue such a degree is more relevant than ever before, however. There was a time when traditional (read "accredited") schools simply didn't offer alternatives to working professionals, adults returning to school, etc.

Some of the pioneers of nontraditional higher education--non-accredited at the time--were well thought of back then. But as times changed, many of them were "brought into the fold" of regional accreditation. More of that gap was filled by the DETC, who really hasn't been in the business of accrediting academic schools for very long.

If this was 1980 and you wanted to pursue a part-time, short- or non-residency master's program, you had a handful of choices. The alternatives for a doctorate were even slimmer. Programs at non-accredited schools like Columbia Pacific, California Coast, Walden, Sarasota, The Union, etc., made sense.

So why does someone go for a degree from an non-accredited school today? Well, the reasons offered above are fine, but they don't tell the whole story. Other reasons for doing it include: shorter time-in-program requirements, lower costs, wider latitude in recognizing prior learning, narrow field of study, greater independence, and a whole host of others.

I've said over and over again that non-accredited schools are not part of our nation's recognized higher education system. But that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for someone pursuing such a degree. However, with so many accredited programs available, the reasons for pursuing a non-accredited degree are not as compelling as before.

Legitimate, non-accredited schools came to be precisely because traditional schools did not respond to the increased demands for degrees in the workplace! We live today with a luxury of choices. It was not always so.

Rich Douglas

 

I won't rehash my points here in response to this question, but I'll refer you to a discussion of several months ago in a topic I opened titled "A (Qualified) Case for Legitimate Unaccredited Graduate Degrees."

I do agree that for most people, seeking a non-RA bachelor's degree makes no sense; the same goes for a non-RA master's degree, esp. MBA. The RA options are abundant and affordable.

But DL RA doctoral programs are limited in number, variety, and cost. In limited circumstances, a legitimate non-RA doctoral degree can be useful to someone. And although I don't recommend DL law degrees for anyone who actually wants to practice law, the time & esp. expense of earning a law degree from an ABA-accredited school are such that I can see the utility of a DL law program for people who seek legal knowledge to assist them in the business world.

 

Hi David,

You have already earned ABA-accredited J.D from a good university and you are already working with. Don't you think that an unaccredited doctorate will be a dent on your accredited degree if you list all your degrees (accredited and un-accredited) in your curriculum vitae? If you are only interested in mastering the specific courses you are currently taking and not the degree, that's understandable. An unaccredited doctorate will cause people to raise their eyebrows when they read your CV. It may even prompt people to doubt the authenticity of your accredited law degree in future, unless you don't intend to list the unaccredited doctorate in your CV. I have just stated my opinion, but then, you know what you want.

Ike

 

I agree with Rich. There are several reasons for pursuing unaccredited doctorate degrees as he has pointed out, but those reasons are not compelling enough for me to pursue one. Last year in Nigeria, one federal minister was dropped partly because he has an unaccredited doctorate degree (from St. Clements University). I believe that unaccredited degree is a time bomb in most cases. I understand the difference between unaccredited school and degree mill, therefore I am not trying to lump the two together. Degrees from these schools may be legitimate but they are still useless for many people.

Ike

 

I agree with Kristin. The majority of those who chose unaccredited degrees fall into these two broad categories. As an employer, however, I place them all into a single category: poor decision-makers.

I reject the small percentage of naïve and ignorant individuals for precisely those same reasons. If their interest is so low or their research skills so poor that they are willing to commit their time and effort without becoming aware of accreditation issues or the value of their degrees, I can assume they will be even more callous with my time and money.

I believe the overwhelming number of people choosing unaccredited (and I include many non-US degrees whether or not they meet GAAP) do so because of a combination of laziness and low self-esteem. Once again, hardly the qualities I’m looking for in an employee.

I have no tolerance of those who attempt to use their unaccredited to fool others. They are not rejected; they are not even considered. What poorer decision can an individual make than to be dishonest?

