Interesting reading from Oregon State !!!

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Frangop, Jul 4, 2001.

Loading...
  1. Frangop

    Frangop New Member

  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Of course, this is from the state of Oregon, not Oregon State. And this subject has been discussed quite heavily in MIGS-related posts. I see nothing has changed regarding the MIGS quasi-listing.

    Rich Douglas
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I am certainly glad to see that Northwestern International University, Ltd., has been added to the list of illegal degrees. For only $395 one can obtain (oops, EARN) the NIU Ph.D., according to their website and USA Today advertisement. Just don't try to use the degree in Oregon.

    As the mountain boys of West Virginia would say, "Sic Em, Mr. Contreras." [​IMG]

    Russell
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member


    The trouble I have with this process is that it is reactive instead of pro-active. There are a few okay schools listed there for no good reason (except that they caught Contreras's eye). There are many out-and-out frauds listed, but what about the hundreds of other degree mills and bad schools that aren't? Where are they? I imagine the process goes like this:

    Inquirer: Hey, Booger University isn't accredited. Is it okay?

    Contreras: I'll check. Hmmm, they're not accredited. And they haven't applied for my approval, soooo.....On the list!

    Not exactly science. Nor is it comprehensive.

    Finally, the listing/nonlisting of MIGS is amateurish and ham-handed. I sympathize with Contreras regarding the non-response by Mexican officials regarding MIGS and their relationship with the CEU. But if you're going to have a set of standards and rules, then apply them. C'mon, cowboy. Either list MIGS or don't, but get rid of the footnote.

    Rich Douglas
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    My hunch is that the Oregon List (as Tom has called it) is a work in progress, so there are many schools which are not listed, but should be.

    Russell
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member


    More like a list lacking progress. It has hardly changed at all. This is strange, considering the list is relatively new while the number of degree mills is very, very large (many in operation for years). No, it is a reactive, hit-and-miss effort that ought to be re-thought.

    The accuracy and comprehensiveness of the list are simultaneously important and irrelevant. It is important only in that it purports to provide information about schools not allowed to operate in Oregon, advertise in the state, nor offer degree programs to Oregonians. But it is utterly irrelevant for two reasons: first, the Oregon law is likely unconstitutional. A similar law in Florida was struck down as such. But I suspect the Oregon law will stand for awhile because ther are only about six people living in that state; who's going to challenge a law that has no impact on schools' operations? Florida is a heavily populated state, so it mattered.

    Rich Douglas
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Actually its five, Rich! One guy in Portland moved to Sacramento so he could legally use his CCU Ph.D. [​IMG]

    Seriously, I agree that the criteria for inclusion in the ODA list should be fine tuned, more comprehensive and the work of a committee as opposed to one individual. There are 1-2 schools, IMO, that probably shouldn't be listed (CCU?), and perhaps 500 that should be. However, the Oregon List at least attempts to expose the problem of degree mills. So, while it does indeed need to be restructured, it may well serve as a catalyst for other states to follow.

    Russell
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I don't understand that distinction.

    Wherever they physically are, which is often very hard to determine. And that's the point.

    Mr. Contreras can't list every school in the world that doesn't meet Oregon statutory requirements. There are too many of them and they constantly change. Every day somebody in the world puts a new get-rich-quick scheme onto the net.

    Oregon could try to outlaw them all at the source, but few if any of them operate from within Oregon. Oregon does not have legal jurisdiction over colleges and universities outside that state. Some of them are located in places that don't regulate higher education. Others don't seem to have any address at all.

    So if Oregon wants to address the phony degree problem, it has to be "reactive" to substandard degrees brought into the state from outside.

    Mr. Contreras does not suggest that his list is comprehensive. The list does not define which degrees are legal to use in Oregon, the Oregon statute does. The list just represents schools that Mr. Contreras' office has been asked about and which they have determined do not meet the statutory requirements. The list makes those determinations known and reduces the liklihood of repeated questions about the same schools.

    That's not to suggest that there aren't hundreds of additional schools that don't meet the Oregon statutory requirements either.

    His hesitation in the MIGS case is natural and entirely justifiable.

    MIGS is a quasi-foreign university (or agent for a foreign university, or whatever it is). Hence there is the problem of determining if it has the equivalent of DoEd recognized accreditation. And how does one determine that?

    One could simply rely on "GAAP". But Mr. Contreras is well aware of GAAP's limitations. He discussed them in his 'Chronicle of Higher Education' online discussion. Talking about Berne in that case, he said that he was unwilling to accept foreign "accreditation" unless that accreditation implied credible quality assurance oversight.

    Personally I applaud his position because that's what the word "accreditation" implies. Without the QA aspect, all you have is legal permission to operate, state-approval in effect. Since the Oregon statute was written so as to exclude American state-approved schools, it seems to be a violation of the statute's intent to accept equivalent schools offering foreign degrees.

    Well, in the case of MIGS NOBODY has been willing to answer even the most basic questions that would allow Mr. Contreras to know how to classify it. What is MIGS' legal status? What is its exact connection to CEU? Most importantly, who (if anyone) has the responsibility to oversee what MIGS is doing?

    If any sarcastic "c'mon cowboy" remarks are called for here, they should be directed at MIGS, CEU and the Nuevo Leon education ministry. All we have seen from that quarter are flames, lawsuits and stonewalling.

