Law Enforcement and RA...in Texas...NA is out of luck.

I have been looking into accreditation in Texas and how the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement views college accreditation. The Commission is of course who grants a Peace Officer Licenses.

DETC and ACICS would be out of luck here it would seem. Sad really.

http://tcleosedc2.tcleose.state.tx.us/Commission_Rules/Rules_6-1-2004.pdf

Check out page 5.


Any other states do this?

 

Not sure yet whether this means that some ill-informed individual thinks that regional accreditation is the only accreditation or whether this is invidious discrimination against national accreditation. Or maybe it is simply a reaction to the Seattle cop with the bought degree mill diploma. Which doesn't bode well for real dl.

 

To be honest Ted, I see more and more of this at the State level of government here in Texas and in Louisiana. For instance in LA. you would qualify as a Parole Officer (making about $27,000 a year) only with a RA however at the Federal Govt. level, NA is perfectly fine.

In Texas for instance to be a CPA licensed accountant, you have to have a 4 year degree that is RA AND they specifically discard DL learning by stating IN THEIR LITERATURE that correspondence learning of any type will be dismissed. In other words, a 4 year business degree from Harvard by correspondence (not that it exists) would not be acceptable for licensure...

 

IFF,

I recently read the CT licensure requirements for psychologists to practice in the state. A person could have an RA and APA accredited degree, done a 2,000 internship and if they weren't resident on campus - No License!

There is definitely a predilection to view DL as somehow inferior. I don't know when the stigma will be stamped out. I do know that I've personally worked a lot harder on many DL classes than a good many on ground ones.

 

I gotta be honest...I've put far more work in my DL than in B&M learning.

As for the discrimination against DL...I believe as the applicant pool shrinks, which I've discussed in other threads...government and private organizations will have to start to re-evaluate their requirements.

Also...as you state regarding the practice of psych in CT...a lawsuit may not be far down the road.

 

I think there is a big difference between discriminating between DL and B&M and discriminating between accreditation standards.

I do no think ther eis any merit when two programs, all other things being eual, should be discminiated between DL and B&M.

I do think though there is differences is the standard of learning between accreditation standards. This is not a bad thing, just a level of standards they want.

it is much like when Harvard is looking for a MBA student. They have certain standards, and it is not sad, just a standard they want.

 

I disagree that there is a consistent difference in "standard of learning" between RA and NA institutions. I would expect a Visual Basic course taught at (NA) Grantham University will cover about the same scope and topics as a similar course at an ordinary (i.e., not a ringer like CalTech) RA school.

However, the utility of NA education, as Rich Douglas has researched, might be quite different than that of similar RA schooling.

On the subject of Grantham University, I am happy to see they're continuing to operate through their satellite campuses. There is no word on the Web site as to the condition of their Slidell main office.

 

I agree.

I teach for both RA and NA schools, and I don't see much difference between the workload and academic standards of each.

 

The Texas Board of Law Examiners will accept a Bar applicant with a totally UNACCREDITED J.D. degree (so long as he is admitted to the Bar of another state and has practiced law for a minimum of five (IIRC) of the preceeding seven years).

BUT!!

That unaccredited J.D. must NOT be based, in whole or in part, on "correspondence" study, by which they mean all forms of D/L!

The prejudice is against D/L itself, not national accreditation.

 

Correction

The Texas Board of Law Examiners will accept a totally unaccredited J.D. degree (not based on correspondence study) if the applicant has engaged in the active, licensed practice of law for THREE of the last FIVE years.

5 out of 7 is the rule for attorney applicants with ABA degrees to be admitted without taking the Texas bar exam.

 

either way...it's screwed up.

 

I kinda think so, too.

Passing the Bar in another state and full time practice for three years surely ought to be seen as being a reasonable substitute for an ABA J.D. Sort of a "self-apprenticeship" as it were.

Buuuuut, the law has been quite clear up to now; it is up to the Supreme Court (or in a few states, the Legislature) to set the basic requirements for a law license. I don't expect it to change anytime soon.