I agree with Rich that unaccredited programs provide “shorter time-in-program requirements, lower costs, wider latitude in recognizing prior learning, narrow field of study, and greater independence.” I disagree, however, that these criterions justify choosing an unaccredited school. Rather, it is almost as if these criterions are, by design, implemented to appeal to a slothful individual, who attaches a disproportionate importance to them. To me the issue isn’t only what choice the individual made, but what choice the individual made considering the alternatives. In 2001, I can see very few reasons for an individual residing in the United States or intending to make this his or her home to pursue a degree (distance or otherwise) from anything other than a U.S. regionally accredited degree. The most notable exception is when a foreign institution is recognized as a preeminent leader in the field.

I also reject the argument that an unaccredited degree is justified and considered valid because an individual can be considered a “happy customer” or has derived utility from the degree. More often than not, the utility of an unaccredited degree is in direct proportion to the ignorance or naiveté of someone whose function is to evaluate and accept the degree. I would never consider hiring an individual who ignores the fact that the usefulness of the degree is dependent upon someone else being ignorant about accreditation issues, while truly believing that his or her unaccredited degree is valid. This individual is the poorest decision maker of them all; he or she has chosen to deceive him or herself. I choose not to bring into my business anyone who is playing Russian Roulette with his or her future.

Gus Sainz

 

To briefly explain the context of Ike's post: I'm enrolled in the Ph.D. program at the Western Institute for Social Change (WISR),a Berkeley-based, non-RA, state-approved, mainly residential institution. I'm also a professor at an ABA-accredited law school, and I have earned three RA degrees. It's a fair question to ask whether I think an unaccredited doctorate will have some negative affect on me.

A few points: First, my decision to enroll in WISR's program was based on positive, qualitative reasons. I'd been interested in WISR for many years, even before I entered law teaching. Its social change mission and small scale strongly resonated with me. Its focus is unique, and the people associated with it are very committed to a personal, individualized approach to education. (It may lack RA, but it's definitely NOT a mill. No huge credit allotments for managing to stay alive. WISR's small size has precluded it from being considered for RA candidacy.) Though primarily a residential school, WISR announced in the late 80s that it would consider working with a limited number of students outside of the Bay Area. I kept that in mind for some 13 years before finally enrolling.

Second, I seriously considered the potential negatives of earning a WISR degree. The main issue for me is whether using the degree as a c.v. credential potentially complicates moving to another law school as a lateral hire. Yes, it could. But I'm also a realist. WISR degree or no WISR degree, Harvard or Stanford law schools will not be courting me. Some less prestigious but very fine schools might be interested in me, but they will weigh most heavily my record of teaching, scholarship, and service.

I think it finally came down to this. I really wanted to enroll in the WISR program. I fully understand why some on this board might second-guess my decision, but I've reached a point in my life where I'm tiring of always weighing a present move against some undefined future contingency. I'm happy to report that I'm enjoying tremendously the opportunity to engage in and shape my degree program. It's intellectually fun for me (yes, fun!), and I'm learning a lot.

I agree that for most prospective DL students, RA options are strongly preferable, *especially* when a degree is a necessary credential for a job or line of work. But, as Rich Douglas' thoughtful post reiterates, some people can be served well by a legitimate, non-RA alternative.

 

For a degree at the undergraduate level a non-RA bachelors degree does not make any sense to me at all.

At the graduate level there may be a couple of other categories assuming that the student understands the value of the unaccredited degree. That is, its value and utility is limited. (I am of course referring to the legitimate unaccredited programs too.)

There are a minority of students out there who want some type of structured program and do not want to invest in a RA degree program. The unaccredited program is cost effective and gives them a marker to indicate that they have completed their studies. It is essentially learning for the sake of learning while working with legitimate professionals in the field of interest.

The above would not be much different than pursuing a course of study on your own; the difference would be some supervision in the unaccredited program.

I think we have seen a form of this in the newsgroup and on A.E.D. in the past where learners state they "worked hard" for their unaccredited degree. In many of these cases we see that the learner thought they earned a valid degree only to find it unacceptable. Hence, we can also have someone whose does understand the utility of the degree, will still work hard, and complete a program.

If I were the king for the day I would not let the unaccredited schools award degrees but rather diplomas and advanced diplomas in subject areas. Only accredited schools would then be able to award degrees. The diploma would serve as a means to document study and may even give the learner more utility in the use of such a credential in the workplace. Since I am not the king, the world of unaccredited academia will still exist the way it is and we must live with the reality of it...