    MIGS was created from the very beginning to exploit the GAAP loophole. It is a school that almost certainly could not achieve regional accreditation as it stands (for more reasons than the mere fact it is DL), but which saw an opportunity to evade that problem by seeking a more accomodating partner offshore.

    In other words, it was intended from its inception to be ambiguous. That's not Alan Contreras' fault. He did not create that situation, though his office is being asked to rule on it.

    But if everyone from UNESCO and the AACRAO to Dr. Bear have been unable to solve the foreign accreditation equivalence conundrum, I don't fault Mr. Contreras for acknowledging the grey areas as well.
     
  9. Gary Bonus

    Gary Bonus New Member

    Rich,

    I tried to go to this Oregon site today, but it was down. I seem to remember reading that schools offering strictly correspondence programs are not rated by this office (and therefore OK to use in Oregon, I surmised). It really is ludicrous that someone could conceivably be arrested for having a Califormia Coast University degree in their possession while traveling through Oregon, to show it to grandma living in Grant's Pass. Not exactly a freedom loving state office.

    Gary
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Gary, I don't think that's what the Oregon law is intended for, or what it even means. When Oregon says "use" the degree, I believe they mean for a job, promotion, etc. In other words, if a job in Oregon specifies a Bachelor's degree, then someone with a California Coast Bachelor's degree would not qualify. Mere possession of the degree itself wouldn't be illegal.

    I'm sure that out of the thousands of bogus degrees churned out by Columbia State, more than a few ended up in Oregon. Rounding those people up and prosecuting them would not only be unrealistic, but unconstitutional as well. If they don't try to use the degree for employment, promotion, etc., no harm, no foul.

    Bruce
     
  11. Peter French

    Peter French member

    I, for one, am concerned about the bias that seems to reside in certain people on this group. This group was set up as an alternative to a.e.d. as it was hyjacked by some individual(s) of dubious intention and or parentage. I, as well as many others had hoped that the bullying tactics and discriminatory attitudes that marked the Gang and their mates and fawning followers, would be gone here.
    But as with many things, a change of location does not result in a change of character. As with the alcoholic, he changes cities to change his life, but takes his underlying weaknesses and problems with him and is simlpy a freshly located alcoholic.

    This is the case with degreeinfo as it has inherited the diseases of the a.e.d - Gang. I am not going to beat around the bush - it seems that wherever John Bear, Chip White and George Brown go, that the shit sticks to their boots and they leave marks on the carpet and a pong in the air. Levicoff must have a new 'freind' as his energies are suprisingly being expended elsewhere, or he has passed away.

    This is the case of degreeinfo as it stands today.

    Consider the following:

    1. The repeated unqualified forcing of "RA IS BEST" down everyone's throat. A recent example is when Neil Hynd uses Bear's very own words and references to bring to our attention remarkable and genuine chnages in Mexico. No, not good enough for Chip is it?

    2. Bear coming out and introducing to us his 'heir' in George Brown and lamenting that they failed to get someone sacked because of a degree mill qualification - failed simply because the parties they alerted weren't interested.

    3. The incessant 'advertising' of 'DEGREEINFO IS BEST' on a.e.d - people go there of their own free will, and don't need to have this site rammed down their throats, and when they ask genuine questions, for God's sake, can't one of you hyporcitical poofters give them a reasonable asnwer? ... no, come to 'DEGREEINFO and then you'll get your answer.

    4. When someone genuinely tries to bring some reality and impartiality into the RA - nonRA discussions on a.e.d., they get flamed and attacked and treated as morons. The chrage is that they are FLAMEWATCHER - yeah? Who says so, and where is your proof? Sorry I forgot - Chip demands proof of others but gives none himself. Double standards AGAIN!

    RA is but one, and remember one VOLUNTARY criteria for Universities in the US. It is primarily about funding, is a cartel-club, and as with most peer assessments is at best not reliable. Every university must start at the nonRA end of the spectrum, but with the vitriolic attacks that emenate from the bullies here, they stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Who can afford RA anyway? Just do a simple calculation and look at what your break even cost point becomes. Does it make your education any better? No way - it simply hinges on rediculous and non relative standards that don't guarantee quality of content or delivery.

    I think that on this group we should completely review our stance regarding the nonRA Universities club just as the nonIVY LEAGUE have had to reconsider their positions.

    This group is moderated and supposed to be otherwise open. Post your opinions while you can before Chip changes the rules and shuts off this topic, and deregisters me!

    Peter French
    Australia
     
  12. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    You know, what I find even more irritating than the outrageous and untrue personal attacks that occured daily on a.e.d. are the sly innuendoes, with little or no truth, such as Mr. French's:
    ---------------
    "2. Bear coming out and introducing to us his 'heir' in George Brown and lamenting that they failed to get someone sacked because of a degree mill qualification - failed simply because the parties they alerted weren't interested.
    ----------------

    1. "Bear coming out" -- nuff said
    2. "introducing to us..." Nonsense. George has been posting for years.
    3. "his heir..." More nonsense.
    4. The lament about failing to get someone sacked. Utterly untrue. Perhaps Mr. French is comfusing me with Dr. Levicoff.

    Well, I managed to get all annoyed again, after a week off, but the countryside of Ulaan Baatar calls, and I'm outta here.

    John Bear, en route to Lake Khovsgol
     

Share This Page