48-72 Hours: Will Cal Coast Become USDoE Recognized?

Yes, acceptance should be a function of quality. But it is not. And why not?

Well, how could anyone judge the quality of a school such as Knightsbridge? It's not possible.

The difference of opinion arises from the fact that "the bobbleheads" believe that we should assume a school is completely legitimate unless it can be conclusively proven otherwise.

The people involved in legitimate academia believe that a school should be considered illegitimate, unless it can be proven otherwise.

 

Acceptance by whom? Aren't real universities accepted much more?

I thought we were discussing accreditation, not me. I have 5 years of real university. I think I win - Five Nothing.

 

Acceptance by anyone who understands the accreditation system. Legitimate graduate schools. Informed employers. Knowledgeable consumers.

I don't doubt that it is quite possible to fool people into believing that a bogus or substandard degree is legitimate.

I do think it is sad that someone would choose to advance their livelihood based upon their ability to trick people.

 

As do I.

 

(deleted by moderator)

 

(deleted by moderator)

 

(deleted by moderator)

 

(deleted by moderator)

 

(deleted by moderator)

 

Hi, Jeff. I agree that the excerpt I posted creates that impression.

But DETC also says this:

"Current standards require that ?the institution?s owners, governing board members, and administrators possess sound reputations and can show a record of integrity and ethical conduct in their professional activities, ?? (VI. A.). Although the reputation of these individuals is correctly considered as vital to the accreditation decision, the reputation of the school is far broader and involves the opinion held (and acted upon) by many more people.

1. Insert ?Institution? in VI. A., which would begin, ?The institution, the institution?s owners, governing board members, and administrators possess sound reputations and can show a record of integrity and ethical conduct in their professional activities, business operations and relations.? A corresponding question would be added to the Rating form under VI.A. reading: ?Is the name being used by the school free from association with activity that could damage the standing of the accreditation process, such as illegal actions, unethical conduct or abuse of consumers?"

I guess that DETC could argue that requiring owners, board members and administrators to have sound reputations and good integrity addresses the institution at the present time. That, along with all the other DETC accreditation standards, are what help ensure that "the quality of those schools" has in fact improved.

I doubt that they really want to punish an institution for malfeasance committed by previous owners or administrators, providing that they are convinced that the transgessions have definitely ceased and the school is now operating at a suitable standard.

But they don't want DETC tarred with the degree-mill associations generated by those past associations either. Hence the concern about reputation.

I do agree that this might not really accomplish a whole lot if it's still obvious to everyone that a newly accredited school is just a former degree-mill that changed its name. Even if the past transgressions have been thoroughly scrubbed away and painted over, the smell remains.

But does DETC want to deny these schools the opportunity to go straight? It's a tough question.

 

[deleted by moderator)

 

I checked out the DETC documentation on their site, and it seems clear to me that what they want is for schools with bad track records to change their name.

I firmly believe in second chances, redemption, and all that. But, as far as I can tell, that's not what this policy is concerned with.

We are not talking about whether or not schools with a dubious past should be accredited. We are talking about whether they should be REQUIRED to change their name if they are accredited.

Can anyone give me ONE good reason, from a student's perspective, why a school with a dubious past should be allowed, much less required, to change its name before receiving accreditation.

It's a horrible policy.

 

XYZ University is a blatant, horrible diploma mill. They issue thousands of worthless degrees over the years. Many of their "graduates" are humiliated and/or lose their jobs when the true nature of XYZ University is made known.

The owners of XYZ University suddenly find religion, clean up their act, and apply for accreditation. Even if they do receive accreditation, the name of XYZ University is already fatally flawed.

If you're a potential student, why on Earth would you want XYZ University to keep its soiled name????

 

Okay so it wasn't Bill Grover on crack. Who do I owe the 5 bucks to?

 

spelling coumts

Careful, now. XYZ University is RA. You're probably thinking of "XYZ College and University" or perhaps "St. XYZ University."

G

 

===


Oh. There's money involved? Then maybe it was I. Send it right along Dennis

 

Of course you wouldn't. The point is though that rarely do the owners of scam degree mills clean up their act and start running respectable operations. Allowing them to switch names and continue running (like Lafayette switching to Orion) and possibly even then be eligible for accreditation would more likely hurt the public rather than help.

 

Having stayed out of the fray--and watching the posts get deleted--I am still waiting to see one example of an RA school that would fall into DETC's scope of operation, yet couldn't achieve accreditation by DETC. One poster said there were DETC schools that were better than some RA schools, then made that statement. I'm still waiting to see it.

 

It was a ridiculous unsupportable statement. The poster that made that statement seems very prone to such statements since it happens quite frequently.