Another class of the unaccredited student are those with an interest in programs that provide a licensure in a field. These programs may suit some learners perfectly. Examples are obviously the bar-qualifying unaccredited law programs.

John

 

John, your suggested division -- degree-granting authority for accredited schools, certificate/diploma granting authority for legitimate unaccredited schools -- is awfully intriguing, and if implemented could serve many purposes.

Personally, I'd be just as happy to earn a certificate or diploma for my current studies. But even aside from my own situation, I think there's a large group of people out there who want to engage in serious academic learning, who do not necessarily want or need an academic degree, but who would like some tangible recognition for their labors. Your "compromise" would meet that standard.

I think this is particularly the case for people who want to pursue serious advanced studies in the liberal arts & humanities for personal enrichment, and who desire more than an occasional adult ed "Great Books" discussion or book group gathering. (I'm thinking in particular of the late International College, that marvelous school of tutors during the 70s and 80s.) But I think it also would be useful to people who seek certain types of advanced training in business or a profession.

So what's to stop such an arrangement from being implemented? (Not a rhetorical question. I think this could do wonders to ensure the integrity of academic degrees while opening the doors to some very innovative and accessible non-degree-granting schools.)

 

David,

I agree that it would do wonders to help in the integrity of degrees. Such an arrangement would serve as a means to push the unaccredited schools who want to award degrees to seek accreditation while in the interim giving them a means to offer credible study. It could happen but definitely not overnight. The biggest opposition would probably be from the unaccredited schools themselves.

Some RA programs do similar awards. For instance, Duke University offers a Certificate in Communications. To earn this certificate one just needs to attend 100 hrs. of ungraded (with no exams) non-credit courses offered by the campus.

John

 

Wow! Lazy, ignorant, naive, poor decision makers, slothful individuals, etc. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the profound display of elitism here - it's just a shame to see such intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination against people making a choice based on the best available options to them at the time.

I have 3 friends (former coworkers) who received their California Coast degrees during the early and mid 1990's. They knew very well what they getting - unaccredited, low-cost, flexible and state-approved. I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of students of legitimate unaccredited schools chooses this path for the very same reasons knowing full well what they are getting. These 3 individuals currently hold various executive level positions in major technology companies – one is a CTO, one is a Senior VP, one is a division president. All three considered their available options and choose a path based on their then current and expected future needs. All three were up front with their employers at the time they conducted their studies about the nature of CCU. All three had their tuition paid in full by their employers. All three have met with continued professional acceptance since obtaining their degrees and have been successful contributors in their careers. All three are men of character, integrity and honesty and I take issue with the people on this board making across the board judgments on individuals like them without even knowing them, their situations, their contributions to their field, or their career success and advancements.

So Gus would choose to ignore (discriminate against) a person with a distinguished 20-year career as a naval officer with 2 RA degrees and a CCU MBA – the only viable option available at the time to a naval Commander on an extended tour of duty overseas. Or how about the man who graduated with highest honors with a BS/MS EE from a top 5 RA engineering school, holds several patents, founded a successful company, employes hundreds of people and holds a CCU MBA. Gus would question the character and integrity of these people without even knowing them or their situations? Wow! What other resumes would people like him throw away without consideration because of their choices? From Gays and lesbians? from Conservative Christians? From women who work rather than stay at home with their children? From women who stay at home with their children rather than work outside the home? From those who would choose a proprietary “for-profit” university rather than a non-profit school?

Anyone judging someone else without knowing the full context of their situation may wish to take a few quite moments of reflection to consider if perhaps they themselves are the ones who are the lazy, ignorant, naive, poor decision makers, and slothful individuals.

Bob Harris

 

I think that I'm in agreement with the David Yamada/John Wetsch direction this discussion is taking.

I've always been torn on the idea of the state approved schools. On one hand I have tremendous skepticism about non-accredited degrees in principle, because if a degree does not represent a publicly recognized standard it is meaningless. But on the other hand some of these CA-approved schools all around me are fascinating (as David knows). In the past a number have gone on to regional accreditation, others have affiliation agreements or other forms of legitimacy, and still others seem to have active intellectual lives. So I can't just blithly dismiss them. The question is how to best use them.

