So you've got an applicant from Madison University...

Okay guys/gals, here is a brain tickler for you.

You've got this applicant from Madison University...you know, the guys who advertise in those magazines you find on airplanes in the pocket in front of you. Any ways, the applicant tells you his degree is accredited....which technically it is....but it is not an accrediting agency recognized by Dept. of Ed. or CHEA...it's by the World Association of Universities and Colleges.

To add insult to injury, these bozos advertised in a Military Newspaper magazine that goes out to soldiers in the field.

SO, what do you tell this guy? Sorry I can't accept your degree because the accreditor is not a recongnized accrediting agency?

Also, is this degree legal in states like Oregon?

 

No it's not. This is a no-brainer.

Then it's technically not... accredited, that is.

Exactly. Where's the problem?

From the web site of State of Oregon's Offfice of Degree Authorization (ODA) regarding Madison University:

• ODA has no evidence that this is an accredited or otherwise acceptable provider of postsecondary education meeting Oregon standards.

Oregon requires that the institution either be accredited by an agency approved by USDE and/or CHEA; or, if foreign, evaluated as equivalent thereto by AACRAO; or any degree which, in exchange for a fee paid to the ODA, is evaluated by the ODA or its assigns as acceptable even if unaccredited.

There are all manner of accreditors not approved by USDE and/or CHEA. Of them, according, as I recall, to Rich Douglas, only that National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC) even comes close to being truly legitimate... and many doubt even that. And even if it is, I'm still not sure it should be allowed to use the word "accreditor" or "accredited."

Personally, I think states (or the feds) should pass a law that restricts the use of the word "acccredited" or "accreditor" just like many states restrict the use of the word "licensed" or "licensor." I saw a commercial on TV the other day for one of the big, national pet store chains. They referred to their dog training personnel as "accredited." It made me sick. They may be "certified" or "approved," but I think the word "accredited" should be limited to that which only a USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agency may do. Or so it is my opinion.

We all talk about the diploma mill problem. We struggle with what kinds of laws passed at the state or federal levels would fix the problem. Though it won't fix the entire problem, making it a crime to misuse the words "accredit," or "accreditor" or "accredited" would punch a big hole in it.

 

Sorry, but this is a no-brainer. You shouldn't recognize the degree because the military does not recognize unaccredited degrees. Only regionally or nationally (as approved by the Department of Education's accreditors list) are acceptable for use. A lieutenant I knew was promoted to captain, since he had a "degree". When they looked at the degree closer and realized it wasn't from an accredited institution, they yanked the captain bars off him.

 

The military newspapers, and I presume you mean the Army Times, the Navy Times, et al, are not owned or controlled by the military. It's not unusual for them to advertise less than legitimate schools.

 

Re: Re: So you've got an applicant from Madison University...

He should be thankful that that's all that happened.

John Bear can tell you stories about all kinds of quite legitimate and reputable publications that, astonishingly, routinely accept advertising from the less-than-wonderfuls.

 

I've checked. There is no other state like Oregon. Washington and Idaho are close, and one could make an argument for Northern California.

Seriously, this degree is no longer illegal for use in Oregon, as was reported on this board (in a thread started by me, among many others). But the use of such a degree must be accompanied by a disclaimer notifying others that the university awarding the degree is not accredited. Which answers your first question, BTW.

 

It's sad really. The Army Times should really start screening advertisers.

I guess it really is a no brainer.

The government should really limit the use of the word accredited.

 

Cedant arma cacae, apparently.

 

It depends on the job and your policies.

If the job requires a degree, then the answer would likely be no thanks.

If it is a sales job, or a position requiring a BS/BA or equivalent experience, than your discretion would allow you to look at his work history and experience.

I would also factor in the applicants attitude. Does he know that his degree is unaccredited? Was he looking for a shortcut? Is he defensive, helpful, evasive, etc?

I have seen some very skilled, talented and motivated people that don't have a degree (Bill Gates, and countless other millionaires), so I would look at the whole picture as well. Certainly he doesn't get any bonus points for having an unaccedited degree.

 

friendorfoe: The government should really limit the use of the word accredited.

John: As we point out in the Degree Mills book, the FTC has the power to do this, but has chosen not to. Very disappointing.

 

Re: Re: Re: So you've got an applicant from Madison University...

Business Week (you know those people who run a fairly well known B-School ranking) takes advertisements from Rushmore and others....