Please comment to DETC - unwonderful schools applying for accreditation

John Bear pointed out in the midst of another thread that a couple of unwonderful schools have applied to DETC for accreditation.

Given DETC's history of making absolutely terrible decisions in the past, and given that we have a number of people here at DegreeInfo who are strong supporters of DETC, it would be really helpful if DegreeInfo regulars who are familar with said schools (or are willing to search our archives and become faimilar) could send a comment to DETC, in the hopes it will encourage them to not make the same mistake again.

The two unwonderful ones that I immediately see are

Clayton College of Natural Health, Birmingham, AL
and
Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, Newburgh, IN

Clayton in particular is really problematic; this school offers by-mail-only education in naturopathic medicine, and grants degrees that graduates use to advertise themselves publicly as naturopathic physicians, with no residency, internship, or hands-on clinical practice. Additionally, they have, over the years, represented themselves as accredited by a string of fraudulent accreditors (one of whom is a one-man show started by a Clayton grad), and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to undermine laws providing licensure to legitimately trained naturopathic physicians (since Clayton grads don't qualify.) Unfortunately, they have been successful in a number of cases.

They disingenuously claim that their graduates are not practicing medicine, diagnosing, or prescribing, but the majority of Clayton grads do, in fact, hold themselves out to the public as doing exactly what Clayton says it is not doing.

Granting Clayton College DETC accreditation would be disastrous on a number of levels, not the least of which is that it would inhibit states who have laws against using unaccredited doctoral degrees from going after Clayton grads for practicing medicine, and would also undermine the efforts in various states to prevent unqualified people as holding themselves out as qualified to practice medicine.

Trinity has long been an unwonderful school. They claimed all sorts of deceptive accreditation and have long provided less-than-rigorous education.

Comments? Thoughts?

 

Food for thought from the DETC FAQ page, which seems relevant:

Q. DETC has been criticized for extending accreditation to institutions that, at one time, held what most people consider to be phony “accreditation” from an unrecognized “accreditation mill.” Why does DETC do that?

A. The small number of institutions that fall into this description have performed well after receiving DETC accreditation, because an applicant institution has to demonstrate that it meets our tough standards before it is accredited by DETC. DETC agrees with fighting the cheapening of accreditation, but telling institutions that once held this kind of accreditation that there is no chance to reform is the wrong tactic. DETC believes in one of the fundamental roles of accreditation: to stimulate institutional self-improvement and to set institutions on the path to academic excellence so that students may benefit, regardless of an institution’s past associations. Prohibiting an institution to pursue accreditation will only allow that institution to continue old practices without reform and to continue to lead students astray.



(Yes, in full disclosure I am an administrator at a DETC-accredited school...)

 

DETC as a 12-step program? Wicked!

If DETC chooses to accredit Clayton or Trinity, it will be consistent with other decisions. On the other hand, it looks like those decisions have worked out okay. Columbia Southern, Andrew Jackson, and Southwest were all kinda shaky, but they don't seem to be problematic. CCU and SCUPS might as well be lumped in here, too.

DETC, the Skid Row of accreditation. I wouldn't have said it, but I can't argue against it.

"They tried to make me go to rehab, I said no, no, no."--Amy Winehouse

 

[QUOTE: The small number of institutions that fall into this description have performed well after receiving DETC accreditation, because an applicant institution has to demonstrate that it meets our tough standards before it is accredited by DETC. QUOTE]

I've always had mixed feelings about Trinity. Despite their past phony claims of accreditation and subpar Ph.D programs, etc., etc. they have done some (not many) things fairly well. They have assembled a very good faculty and some of their degree programs have been adequate (e.g. MA and DMin degrees). They have also offered convenient DL opportunities. DETC accreditation (if they achieve it) may indeed help them tow the line. If it is a form of academic rehab., I'm fine with that. I guess I just want to see them stop their scamming. Maybe DETC accreditation will turn them into an ok school.

Tom

 

I hardly think that any school can monitor the private lives and practices of their graduates. It's simply unrealistic. It sounds to me like the problem is with the graduates. If so, there are already state laws that regulate the practice of medicine.

I have never studied at Clayton, so I have no factual information on the quality of their programs. If they are seeking accreditation, then they will have to meet the criteria of other schools under DETC.

 

I've always found it really hilarious that DegreeInfo's opinion on something is apparently important enough to DETC that we warrant a special mention on their FAQ.

First, the argument they make is entirely specious. It would have been really easy in the case of AICS/ACCIS/whatever it's called this week to simply have said "Sorry, you don't qualify for DETC accreditation because you are fraudulently representing yourself as accredited when you aren't. Stop using the fake accreditation, market yourself honestly, and after you've done so for a year, you can reapply." That would have been the right thing to do, and would also have been consistent with DETC's own written policy.