I also strongly agree with David's point about those who are avocationally motivated and who want to study for intellectual reasons. I'm one of those people myself.

Opportunities are limited. Most conventional on-campus doctoral programs wouldn't even accept a middle aged individual who would be nearing 60 when he got his doctorate and who doesn't intend to pursue a career in teaching.
And do I really want to play that 'rite of passage' game at this late date, or do I just want an honest opportunity to pursue advanced education?

Accredited distance education might be an answer, but unfortunately there isn't much in my field: philosophy of religion, religious studies (but not Christian theology). About the only options are a few elusive overseas "research doctorates" which on closer examination remind me of ghosts and UFOs. Everyone knows somebody who has seen one, but there is never any objective evidence.

Fortunately I have CIIS nearby, and they have been receptive. And the California State University system has a little known program where qualified members of the community can take courses, even on the graduate level, without being formally admitted to a degree program or even to the university. (Not a bad deal at all.) So I'm not whining, there are lots of local options.

But I see the CA-approved sector among those options and I really don't see why I shouldn't.

I guess that it is a question of non-RA schools and education on on hand, and non-RA degrees on the other. I am put off by the very idea of an unaccredited doctorate. It wouldn't impress the informed professional community. It might impress the general public, but who cares? The bottom line for me is would it impress me? And if I doubted it myself, if I felt that I constantly had to defend it, then I wouldn't want it.

The solution to this little impasse is to study for the intellectual excitement of it and forget the degree objective. That's the case at least for me, though I am not suggesting it for anyone else like David.

Bottom line: Non-accredited scholarship is wonderful. Non-accredited degrees aren't. I would really like to see most of these CA-approved schools reposition themselves from being universities to being independent research institutes. But realistically, the cash flow from offering degrees is what keeps them alive.

 

The reason why this thread resonates with me is that for some time I've thought that we (i.e., American educational community) need more educational options that offer something between a formal, highly-structured degree program and one-shot adult ed classes that typically do not provide for any real academic work to be done. It's strikes me as ironic, given the fact that buzz terms such as lifelong learning and learning society have become so much a part of our educational vocabulary.

I've thought more about the notion of reserving accreditation for degree-granting schools and some form of approval or authorization to issue certificates or diplomas for non-degree granting schools. I think it could work well if:

1. Accreditors were more flexible, thereby allowing into the fold legitimate degree-granting schools that currently fall through the cracks of current standards; and,

2. There could be some agreement on general standards for approving/authorizing the "remaining" non-degree granting institutions.

As Bill suggests, this may be an unrealistic hope for now. But along with the very nitty-gritty discussions on this board, I think it's healthy to toss around more visionary ideas. For someone who needs to know this minute what the best DL MBA options are, this exchange isn't very useful. But I confess to being a learning junkie. I can get pretty cynical about some things, yet I retain a deep belief that learning for just about any purpose is a good thing, and that we need to encourage the existence of institutions and frameworks to provide these opportunities.

 

Bob:
I believe my statements are being misconstrued. I believe I was expressing myself clearly when I wrote, “To me the issue isn’t only what choice the individual made, but what choice the individual made considering the alternatives.” You defend an individuals right to make a choice based on the best available options, yet when I choose to exercise that same right in selecting the best candidate for a position, you accuse me of intolerance, bigotry and discrimination. Are you aware that those are illegal practices?

I have 3 friends (former coworkers) who received their California Coast degrees during the early and mid 1990's. They knew very well what they getting - unaccredited, low-cost, flexible and state-approved. I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of students of legitimate unaccredited schools chooses this path for the very same reasons knowing full well what they are getting.

If all three of your friends knew exactly what they were getting – an unaccredited, low cost, flexible, state-approved degree, that has a significantly lower acceptance in business and academia (assuming the person evaluating and accepting the degree is aware of accreditation issues), what’s the problem? I am certain these three intelligent individuals were aware of the fact that their degree would have the same value as an accredited one if, and only if, the person evaluating or accepting the degree was not aware of accreditation issues.

These 3 individuals currently hold various executive level positions in major technology companies – one is a CTO, one is a Senior VP, one is a division president. All three considered their available options and choose a path based on their then current and expected future needs. All three were up front with their employers at the time they conducted their studies about the nature of CCU. All three had their tuition paid in full by their employers. All three have met with continued professional acceptance since obtaining their degrees and have been successful contributors in their careers. All three are men of character, integrity and honesty and I take issue with the people on this board making across the board judgments on individuals like them without even knowing them, their situations, their contributions to their field, or their career success and advancements.

The positions your friends hold are irrelevant. You offer no evidence that they were hired primarily because of their degree from CCU. Regardless, many successful people achieve their success in a field other than that of their formal education. Moreover, many successful individuals hold no degrees whatsoever.

However, are you certain that all three of these individuals approached their respective employers, informed them that they wanted to pursue non-traditional, unaccredited degrees that would more than likely might meet with limited acceptance, and that they wanted the company to foot the bill? If so, I might suggest to you that the success your friends have achieved have nothing to do with their degrees, and can be primarily attributed to their incredible powers of persuasion. In any event, I am certain the marketing department of CCU would like to contact you so that they may add those three extremely benevolent companies to their list.

So Gus would choose to ignore (discriminate against) a person with a distinguished 20-year career as a naval officer with 2 RA degrees and a CCU MBA – the only viable option available at the time to a naval Commander on an extended tour of duty overseas. Or how about the man who graduated with highest honors with a BS/MS EE from a top 5 RA engineering school, holds several patents, founded a successful company, employes hundreds of people and holds a CCU MBA. Gus would question the character and integrity of these people without even knowing them or their situations? Wow! What other resumes would people like him throw away without consideration because of their choices? From Gays and lesbians? from Conservative Christians? From women who work rather than stay at home with their children? From women who stay at home with their children rather than work outside the home? From those who would choose a proprietary “for-profit” university rather than a non-profit school? .

Bob, I would caution you, that in regards to hiring practices, the word discriminate has legal implications. Would I ignore a person with a distinguished 20-year career as a naval officer with 2 RA degrees? No, I would not. Would I scrutinize the decision to pad his or her resume with an unaccredited MBA? Of course I would. Did your naval officer friend get the U.S. Navy to pay for his or her CCU degree as well? Was it truly the only viable alternative? Once again, a lot depends on how well versed the person evaluating and accepting the degree is on accreditation and distance education issues, doesn’t it?

Bob, I have been hiring people for over 25 years, yet you have me perplexed. How can you tell if a person is a lesbian, gay, or conservative Christian from a resume?

Have I hired gays and lesbians? Yes. Conservative Christians? Yes. Women who work rather than stay at home with their children? Yes. Women who stay at home with their children rather than work outside the home? Yes. Graduates of a proprietary “for-profit” accredited universities? Yes. Come to think of it, I believe I have even hired a Christian, stay-at-home-with-her-children-mom, who just happened to be a lesbian who graduated from proprietary “for-profit” accredited university. But should I be forced to give equal weight to an unaccredited degree and an accredited one? No.

In your opinion, Bob, should I consider individuals with degrees from Colombia State University? How about Earlscroft? Monticello? TC&U? I’m sorry, Bob, I rather hire someone without a degree. I’d rather hire an individual with an A.A. degree from the local community college, than one with a Master’s from Kennedy-Western. And, I’d like to see if any discrimination suit challenging my decision would stand up in court.

Anyone judging someone else without knowing the full context of their situation may wish to take a few quite moments of reflection to consider if perhaps they themselves are the ones who are the lazy, ignorant, naive, poor decision makers, and slothful individuals.

Bob Harris[/QUOTE]

Bob, after a few moments of reflection I have come to the conclusion that you are right: I am a lazy, ignorant, naive, poor-decision-making, slothful individual. Nah, just kidding.

But, seriously, how do you, "without knowing the full context of an individual’s situation," justify accusing them of intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination?