But they didn't do that. They violated their own rules. So what's the purpose of having policies requiring integrity, if you aren't going to follow your own policies?

The issue with CCNH is far, far more serious. Nobody with an AICS computer science degree ever killed somebody. The same cannot be said for people with bogus naturopathic doctoral degrees. And we're talking about an organization (Clayton) who is actively involved in lobbying against legislation to protect people from unqualified practitioners.

While I still think DETC erred in granting accreditation to shady schools, I'll agree that, for the most part, it has worked out. That won't be the case with CCNH. There's no way one can ethically and responsibliy grant degrees for people to practice medicine when there's no clinical/internship/residency process. And unless they have significantly changed their admission policies and their academic rigor, their program is substantially inferior to the legitimately accredited naturopathic schools. I am not prepared to call DETC accreditation "skid row", but I do think it would be an enormous disservice to an awful lot of people if DETC approves this.

Also... knowing the shady stuff CCNH has done before, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sort of undue influence/lobbying/shadiness going on behind the scenes with DETC as well to try and get this past their accreditation process. Let's hope that DETC continues on the trend of moving in the right direction, as it has been, and declines CCNH's application.

 

Since my opinion would be just opinion, let me direct those interested to the quotes below from a number of threads here at DegreeInfo over the years. The comments aren’t mine, but primarily those of students/former students with direct experience with the school. The last two quotes are not from TTS students, but from those who had closely investigated for themselves. Anyone concerned that they might be reading quotes unfairly taken out of context can click on the little arrows in the quote boxes to be taken back to the original threads.

On Trinity’s rigor:

On Trinity’s claims of accreditation:

On Trinity’s financial practices:

On Trinity’s relationship with their “off-brand” school MDS formerly linked on their site:

On Trinity’s structure:

 

Unfortunately, no. Clayton (through it's full-time lobbyist, who claims no connection to them) wants to have it both ways. They want their graduates referred to as "naturopathic doctors" or "naturopathic physicians" but want to clalim that these "doctors" don't actually practice medicine, that they are merely "giving counseling." However, they certainly don't make any efforts to tell their prospective students or graduates that. And that's the reason they spend so much money trying to defeat licensure laws; without fail, states that license naturopathic phsycians exclude people who go to schools like Clayton, because the education is substandard. It is only in the states where there's no licensure that Clayton graduates can practice, claiming they aren't really practicing medicine at all.

It's certainly unreasonable for a school to police its grads, but when you find the overwhelming majority of Clayton grads claiming to be doctors and treat people for medical conditions, it's hard to argue that Clayton is properly disclosing things to students.

Oh, and did I mention that Clayton has a fraudulent accreditor? (It's had a history of several of them.) That alone is a violation of DETC's own policies, but DETC has conveniently overlooked this specific policy in the past, and my fear is, they'll do it again.

I have not checked recently, however, their educational materials when I did check were entirely underwhelming for a program claiming to train naturopathic physicians. Mostly popular books, rather than clinical references. And when I look at their doctoral curriculum, it's a joke. There's hardly any real science - one course each in biology and physiology, no biochemistry or chemistry or physics at all. And their entrance requirements continue to be nearly nonexistent; a degree in any subject, no undergrad course prereqs at all. Basically, it's a joke.

Another issue that is deeply concerning is nearly 100% of Clayton's faculty have their terminal degrees from Clayton or from other unwonderful and unaccredited schools. One guy claims to have an ND from University of Phoenix, who doesn't even offer the degree! If DETC really believes this is the sort of quality education it should be accrediting, then it is a GIANT step backwards for them.

Of course, none of these things will necessarily stop DETC from granting accreditation, based on DETC's previous history. But with luck, and with the efforts they've made in the past few years, maybe DETC has learned their lesson. I can't help but be concerned, though, that the $ that they'd get from CCNH if accreditation were to be granted will be really tempting.

 

I notice that it has dropped multiple PhD and Doctor of Naturopathy programs and has switched to an EdD in Holistic Health and Wellness which has a few prereqs.

A large number of "faculty" still show "degrees" from Clayton as their highest educational accomplishment.

It also still shows its fake accreditor on the company's website.

It smells but I won't be shocked if DETC picks it up.

 

Nah, not unless ACICS disappears one day first.

 

Since Clayton is unaccredited, a graduate using the title doctor would be subject to state law. As such, the title doctor would have no recognition or validity, whatsoever.

The only doctorate degree I see listed on Clayton's website is the doctor of Education in Holistic Health and Wellness. What I found comical though is their policy on credit transfer, which must be from institutions of higher learning that are accredited by an agency recognized by the U. S. Department of Education and/or the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)!