Anyone in a hiring position knows that one of the most difficult tasks is assessing character and integrity from a limited amount of information. No one is exempt from making poor decisions; I know I certainly have made my share of them. In evaluating a candidate for employment, however, the focus should be on what the individual learned from the experience, as well as the choices he or she made to correct the problem or prevent it from happening again. If you read through many of the posts on this forum you will see that the graduates of unaccredited schools are divided into two camps. The first group defends their degrees vigorously, often by attacking the entire accreditation process, professing that their degrees should have the same acceptance as one from an accredited school. It is obvious from their efforts that they are aware that this only occurs when the individual assessing or accepting the degree is unaware of accreditation issues. The second group is composed of individuals that realize they have made a mistake in choosing an unaccredited school, and have taken, or are currently taking, steps to rectify the situation. Needless to say, the second group is comprised of far fewer individuals than the first, but what they lack in numbers they make up for in honesty, integrity and ethics.

Gus Sainz

 

My main area of disagreement with Gus is in painting the world in such black and white terms with regard to accreditation. Let me explain where I'm coming from on this.

I teach in a field, namely, law, that is positively obsessed with accreditation, prestige, and reputational rankings. It is far less likely that I would have obtained a tenure-track position had I not attended a so-called "top ten" law school. The ABA-accredited school I teach at now does not fare well in the annual U.S. News rankings, and that is a source of significant attention by the institution and its alums. In order to better our reputational standing, certain of my colleagues would have us restrict faculty hiring only to those who have academic credentials from the "right" schools. And in what I believe is reflective of our own institutional insecurity over these rankings, some like to thumb their noses at the two unaccredited law schools in the state.

It is true that, as a group, these students at these two unaccredited law schools are weaker in terms of their academic credentials (GPA + LSAT). But does that make them lazy, slothful, and dishonest? Hell no. Some of them were unable to get into an ABA law school but are determined to chase a dream. Some of them were unwilling or unable to assume the kind of significant debt that an ABA law school typically imposes on all but the wealthiest of its students. Some are extremely limited in geographic terms and had to go to the school in their backyard.

If I was hiring new attorneys for a law firm, would I be skeptical about students from these two schools? Yes, but I wouldn't preclude them from consideration, just as I hope a law firm dominated by Harvard grads wouldn't write off graduates of the school at which I teach. I've had a chance to work with graduates of many law schools, and while qualitatively speaking I do agree that *in general* there is a correlation between accreditation, prestige, ranking, etc., and the work done by the graduates of a program, that correlation is weaker than some might assume. To be more concrete, there are some good, hardworking, ethical lawyers out there who are graduates of unaccredited and state-accredited law schools, and to write them off in the way that Gus would have us do is wrongheaded.

In saying this, I am not, as Gus might suggest, hurling a broadside at the entire accreditation process. Fix it, don't nix it, is my hope. To bring this back to DL: Even though DL has managed to gain greater acceptance from accrediting agencies, let's not forget that the long-term history of accreditation is one of resistance to innovation in the substance AND delivery of educational services. Some of that resistance remains, and until that changes I think it's a mistake for us to judge quality solely by whether a school is accredited.

 

David,
Law is very different than a PhD--A law degree allows you to join the bar (after passing the exam). If you live in a state where a graduate of a state approved or foreign law school allow you to take the bar, then clearly the degree has utility (although I do have to say that someone who can't get into a bottom tier ABA accredited program has bigger problems and should probably consider taking some college classes part time to bring their numbers up--it just isn't that hard to get in with the number of places at these schools).

A PhD does not provide any professional licenture. The only utility of a PhD is based upon the reputation of the granting school. If you do get your unaccreditted PhD, you will be sneered at by two classes of people:

-The first will look down on any unaccredited degree simple because it is unaccredited. Nothing you can do about these jokers.

-The second group is more troubling because they are probably right. They will do a calculation something like this: Either David did work deserving of a PhD or not. If not, the degree is a joke and so I shouldn't respect him (for accepting a clearly subpar degree). If he did the work, then I shouldn't respect him since he obviously has poor judgement--he could have done the same exact work at a 3rd tier DL PhD program [or a good foreign program] and had an accredited PhD that would not be questioned and that he could put on his resume. Either way you come out the looser (this calculus is similar to the one I've asked our favorite MIGS proponent about--he hasn't replied AFAIK). I just don't understand how an intelligent faculty member with any hopes for a career can ignore the damage that this credential can do to you........