What it boils down to is Clayton either continuing along its present line of unaccreditation or otherwise having to meet DETC requirements, which it may or may not be able to do. My position on unaccredited alternative health care schools is "not" to accredit them, since it would only serve to lend legitimacy to their programs, which for the most part have no basis in science.

 

That is a recent change from this list:

Doctor of Natural Health
Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine
Doctor of Naturopathy
Doctor of Naturopathy for Healthcare Professionals
Doctor of Philosophy in Holistic Nutrition
Doctor of Philosophy in Natural Health
Doctor of Philosophy in Traditional Naturopathy

From looking through Clayton's historical documents, it was awarding these as recently as the third quarter of 2009.

 

The only link I found on Clayton's degree programs is this one: http://www.ccnh.edu/about/admissions/programs/program_home.aspx

Degree Programs:

Bachelor of Science in Natural Health
Bachelor of Science in Holistic Nutrition
Master of Science in Natural Health
Master of Science in Holistic Nutrition
Doctor of Education in Holistic Health and Wellness

 

Look at page 24-25 of the most current newsletter to see what degrees were awarded in Jul/Aug/Sep 2009.

 

I have mixed feelings about Trinity too.

Their academics certainly aren't world-class, but they do seem to fall within the low end of the accredited seminary range. It isn't worthless education and it probably isn't any worse than some of the things that DETC already accredits.

My real reservations about Trinity have always been ethical. Misleading accreditation claims (the Liverpool stickers, in which the U. of Liverpool was complicit as well), spinning off a sister degree-mill (the early Masters) and things like that.

Clayton College of Natural Health looks like a very different beast. I don't see any positives to that one. If DETC ends up accrediting it, it would be like accrediting a hot steaming turd.

In DETC's defense, lots of schools have appeared on their applicant list and then dropped off again as it became clear that they weren't accreditable. But there have been a few very-doubtful things (Barrington, PWU etc.) that were eventually accredited. But in those smellier cases there appear to have been ownership and name changes first.

Seriously though, DETC really needs to be attracting stronger applicants with more impressive reputations, not a never-ending succession of borderline things.

 

I am grateful to Caulyne Barron for the information from DETC's website (and also the opportunity to learn something about her school, Dunlap-Stone University**).

DETC says, "[T]elling institutions that once held [phony] accreditation that there is no chance to reform is the wrong tactic."

As Chip suggests, and I emphatically agree, DETC could say something like, "If you will terminate your phony accreditation, and then operate satisfactorily for one year, we will be glad to reconsider your application."

But they don't. Some of the DETC accreditees were openly operating (and aggressively advertising) their worthless accreditation at the time the DETC visiting team was checking them out and, indeed, until the very day they got their DETC accreditation.
____________
** I'm impressed by what I read about Dunlap-Stone University, formerly the International Import-Export Institute. The only problem I see is a real need for proofreading the website ("Ms. Vallilee Vallilee," "Gerald toomey," etc., and at least four ways of spelling out what the MBA is: "Masters of Business Administration," "Maters of Business Administration," "Masters in Business Administration," and "Master in Business Administration."

 

And it would slow DETC's own growth and reduce its revenues.

Let's be clear: False accreditation claims are intentional misrepresentations. If anyone suffers damages as the result of relying on intentionally false representations, then that might very well satisfy the legal definition of Fraud. That's not something to be taken lightly.

If a school is accredited while it's still being run by the same people who were responsible for those practices, and perhaps even continuing to engage those practices during the application process, serious ethical questions are raised. They concern not only the school's management, but the accreditor as well.

I can accept DETC accrediting a former mill if the thing has been sold to new owners and given a new name. It's effectively a new school. But even in these "born again" cases, it does DETC's reputation no good to have its accredited-list burdened with fragrant histories. It just adds credence to the 'accreditation's skid row' remark.

If there hasn't been any substantive change in the school's ownership or management, then I'm less inclined to be forgiving. The whole thing turns into an appeal for faith in con-men's miraculous redemption (in real life it's usually just a business decision) and for faith that DETC and its wonderful standards will prevent any backsliding should the school's owners see some future advantage in unethical conduct.

 

Okay, so it looks like Clayton has dropped many its doctorate programs and that naturopathic degrees are no longer an issue. Maybe their dropping those programs coincide with seeking DETC accreditation? I think that it's really up to the consumer of educational products to make better decisions with regards to the programs they choose. I guess some people like throwing away money and no amount of regulation is going to change that. I have seen resumes of RNs and other medical professionals listing degrees and courswork from Clayton. At the end of the day though, it's still a worthless credential.